Today I Learned

[zoobyshoe]

What makes me angry about nuclear power plants is, that if you start to completely calculate total costs, i.e. costs for their wastes included, they immediately stop to deliver cheap energy. It's somehow unfair that profits go to the share holders and costs to the community. Am I the only one who sees this?

I haven't even looked into it. But on that subject, a nuclear accident must be astronomically expensive. You lose all the money put into building the affected reactor, you lose the revenue from the power it would have generated, and then you have to pour vast amounts into clean up and lawsuits. That has to affect the profitability of all the remaining nuclear power plants that didn't have big accidents. The radiation at Chernobyl is so bad they had to abandon the other three operational reactors there and stop work on the two more they had planned.

 

[fresh_42]

Yep. Uninsurable.

 

[mfb]

What makes me angry about nuclear power plants is, that if you start to completely calculate total costs, i.e. costs for their wastes included, they immediately stop to deliver cheap energy. It's somehow unfair that profits go to the share holders and costs to the community. Am I the only one who sees this?

Where are those costs not included? Every opponent of nuclear power makes sure they get overestimated as much as possible.

I've never looked into radiation released by coal power plants, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I would assume the radiation they release is very much more spread out, and that the problem with nuclear accidents is how concentrated the released radiation is.

There were two accidents where the radiation levels exceeded those from typical coal power plants. None of them were at a level where direct consequences (radiation sickness and similar) would be a problem for the population. That leaves the low-radiation dose effects, which are expected to be linear with dose. "Expected" because their effects are too small to be significantly notable in scientific studies.
The concentration makes bad PR, but it is actually helpful: in the extremely rare cases of accidents, you can move away. You cannot move away from coal power plants.

But on that subject, a nuclear accident must be astronomically expensive.

So are the total expenses coming from coal power plants. The costs are just more hidden. There are various estimates on lifes saved from using nuclear power instead of coal, but they are all in the range of millions (e.g. 1.8 millions here, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_Hansen_1.pdf[/URL] and so on). There are attempts to put a [url=http://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/]monetary value on human lifes[/url], typically around 5 millions. Multiply both together and nuclear power saved ten trillions, potentially tens of trillions, just based on the waste coal power plants that got avoided - several billions per operational power plant. That is not even including the CO2 emitted and its consequences!
Coal is by far the most expensive reliable source of power we have, if you include all the effects. But coal is the alternative to nuclear power today - shut down nuclear power plants and coal power plants appear.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There were two accidents where the radiation levels exceeded those from typical coal power plants. None of them were at a level where direct consequences (radiation sickness and similar) would be a problem for the population.

You mean Chernobyl and Fukushima?

That leaves the low-radiation dose effects, which are expected to be linear with dose. "Expected" because their effects are too small to be significantly notable in scientific studies.
The concentration makes bad PR, but it is actually helpful: in the extremely rare cases of accidents, you can move away. You cannot move away from coal power plants.

Why can't you move away from a coal plant?

So are the total expenses coming from coal power plants. The costs are just more hidden. There are various estimates on lifes saved from using nuclear power instead of coal, but they are all in the range of millions (e.g. 1.8 millions here, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_Hansen_1.pdf[/URL] and so on). There are attempts to put a [URL='http://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/']monetary value on human lifes[/URL], typically around 5 millions. Multiply both together and nuclear power saved ten trillions, potentially tens of trillions, just based on the waste coal power plants that got avoided - several billions per operational power plant. That is not even including the CO2 emitted and its consequences!
Coal is by far the most expensive reliable source of power we have, if you include all the effects. But coal is the alternative to nuclear power today - shut down nuclear power plants and coal power plants appear.[/QUOTE]
That pretty much supports what I was saying: a nuclear accident must be astronomically expensive. Your information makes it more so, since it means resorting to more expensive coal plants.

 

[fresh_42]

Where are those costs not included? Every opponent of nuclear power makes sure they get overestimated as much as possible.

You can't believe this. This is simply not true, and I wondered if you would not know. May I ask whether you receive money for making those funny statements? *)

Nobody on this planet can afford to a) build thousands of safe places for nuclear waste over and over again and b) guarantee to safely guard it for the next 40 billion years.
Nobody can afford to insure the risk of a major accident as it happened already twice in about 50 years since we started to use fission.
If you really price in these two factors of costs nuclear energy couldn't be afforded by anyone. These costs are simply spread over the entire community and over the forthcoming 50 billion years.

*) Arguments only hold in characteristic zero case with prime field ℚ.

 

[mfb]

Where are those costs not included? Every opponent of nuclear power makes sure they get overestimated as much as possible.

