May 16, 20194 min read

Can we harness energy from natural disasters?

Updated: Jan 24, 2020

A man using his superpowers to conjure a storm — Wind in you hands/ composite image/ See under sources to see the images used.

An energy crisis could certainly be considered as an existential problem. Though it's not likely to occur as long as the sun shines on us, quite literally, we might have to turn to alternatives or find innovative solutions to reduce the use of non-renewable energy sources, which are depleting thick and fast. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed but can be converted from one form to another. This is the principle in which energy conversion is made feasible. So, keeping this in mind, could we depend on natural disasters to meet our energy needs in the future?

In 2018[1], there were 282 natural disasters across the world, in the form of floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, cyclones, etc. Over the past decade or so, the frequency of these disasters has been quite high. On principle, this energy conversion would generate a colossal amount of energy. The Indonesian earthquake[2] of 2018, which marked 7.5 on the Richter scale, released 179 Hiroshima bombs[3] worth of energy. The great Chilean earthquake[4], which registered at 9.5 on the Richter scale, had enough radiated energy to power U.S.A for almost 40 days. Earthalabama[5] is a website that enables you to plug in different magnitudes of earthquakes and compare the energy equivalencies to interesting figures.

Earthquake damage from 1959 Hebgen Lake event in Yellowstone Plateau/ Source: USGS/ Credit: Hadley, J. B.. Public domain

While earthquakes produce serious quantities of energy, they are not the only ones. According to the USGS[6], the volcanic eruption of St. Helens in May of 1980 produced about 24 megatons of thermal energy. An average of 600 terra watts of energy[7] is produced by a single hurricane, which is around 200 times the energy-generating capacity of the world in that same time frame. And this is just the energy released through cloud formation. When the storm strikes, an additional 1.5 terra watts of energy are released, chiefly in the form of wind energy.

So, what's the problem?

All these figures prove that natural disasters are far more enriched in energy generation than conventional methods. Theoretically, we could tap into these formidable forces of nature to power the world. But it's easier said than done. The energy conversion mechanism that we have today involves three major steps; generation, storage, and distribution. When we put these concepts to practice, we strike a blow right from the get-go. Whilst generating energy in and of itself is not the problem, it's the capturing part that confounds us.

First of all, there is a prediction problem. Say that we could, given time and effort, make the best energy capturing device to absorb the seismic energy of an earthquake. But where do we put it? One thing we could do is to install the device along the fault lines. According to an article[8] on Scientific American, Piezoelectric devices, when placed along the fault lines, could generate electricity by converting the produced mechanical stress into electric charge, which can then be transferred to a storage medium for later use. But even if we have such mechanisms in place, the seismic convertible energy is localized along the epicenter of the earthquake, and the devices have to be placed exactly near to the epicenter to make this possible. Not only that, the devices should be immensely strong to withstand the tremors, which would make them relatively expensive.

Even in the case of hurricanes and cyclones—a far more thought and talked about candidate in terms of harnessing nature’s raw forces, there lies the fundamental problem of unpredictability. And even if we get past that, there are more worries to take into consideration. For instance, the storm energy is not even but spread out over a large area. According to the Hurricane Research Division[9] of the AOML, you would need wind turbines covering a vast area for the energy capture to be profitable. One way to get around this is through mobile wind turbines, which could be moved along with the storm. But as much as we gain energy, a considerable amount would be lost in moving the turbines.

The incredible scale of hurricane formation; Hurricane Florence Viewed from the Space Station/ Image Credit: NASA

Volcanoes are much more promising and predictable sources of energy. Renewable energy companies already use the heat from volcanoes in different forms to generate electricity. In Iceland, a volcanically active country, the chief energy source is geothermal energy. But since we are talking about natural disasters exclusively, these techniques are not up for debate.

Floods offer the best prospects in energy capture, for they could work on a similar basis as a hydro-electric plant. The overflowing rivers and the receding water could be captured by a dam or a barrage, which could then be released to spin turbines. But the drawbacks here are similar to that of our current dams; frequent flooding, expense, relocation of people, hinderance of animal migration, etc.

Is there no way at all?

The simple answer at this moment in time is no. As much as 'useful' it may sound, there are a lot of shortcomings to such massive undertakings that need to be studied, understood, and tested to make it feasible. But humans are pioneers, and the knack of making impossible things possible is what we are capable of. With the rapid rise in technology and brainpower, a civilization developed to a far superior potential than us could well change the perception of natural disasters in the future.

Can we harness energy from natural disasters?

So, what's the problem?

Is there no way at all?

Recent Posts

Comments