Why not nuclear power?

[yossarian22]

It wasn't actually more than that. According to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), there were 438 nuclear reactors as of 2001. Inclusive of this were the 150 reactors in Western Europe, and the 118 in North America.

Still irrelevant.

Yes, in theory, that would be true. But like flipping a coin, in practice, it's not.

Reread what you just wrote. Statistical theory always holds in real life by its very nature.
If you can disprove the central limit theorem, then you just invalidated modern statistics. I doubt you can.

Right... so the fact that we constantly do it, defines whether it's fallacious or not?

I am sure that virtually every single social statistician will be shocked by how fallacious their practice is.
It is obvious that you have no knowledge of statistical practices whatsoever. I suggest you take an introductory course at the very least.
It is statistically valid to to make inferences from data with different alpha levels, we must do it, because we don't get idealized data,

 

[DarkSun]

Reread what you just wrote. Statistical theory always holds in real life by its very nature.
If you can disprove the central limit theorem, then you just invalidated modern statistics. I doubt you can.


I am sure that virtually every single social statistician will be shocked by how fallacious their practice is.
It is obvious that you have no knowledge of statistical practices whatsoever. I suggest you take an introductory course at the very least.

You're right, I only know the basics. I'll know what you're talking about in detail later this year.

What I do know, though, is that most rules in statistics are well and good in theory, but when applying them in real life, you get an utterly different result.

If you try rolling a six-sided die six times, I can almost guarantee you won't get one of each side as a result.

In that sense, statistics aren't infallable.

Like flipping a coin, the more occurences you have in a sample, the more your result will change.

I don't care about what a statistician will say. I'm right because it makes sense. Think for yourself. Roll a dice or whatever to prove it, if you don't understand or agree.

Comparing two items of differing sample space is misleading because of the above reasons. If you were to change the sample space, then the results would definitely change.

I also know that if you're trying to find a trend, the more data you use, the more accurate your averaged result will be.

There are more cars, so the mean of accidents per unit of time will be more accurate. There are less powerplants, so the mean of accidents per unit of time will be less accurate.

I haven't been taught statistics in detail, but what I've said is common sense. Take it or leave it. If you still disagree, I just suggest you re-read what I've said with an open mind.

It is statistically valid to to make inferences from data with different alpha levels, we must do it, because we don't get idealized data.

Normally, I'd agree with you. But since there is a massive difference between the amount of people driving a car, and the amount of nuclear power stations, I'd have to disagree on that note. The effect on the result would be apparent with that much difference. If the sample spaces were realatively close to one another in size, then I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[DarkSun]

I note that you haven't responded to any of my points. May I ask why...?

:sarcastic

 

[DarkSun]

A nuclear power plant needs alot of water. And I mean alot of water. Not every town can support them due to how much water they consume. Alot of it is simply shoved into the atmosphere. Now, we could use sea water, but salt is ridiculously corrosive. We would have to plate the water pipes with copper. Might not seem like to big a cost, until you realize you need to plate 100 mile long pipes with the stuff. Copper ain't cheap.

Many people don't realise that water vapour is a better contributor to the greenhouse effect than any hydrocarbon. That's another detriment to nuclear power.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The Homer Simpsons of the world need jobs, therefore Nuclear power makes sense [/sarcasm].

I believe clean coal technology makes more sense.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I think you hit it with the last one. There are many energy options. Wind, water, solar, and nuclear. Any of those could be expanded and three of them are totally safe and constantly renewable.

And geothermal.

5% of our power is generater through geothermal. Majority through Hydro

 

[yossarian22]

I note that you haven't responded to any of my points. May I ask why...?

:sarcastic

You referring to me?

What I do know, though, is that most rules in statistics are well and good in theory, but when applying them in real life, you get an utterly different result.
If you try rolling a six-sided die six times, I can almost guarantee you won't get one of each side as a result.
In that sense, statistics aren't infallable.

This depends very much on the law.
The central limit theorem is always supported, even by relatively small data sets.

Like flipping a coin, the more occurences you have in a sample, the more your result will change.
I don't care about what a statistician will say. I'm right because it makes sense. Think for yourself. Roll a dice or whatever to prove it, if you don't understand or agree.

I already explained this.
You are citing the law of large numbers (which I hope you learned by now) As sample space increases, the mean of the sample approaches the true mean.
its irrelevant because we are not dealing with a coin toss. Meltdowns and car crashes fail to fit any standard probability model.

Comparing two items of differing sample space is misleading because of the above reasons. If you were to change the sample space, then the results would definitely change.

Not appreciably.

I also know that if you're trying to find a trend, the more data you use, the more accurate your averaged result will be.

We don't need a friggin census, we can't do them all the time. Thats why we take samples. A sample space of 10 is more than big enough.

I haven't been taught statistics in detail, but what I've said is common sense. Take it or leave it. If you still disagree, I just suggest you re-read what I've said with an open mind.

You are totally ignoring what I have said.
The mean of the nuclear reactor meltdown rate is close enough to the true mean.
If we were dealing with 5 or 10 reactors then yes, you would have valid points, but we aren't. We can have a 99% confidence level with this data set, sure the range will be fairly big, but the points of interest are so far apart that it fails to matter.

And to get around your point, I could simply take a random sample of 480ish cars and do a comparison. The results would be approximately the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are lots of interesting ideas. There is some research into directly converting fusion energy into electricity instead of using heat as a middle man. That could generate more power than it takes to start it up, because we can't absorb all the heat. Another option is getting some good thermoelectric materials and plating the reactor. Silicon nanowires look ideal for this.