This is simply not true

Well, "every" is an exaggeration. Apart from that, it is true.
A typical example from Germany: We have a "Brennelementesteuer", a special tax specifically for fuel of nuclear power plants. This tax is included in the costs of nuclear power, although it is just a redistribution of money from the companies to the public. But it gets worse: some argue that the Brennelementesteuer could be higher, and then claim it would be a subsidy that the tax rate is not higher. This made-up subsidy is then also counted as cost of nuclear power.
Germany heavily subsidizes wind and solar power. Does this increase the cost of nuclear power? Obviously not, but someone found an argument for it: Mining and processing uranium and operating various systems in a nuclear power plant costs electricity, and those costs are taken from the German electricity mix, which includes wind and solar power. It also includes coal, which is then counted as CO2 emission from nuclear power.

If there is any possibility to add any amount of money to the cost of nuclear power, someone did that.

Nobody on this planet can afford to a) build thousands of safe places for nuclear waste over and over again and b) guarantee to safely guard it for the next 40 billion years.

There is no need for either of them. Oh by the way, the Earth did a pretty good job of storing uranium for billions of years. Doing it even better than that is quite a high standard.

Nobody can afford to insure the risk of a major accident as it happened already twice in about 50 years since we started to use fission.

This is not a problem of cost, it is a problem of scale and the unclear way to quantify a possible damage in money.

If you really price in these two factors of costs nuclear energy couldn't be afforded by anyone.

Nuclear power saves lifes and health compared to fossile fuels. The cost is negative.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There were two accidents where the radiation levels exceeded those from typical coal power plants. None of them were at a level where direct consequences (radiation sickness and similar) would be a problem for the population.

I'd still like to know which two accidents you're referring to here.

 

[mfb]

Sorry, missed your post. Chernobyl and Fukushima, sure.

Why can't you move away from a coal plant?

Take a map, draw 100 km circles around each coal power plant, and see what is left. Then draw 200 km circles and see what is left. Finally take the CO2, where the circle is the whole surface of Earth. You can move away from the direct neighborhood where you can paint your house every year, but the dirt of coal power plants gets spread over a large area.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There were two accidents where the radiation levels exceeded those from typical coal power plants. None of them were at a level where direct consequences (radiation sickness and similar) would be a problem for the population.

Sorry, missed your post. Chernobyl and Fukushima, sure.

If you are saying that no one in the population around the plants died within a couple weeks like the nuclear workers did, then, yes. But since so many birth defects and cancers were directly caused by those accidents, it is not accurate to suggest they were consequence-free for the people in the vicinities. Those sites are poisoned in complex configurations, which is why they have to permanently evacuate large numbers of people. Simply being evacuated is a traumatic experience.

I'm getting my info from the wiki articles. Since this is such a controversial subject, I'm making the assumption that what's there has been batted back and forth enough times by editors on both sides of the issue that it's the safest to use as a reference.

 

[OCR]

One of the most unusual, and rather ugly nuclear power reactor accidents I've read about... The SL-1.

A later investigation concluded that the 26,000-pound (12,000 kg) vessel had jumped 9 feet 1 inch (2.77 m) and the upper control rod drive mechanisms had struck the ceiling of the reactor building prior to settling back into its original location. The spray of water and steam knocked two operators onto the floor, killing one and severely injuring another. One of the shield plugs on top of the reactor vessel impaled the third man through his groin and exited his shoulder, pinning him to the ceiling.

 

[mfb]

If you are saying that no one in the population around the plants died within a couple weeks like the nuclear workers did, then, yes. But since so many birth defects and cancers were directly caused by those accidents, it is not accurate to suggest they were consequence-free for the people in the vicinities. Those sites are poisoned in complex configurations, which is why they have to permanently evacuate large numbers of people. Simply being evacuated is a traumatic experience.

I did not say consequence-free. I said: at radiation levels where radiation influences are coming from low radiation doses, i. e. mainly a higher risk of cancer. Which makes it comparable to the effect of radiation from coal power plants (and radiation is by far not the worst product of coal power plants - but still more than from nuclear power).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I did not say consequence-free. I said: at radiation levels where radiation influences are coming from low radiation doses, i. e. mainly a higher risk of cancer. Which makes it comparable to the effect of radiation from coal power plants (and radiation is by far not the worst product of coal power plants - but still more than from nuclear power).

Are you saying it was unnecessary to evacuate them?

 

[mfb]

It was certainly necessary to do evacuations. I don't get it, what is your point with those questions?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It was certainly necessary to do evacuations. I don't get it, what is your point with those questions?

