Can we control solar flares? If so, what are the implications?

Question

Please read/skim the following 3 articles (fairly short), before responding.

(Edge-Localized Modes in plasmas look like solar flares.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3260985.stm

(ELM's are distinctly like other cosmic plasma discharges, possibly even the sun.)
http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Tarragona/pdf/P1_132.pdf

(We have learned how to prevent Edge-Localized Modes from flaring.)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9202&feedId=online-news_rss20

Now, if solar flares are really Edge-Localized Modes in an electromagnetic plasma discharge, can we use the same principles we use in the lab to regulate or prevent solar flares?

What could we do with this technology and what would be the implications of this technology if we were able to produce it?

Could we eliminate solar flares and coronal mass ejections in order to limit damage to sensitive electronics in space, and to protect astronauts from (or limit exposure to) charged particles in local space?

Science types preferred to respond with reasoned responses, and/or links to other related resources/research.

What would it take for us to control solar flares? In the lab it merely required minute magnetic fields to bleed off excess charge/plasma so there is no prominence/flare.

I'd assume we would need some type of magnetic field generators at strategic locations around the sun to bleed off energy in a controlled fashion?

Could this be used to prevent geomagnetic storms?

More disturbingly, could this knowledge be used to create a strategic weapons platform to CREATE solar flares and accelerate charged particles in a controlled fashion, assuming we understand the causes?

Could this be used to bleed off charged particles from the sun in a controlled fashion in order to facilitate easier scientific investigation into solar processes?

Remember the above added details are ASSUMING that solar flare structure and the structure of ELM's in the lab are the same structure on different scales and involve the same processes, and we now have increased understanding of how to mitigate those processes...

Edward D, you're right, I'm fairly bright and can see certain "symmetries" in things and can make implications, I just want to know what others think and if their ideas jive with mine, or if they come up with other ideas. I love alternate points of view that make me consider other possibilities orconsider a problem in a novel way.

sbravo: this perhaps a bit far-fetched, yes. nonetheless you rise to the occasion. I like your ideas. I hadn't considered USING the sun to power the system (IE, use the solar radiation to power essentially a big solar panel, or series of them. Or siphon some of the sun's plasma and use it to power the system). I guess I'm envisioning a series of satellites around the sun that would have sensitive equipment for taking scientific measurements, and would communicate with other satellites. If an area is problematic and might form a prominence, flare or ejection, the satellites would activate in that region (magnetic fields or whatnot) to mitigate the effects.

Randy G: True, the sun is massive, but in the lab they said that it took a fairly minimal amount of power to generate magnetic fields sufficient to siphon enough plasma to prevent prominences.

Certain theories that I won't go into in too much detail (on thunderbolts.info) posit that the su is actually a glow discharge and is not in fact fusing in the core as currently predicted. But that's neither here nor there. What I'm "thinking" is that we'd really only need a line-of sight system of some kind of magnetic generators to channel the flow of plasma and or disperse it harmlessly rather than sallowing it to build up to prominence or flare level. And it would only be in the specific region of activity. As sbravo wonderfully noted, it's possible that the sun itself could be used to power the system! What if we could harness or syphon its plasma or build masively parallel solar panels to power any particular satellite unit? Supplement that with an internal nuclear reactor..? Power galore?

Answer 1

Man this is a far-fetched question.

I believe that we shouldnt worry about controlling solar flares, but instead should Sheild structures and other things. Especially out in space, labs, structures or vehicles. One way to do it is with an electromagnetic shield, if we can ever get those developed. That would provide excellent radiation shielding, also from the protons and things that are released at near speed of light when a flare goes off. Especially when a large flare goes off.

One way to control it is to build (somehow) an engine that envelops the entire sun, and uses its energy to power itself. This engine would have to be so complex and multi-layered that I couldnt even begin to explain it, because its about the only thing that would work. An interesting side point about being able to envelop the sun, is that in that same process you could use it as a nuclear reactor and siphon off electricity. With power levels that the sun could provide, we could experiment with energy weapons and possibly a way to Beam it to earth, eliminating the need for groundside power plants, especially the dirty ones.