I'd like to see something like that. It does seem odd to me that for all the complexity of their instrumentation and controls, nuclear reactors are effectively just giant kettles. I'd have thought that by now, we'd have come up with some other practical way of generating nuclear power that doesn't involve boiling water.

 

[DarkSun]

You referring to me?

No, I was referring to the thread creator... which I assumed was you without thinking. I'm sorry.

This depends very much on the law.
The central limit theorem is always supported, even by relatively small data sets.


I already explained this.
You are citing the law of large numbers (which I hope you learned by now) As sample space increases, the mean of the sample approaches the true mean.
its irrelevant because we are not dealing with a coin toss. Meltdowns and car crashes fail to fit any standard probability model.

I'd personally like to apologise. I think I'm understanding how much I haven't been taught yet.

Yes, I have been taught what you're calling the Law of Large numbers, but no, it hasn't been given that name. It's just been considered as logic, and it's been assumed that we'd pick up on it as we're progressing through topics.

The system in Australia is slightly different to how it is over in the US. I could go into detail about where and in what places that it differs, but just suffice to say, that Statistics has only been a very small unit in maths over here, thus far. There's no individual class for it. It's just a topic. I'm presuming that we get the more advanced work on Statistics toward the end of year twelve. It's what happened last year. Anyway, I'm currently at the beginning of it.

=P

Anyway, I'm sorry for perverting the topic of this thread as well.

 

[DarkSun]

There are lots of interesting ideas. There is some research into directly converting fusion energy into electricity instead of using heat as a middle man. That could generate more power than it takes to start it up, because we can't absorb all the heat.

How would you initiate the fusion, without using enough heat to do so?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Thats two. There are maybe around 40 nuclear power incidents.

Try 75 since 1945, and that's just criticality incidents, not irradiation incidents.

Automatic safeguards. Most reactors have automatic safety modes which engage if the reaction rate goes above a certain point. This is besides the people on site who could easily stop it.

Systems fail, and when those systems fail, people aren't necessarily going to make the right decisions.

As an aside, why is it, that whenever anyone talks about dumping nuclear waste, the end solution of people with no real solution is 'dump it in the desert, there's a lot of useless land.' The desert is an ecosystem too...if you wouldn't dump it in the middle of a stand of redwoods or the local botanical gardens, why is it fine to dump it in a desert?:sarcastic

 

[DarkSun]

As an aside, why is it, that whenever anyone talks about dumping nuclear waste, the end solution of people with no real solution is 'dump it in the desert, there's a lot of useless land.' The desert is an ecosystem too...if you wouldn't dump it in the middle of a stand of redwoods or the local botanical gardens, why is it fine to dump it in a desert?:sarcastic

It's because people have the mindset that if you can't see something, it isn't there. Look at how people have responded to the Third World.

I'd also like to add to what you've said.... Radiactive decay with Uranium-238 takes billions of years to become complete. The spent Uranium-235 fuel can take tens of thousands. How is dumping something in the middle, of what is now a desert, going to be an effective solution given how much the earth has changed in the past two million years alone? We don't seem to comprehend the exact danger of the wastes we're disposing of.

Flinging it into space may be an option, once mdoing so becomes more affordable... but who's to say that it's going to stay that way, opposed to becoming attracted to earth's pull some time in the future.

 

[Rowenn]

I'd think it was too expensive. Wind power seems to be the most efficient in my boat...

 

[yossarian22]

Try 75 since 1945, and that's just criticality incidents, not irradiation incidents.

Want me to make a bloody timeplot and show you the odds?
They are negligible.

Systems fail, and when those systems fail, people aren't necessarily going to make the right decisions.

New reactors quite literally dump all their carbon rods into the reactor should the heat reach a certain limit. So far as I know, there are no overrides to that.
Chernobyl is an effective impossibility with modern reactors (Soviet reactors were pretty crappy anyhow)

As an aside, why is it, that whenever anyone talks about dumping nuclear waste, the end solution of people with no real solution is 'dump it in the desert, there's a lot of useless land.' The desert is an ecosystem too...if you wouldn't dump it in the middle of a stand of redwoods or the local botanical gardens, why is it fine to dump it in a desert?:sarcastic

Do you actually have to think about this?
Which has the potential to do most damage, nuclear waste in an area with a relatively low amount of life which people rarely visit, or the middle of a rainforest? Its also not 'dumping' its building the facility in the desert. Things probably won't go wrong, but if they do, we can contain the damage much more easily. That is why 'dumping in the desert' is always the solution.
There is a reason why we don't do that for landfills. Landfills don't have the damage potential.

 

[Francine]

I'd think it was too expensive. Wind power seems to be the most efficient in my boat...

Good luck getting Ted Kennedy to go for that wind farm off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, where he goes sailing.

 

[rojse]

How would you initiate the fusion, without using enough heat to do so?

If you knew how it worked, you could get a nobel prize.

 

[Francine]

How would you initiate the fusion, without using enough heat to do so?

Quantum tunneling.

 

[yossarian22]

Flinging it into space may be an option, once mdoing so becomes more affordable... but who's to say that it's going to stay that way, opposed to becoming attracted to earth's pull some time in the future.

The laws of physics.

 

[Francine]

Flinging it into space may be an option, once mdoing so becomes more affordable... but who's to say that it's going to stay that way, opposed to becoming attracted to earth's pull some time in the future.

Put it on an escape trajectory right out of the Solar System, like Pioneer 9 &10, and Voyager 1 & 2.

 

[Valjean]

The problem is, spacecraft are notoriously unreliable. Spaceflight is a developing, largely experimental technology, and a sizeable load of high-level waste crashing to Earth could make Chernobyl look about as consequential as an infestation of crabgrass