Deep beneath one of the United States’ most closely watched volcanoes, researchers see not only a source of risk but a vast reservoir of clean, constant heat. The idea is as audacious as it sounds: use a high‑threat volcano’s simmering energy to generate electricity for nearby communities while keeping a close eye on the very hazards that make it so dangerous in the first place. I want to unpack how scientists think this could work, what makes these volcanoes so risky, and why some experts believe the same forces that threaten towns and cities could also help power their future.
Why a “very high threat” volcano is on the energy agenda
When scientists talk about tapping a dangerous volcano for power, they are not picking a random mountain on the horizon, they are looking at a short list of U.S. peaks that federal researchers already classify as “very high threat.” The U.S. Geological Survey has identified 18 volcanoes in this top category, based on how often they erupt, how explosive they can be, and how many people and critical facilities sit in harm’s way. That list includes names that loom large in American memory, such as Mount St. Helens, Mount Rainier, Kīlauea and several others that sit close to major population centers and transportation corridors, as detailed in the agency’s overview of which US volcanoes pose threat.
Energy researchers are drawn to these same volcanoes because their restless magma systems keep surrounding rocks intensely hot, which is exactly what geothermal engineers need. Reporting on proposals to harness heat from one of the country’s most hazardous peaks describes how scientists want to drill into the hot crust around a volcano that is already ranked among the most dangerous in the United States, using that steady thermal gradient to drive turbines and feed electricity into nearby grids, an idea laid out in coverage of scientists who want to use one of the most dangerous volcanoes. The paradox is stark: the very conditions that put people at risk also make these sites some of the most promising places to test high‑temperature geothermal power.
How geothermal drilling would tap volcanic heat
The basic concept behind volcanic geothermal power is straightforward, even if the engineering is not. Instead of waiting for magma to erupt at the surface, developers drill deep wells into hot rock, inject water, and then bring back superheated fluid that can spin turbines and generate electricity. In the case of a high‑threat volcano, the target is the intensely warm rock that surrounds the magma chamber, where temperatures can be high enough to support advanced geothermal systems but still stable enough for controlled drilling. Reporting on experimental projects near one of America’s most hazardous volcanoes describes plans to use this approach to power nearby homes, treating the volcano as a giant underground radiator rather than a source of lava, a vision echoed in coverage of experts tapping into one of America’s most dangerous volcanoes.
In practice, that means a field of production and injection wells, surface piping, and a compact power plant that can run day and night, regardless of weather. Unlike wind or solar, geothermal output does not fluctuate with clouds or calm air, which is why some researchers see volcanic heat as a way to stabilize regional grids that are adding large amounts of intermittent renewables. Video explainers on geothermal drilling around active volcanic systems walk through how engineers map subsurface fractures, manage pressure, and monitor seismicity to keep operations within safe limits, including one detailed breakdown of high‑temperature projects in a YouTube overview of volcanic geothermal power. The promise is a firm, low‑carbon energy source that could run for decades, provided the wells are managed carefully and the volcano’s behavior is tracked in real time.
What makes these volcanoes so dangerous in the first place
To understand why using a volcano for power is controversial, it helps to look at how scientists judge volcanic danger. The U.S. Geological Survey’s threat ranking does not just measure how likely a volcano is to erupt, it also weighs how explosive its eruptions can be, how much ash and debris it can throw into the air, and how many people, highways, and critical facilities lie in the path of potential flows. A federal assessment highlighted 18 U.S. volcanoes as “very high threat,” a group that includes Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, Kīlauea, and several others that sit close to major cities, aviation routes, and infrastructure, a finding summarized in a report that classifies 18 volcanoes as high threat.
Local coverage of that same assessment underscored what “very high threat” means for people who live nearby. One explainer broke down how the ranking reflects not only eruption history but also the presence of communities, dams, and transportation networks that could be hit by lahars, ashfall, or lava, noting that 18 U.S. volcanoes now sit in this top danger category and that the label is meant to guide monitoring and emergency planning, as detailed in a piece on 18 US volcanoes now ranked as a very high threat. Another analysis focused on the Pacific Northwest and Hawaii, pointing out that Kīlauea, Mount Rainier, and Mount St. Helens all rank near the top of the federal list because of their eruption potential and the dense populations around them, a pattern laid out in a regional look at USGS volcano threat rankings for Kilauea, Rainier, and St. Helens. Those same factors that drive the risk calculations are what make any industrial activity on their flanks a sensitive proposition.
Balancing clean energy ambitions with eruption risk
Using a high‑threat volcano as a power plant raises an obvious question: could drilling and fluid injection make an already dangerous system more unstable. Geothermal projects in volcanic regions have long grappled with induced seismicity, the small earthquakes that can occur when fluids are pumped into hot, fractured rock. Engineers argue that with careful pressure management and constant monitoring, these tremors can be kept minor, but in a setting where communities already worry about eruptions, even small quakes can fuel public concern. Video discussions of geothermal development near active volcanoes walk through how operators use dense networks of seismometers and temperature sensors to track changes in the subsurface, highlighting the need for transparent communication about any induced activity, as shown in a YouTube segment on geothermal drilling risks.