Id say put a force field up that would catch any flare burps and recycle them back into the sun, keeping it stable. The field would allow all the spectrums to be released and with the same light intensity. Any less than what the earth recieves could mean economic and weather disasters and what not. As long as we could build such a force field that would contain the sun within some kind of high-powered bubble, the sun itself could power it without any external power source. Itd need one hell of a supercomputer to manage the fluxuations of the forces inside the field and to control the field itself. What a task thatd be.

Answer 2

Interesting articles and a good question.
Answering it is difficult since it sounds that you are smart enough to answer this question all by yourself, however I will humor you by answering it in hope of some mutual good emerging out of it.
1. Let’s say we can control ELMs in the lab or even built a functional fusion reactor were the control of ELM’s is nothing more than a high school physics curiosity.
2. How much energy does it take to control say n megawatts of ELM’s energy? Let say it takes a meager 1% to control ELM.
3. How much energy will it take to control a solar flare?

My point is that the Sun’s ELM is too powerful for us to control. Are you proposing we build a magnetic bottle around the Sun? I think not. And why we would control it. Effective shielding against solar flairs is another problem. I would put my money there.

On the brighter side if we could solve the fusion problem, or ELM problem specifically, and commercially produce a few billion kilowatts that would be really something. In my utopian mind I think say 14cents per kW would conceivably become say 1 cent per kW. Wouldn’t that be something?

Answer 3

Well, the sun is HUGE. Flares tend to be many times larger than the Earth itself. Controlling solar flares would imply that we are somehow controlling part of the sun's surface (and probably a significant portion of the sun beneath the surface, since the cause of the flares seem to originate deep within the sun itself).

I haven't run the numbers, but is seems that we would need more power than what the entire Earth could theoretically generate. That would seem to require technology that we haven't invented yet.

Answer 4

The first I heard of this was once a few unknown (to me) Russian scientists (do not don't forget the identify) claiming that we have been getting into a "Maunder Minimum" like situation really a couple of years in the past. I was once skeptical then however possibly reasonably much less skeptical now due to the fact that we've got had a interval lately with only a few solar spots. I realize that the earth does not fairly rotate across the solar. It rotates round a factor that's core of mass among the earth and solar however on the grounds that the solar is so a lot more colossal, that core is mainly nonetheless inside the solar however offset reasonably closer to the earth. The identical will also be stated of the orbits of different planets. If I understood the factor effectively, I do not see how that might difference the mechanism of fusion and its convection currents and magnetic storms and so on but it surely could be fascinating to me if it did. I would not have proposal that as a mechanism for variability. Certainly because the solar wobbles round it alterations its distance and as a result we could recieve one of a kind amounds of power. I have no idea so much approximately the solar. I anticipate it's convection currents "steel" hydrogen that bills for its magnetic area that switches each eleven years or so however it's tough to fathom how a huge nuclear fusion plasma ball alterations its conduct over the years with regularity however it sounds as if it does. I bet I must study it a few extra however I am lovely definite our capabilities is moderately restricted besides. But I digress I simply are not able to see feedback like Gavin Schmidt being some thing besides knee-jerk rejection of some thing that could threaten his private theories and bias. I am skeptical that they realize the forcings of variious matters as good as they consider they do. They appear to head out in their technique to reduction the complete sun irradience, and it's anything that we pay attention alarmists typically citing, but seldom citing different elements of the solar or its viable results on different forcings. I too proposal the lag was once founded however it kind of feels whilst you're knee-jerk to your reaction, it's convenient to miss inconvenient elements. Note. Thanks for the hyperlinks, I will learn them. Second Note: Yes that was once the bell I heard.

Answer 5

1