You seem to be saying that, despite nuclear disasters, nuclear is overall safer than coal in terms of radiation. What's missing from that, in my understanding of the situation, is the fact that the after effects of nuclear disasters are mitigated by evacuating huge numbers of people, while no one gets evacuated from the vicinity of coal plants. In other words, it is not that radiation from nuclear disasters are slightly less bad than coal radiation, it is the fact special measures are taken after nuclear disasters that aren't taken with the much less concentrated ongoing coal radiation that skews the statistics. Local poisoning from radiation was much worse at Chernobyl and Fukushima than what those places received from coal radiation, therefore, evacuation was in order. Evacuation took place, and the natural consequences of the concentrated radiation was avoided.

Not that I'm a fan of coal at all. Coal is so bad for so many reasons it hardly constitutes a viable alternative to nuclear.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Today I learned a huge difference between Russian and Hispanic cultures. In Russia, apparently, the expression, "Eff your mother!" is not an insult to the listening party, but an expression of general exasperation or surprise:

"Ivan Ivanovitch just found 4 bottles of vodka he forgot he had!"

"Eff your mother! Let's go visit him."

Or:

"Pavel Pavlovitch got fired!"

"Eff your mother! He owes me 30 rubles!"

 

[mfb]

You seem to be saying that, despite nuclear disasters, nuclear is overall safer than coal in terms of radiation. What's missing from that, in my understanding of the situation, is the fact that the after effects of nuclear disasters are mitigated by evacuating huge numbers of people, while no one gets evacuated from the vicinity of coal plants. In other words, it is not that radiation from nuclear disasters are slightly less bad than coal radiation, it is the fact special measures are taken after nuclear disasters that aren't taken with the much less concentrated ongoing coal radiation that skews the statistics. Local poisoning from radiation was much worse at Chernobyl and Fukushima than what those places received from coal radiation, therefore, evacuation was in order. Evacuation took place, and the natural consequences of the concentrated radiation was avoided.

To summarize: concentrated radiation is better because you can avoid it with reasonable effort. That is my point.
Maybe it is clearer with an example. Consider the following two scenarios:
- you know a meteorite will hit 1 out of 1 billion houses and kill everyone in that house but no one outside. You do not know which house will be hit, so evacuation is not an option - everyone has to live with a higher risk.
- you know precisely which house the meteorite will hit. If you do nothing, the effect would be the same, the inhabitants of one house are killed. But you can do better! You can evacuate this house.

Coal is so bad for so many reasons it hardly constitutes a viable alternative to nuclear.

Well, it is used as alternative.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To summarize: concentrated radiation is better because you can avoid it with reasonable effort. That is my point.

OK, I now understand that was your point. I have to disagree, though, because evacuation is extremely traumatic:

Effects on evacuees[edit]

In the former Soviet Union, many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about radiation exposure. They developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia along with an increase in fatalistic alcoholism. As Japanese health and radiation specialist Shunichi Yamashita noted:[230]

We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominantly] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research.[230]

A survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the disaster.[231]

Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.[231]

Stress often manifests in physical ailments, including behavioral changes such as poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation. Survivors, including some who lost homes, villages and family members, were found likely to face mental health and physical challenges. Much of the stress came from lack of information and from relocation.[232]

A survey computed that of some 300,000 evacuees, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation.[28][233]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Effects_on_evacuees

 

[mfb]

I have to disagree, though, because evacuation is extremely traumatic:

It should be done only if the negative effects of radiation would be worse than the negative effects of evacuation, of course.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Today I learned scientists at Cal-Tech think they might have found evidence of a hitherto undiscovered large planet in our solar system:

http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/9th-planet-may-lurk-in-the-outer-solar-system-160120.htm

 

[fresh_42]

What really astonishes me is that one scientist gave it a 0.007% probability for not being number 10. (I like Pluto.)

 

[mfb]

What really astonishes me is that one scientist gave it a 0.007% probability for not being number 10. (I like Pluto.)

That is not what they did. They say the probability of a random arrangement as signficant as observed in the particular properties they look at is 0.007%.
Look at 10000 sets of parameters and the chance to find a 0.007% coincidence among them is about 50%.
Roll a die multiple times, let's say the results are "42556235". The probability to get exactly this series is less than 0.007%. How unlikely was that?

 

[jtbell]

Today I learned a technical investing term. When the stock market falls a lot, then recovers a bit, then continues merrily falling, it's called a dead cat bounce.

 

[fresh_42]

Today I learned a technical investing term. When the stock market falls a lot, then recovers a bit, then continues merrily falling, it's called a dead cat bounce.