At the same time, some volcanologists see a potential upside in pairing energy projects with hazard monitoring. A geothermal field requires detailed mapping of subsurface structures, frequent measurements of pressure and temperature, and real‑time seismic data, all of which can feed into eruption forecasting models. In that sense, a carefully designed power project could double as an expanded observatory, giving scientists more tools to spot early warning signs of unrest. Analysts who study the intersection of geothermal energy and volcanic hazards emphasize that any such project must be built on top of existing monitoring frameworks and emergency plans, not as a substitute for them, a point underscored in a technical explainer on how geothermal plants track volcanic activity. The trade‑off is not between safety and energy, they argue, but between unmanaged risk and a more instrumented, closely watched volcano.
What communities stand to gain from volcanic power
For communities that live in the shadow of a high‑threat volcano, the idea of turning that looming presence into a source of local benefit has a certain appeal. Geothermal plants can provide steady baseload power that is not tied to imported fuel, which can be especially valuable for regions that rely on long supply chains for natural gas or diesel. Reporting on proposals to use one of America’s most hazardous volcanoes to power nearby homes describes how planners envision a plant that could feed electricity directly into local distribution networks, potentially lowering costs and improving resilience during storms or other disruptions, a vision captured in coverage of volcanic energy projects aimed at nearby homes.
There is also a symbolic dimension to that shift, one that I find hard to ignore. For decades, residents around peaks like Mount St. Helens and Kīlauea have lived with evacuation routes, ashfall drills, and the knowledge that their landscapes can change overnight. Turning part of that risk into a tangible asset, in the form of clean power and local jobs, can change how people relate to the volcano on their horizon. Coverage of scientists and engineers working on these concepts often highlights their hope that a carefully managed geothermal project could help nearby towns see the volcano not only as a threat but also as a partner in a lower‑carbon future, an idea that runs through reporting on high‑threat volcanoes and their broader impact. The challenge is to deliver those benefits without adding new layers of risk to communities that already live with enough uncertainty.
The politics and public perception of drilling into a volcano
Even if the engineering case for volcanic geothermal power is strong, public acceptance is not guaranteed. Residents who remember past eruptions or who have seen images of lahars and ash clouds may be wary of any industrial project that appears to tamper with a volcano’s plumbing. Local news coverage of the federal “very high threat” list shows how quickly hazard rankings can spark anxiety, with officials fielding questions about what the label means for evacuation plans, insurance, and property values, concerns that surfaced prominently in explanations of what a very high threat ranking really means. Layering a geothermal proposal on top of that context requires careful outreach, clear risk communication, and a willingness to adjust plans in response to community feedback.
Policy makers also have to weigh how volcanic power fits into broader climate and energy strategies. Federal and state agencies are under pressure to expand clean energy while maintaining grid reliability, and geothermal projects at high‑threat volcanoes sit at the intersection of those goals and long‑standing disaster preparedness efforts. Analyses of the U.S. volcano threat rankings emphasize that the 18 “very high threat” peaks already command significant monitoring resources and emergency planning, as detailed in the federal overview of which US volcanoes pose threat. Any move to drill for power on their flanks will have to be coordinated with those existing programs, ensuring that energy ambitions do not undercut the primary mission of keeping people safe from eruptions.
Why scientists see this as a test case for the energy transition
In many ways, the push to tap a dangerous volcano for clean power is a microcosm of the broader energy transition. It forces scientists, engineers, and communities to confront the reality that there are no risk‑free options, only different ways of managing trade‑offs. Fossil fuels carry clear climate and pollution costs, while renewables like wind and solar require large land footprints and new transmission lines. High‑temperature geothermal at a high‑threat volcano adds its own layer of complexity, but it also offers something rare in the clean energy toolkit: a compact, always‑on source of power that can sit close to where people live. Reporting on experimental projects near one of the country’s most hazardous peaks frames them as early tests of whether that trade‑off can be managed in a way that feels acceptable to the people who live closest to the risk, a theme that runs through coverage of using a dangerous volcano to power our future.
As I look across the scientific assessments and local reporting, what stands out is not a rush to drill at any cost, but a cautious, incremental approach. Volcanologists and geothermal engineers are still mapping the subsurface, refining models of how fluids move through hot rock, and debating how to balance induced seismicity risks with the benefits of expanded monitoring. Public officials are still digesting what it means to have 18 volcanoes labeled “very high threat,” and how that status should shape land‑use decisions, infrastructure investments, and emergency planning, questions that surface repeatedly in analyses of USGS threat rankings for Kilauea, Rainier, and St. Helens. Whether the first full‑scale project succeeds or stalls, the effort to turn a dangerous volcano into a source of clean power is already reshaping how scientists and communities think about living with, and potentially benefiting from, the restless geology beneath their feet.
More from MorningOverview