The analysts' passion for charts and their interpretations of them always remind me on astrology, homeopathy and other esoteric non-sense.
Same stupid stuff since Pythagoras. I call them chartists. It's as reliable as weather lore are and as soon as they unexpectedly change they have another explanation along the new lines at hand.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Today I learned that the air's temperature and humidity influence the formation and shapes of snowflakes.

 

[jtbell]

Today I learned that one of Scott Walker's predecessors as governor of Wisconsin suggested a new slogan for the state's vehicle license plates:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/08/us/wisconsin-s-license-plates-won-t-say-eat-cheese-or-die.html

 

[Boolean Boogey]

Today I learned some numbers are vampires.

125460 = 204 × 615 = 246 × 510
13078260 = 1620 × 8073 = 1863 × 7020 = 2070 × 6318
16758243290880 = 1982736 × 8452080 = 2123856 × 7890480 = 2751840 × 6089832 = 2817360 × 5948208
24959017348650 = 2947050 × 8469153 = 2949705 × 8461530 = 4125870 × 6049395 = 4129587 × 6043950 = 4230765 × 5899410

I should be able to have a career where I play around with recreational number theory all day.

 

[fresh_42]

Today I learned some numbers are vampires.

125460 = 204 × 615 = 246 × 510
13078260 = 1620 × 8073 = 1863 × 7020 = 2070 × 6318
16758243290880 = 1982736 × 8452080 = 2123856 × 7890480 = 2751840 × 6089832 = 2817360 × 5948208
24959017348650 = 2947050 × 8469153 = 2949705 × 8461530 = 4125870 × 6049395 = 4129587 × 6043950 = 4230765 × 5899410

I should be able to have a career where I play around with recreational number theory all day.

Here some food:
$2^n+7^n+8^n+18^n+19^n+24^n = 3^n+4^n+12^n+14^n+22^n+23^n \;∀\, n∈\{0,1,...,5\}$

I'm still asking myself: Who found this? And why? And is he still at good health?

 

[Boolean Boogey]

Here some food:
$2^n+7^n+8^n+18^n+19^n+24^n = 3^n+4^n+12^n+14^n+22^n+23^n ∀ n∈\{0,1,...,5\}$

I'm still asking myself: Who found this? And why? And is he still at good health?

Oh man I love that. That's going in my nerdy notebook.

 

[alan4903]

Today, I learned that going gluten free leads to no benefits in healthy people.

 

[Sophia]

According to conference in Davos, 2 million people will lose their jobs because of robotisation in next 5 years.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

According to conference in Davos, 2 million people will lose their jobs because of robotisation in next 5 years.

From what fields? I am assuming areas like fast food?

 

[OmCheeto]

From what fields? I am assuming areas like fast food?

From the article I just read:

Davos 2016: More than 5 million jobs will be lost to robots by 2020 says WEF* study
January 19, 2016

Jobs Lost
4,759,000 clerical/administration
1,609,000 Manufacturing and production
497,000 Construction and mining
151,000 Sports and creative industries
109,000 Lawyers
40,000 Mechanics/maintenance
-------
7,165,000 total

Jobs Created
492,000 Banking, accounting, insurance
416,000 Management
405,000 IT/data analysis
339,000 Architecture and engineering
303,000 Sales
66,000 Teaching and training
-------
2,021,000 total

net loss 5,144,000

It looks like the Luddites were about 200 years too early.

wiki on the Luddites; The Luddites were 19th-century English textile workers (or self-employed weavers who feared the end of their trade) who protested against newly developed labour-economizing technologies, primarily between 1811 and 1816.​

It will be interesting to see how AI shifts the job markets in the future, once it really gets going.*WEF: World Economic Forum
wiki on the WEF; The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss nonprofit foundation, based in Cologny, Geneva. Recognized by the Swiss authorities as the international institution for public-private cooperation, its mission is cited as "committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas".

 

[mfb]

Today I learned: There are papers about sheep collisions.
(from @Dr. Courtney).

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Thanks to Moon, today I learned about placental hormones.
and this poem is for Moon:

Out of the mud grows the lotus
It's not the lotus that does it.
Out of the egg comes the chick
It’s not the chick that does it
These are things I’ve realized
And that, too, I didn’t do.

 

[Psinter]

Today I learned there exist plants with things called psychoactive alkaloids.

Alkaloids - Alkaloids are a group of naturally occurring chemical compounds that contain mostly basic nitrogen atoms.
-Wikipedia

A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, or psychotropic is a chemical substance that changes brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, or consciousness.
-Wikipedia

I must be careful then when making teas. I don't want my brain function to be changed.