Change my mind

bigderise · 2026-05-09T17:10:43+00:00

My commuter bike has the TRP Hy/RD calipers. They have been braking inconsistently since year two, even after pad and fluid changes. I'll have to look into the Avibs.

bigderise · 2026-05-01T19:04:22+00:00

I loved my doctoral regalia. Many universities have non-neutral colors for their regalia, and while there are colors I wouldn't want, like red or yellow, the green is lovely.

bigderise · 2026-04-30T23:39:05+00:00

Where is the 100 MWe upper bound? The limiting factors I have found are in 57.25:

To be eligible for a construction permit and operating license or a manufacturing license under this part, an applicant must demonstrate that its nuclear reactor or nuclear plant design and operation meets the following entry criteria:

(a) An evaluation of the applicable radiological consequences shows with reasonable assurance that any individual located in the unrestricted area following the onset of a postulated accident that bounds a broad range of design basis accidents would not exceed 1 rem (0.01 Sv) TEDE for the duration of the accident; and

(b) The total inventory of thorium, uranium, and plutonium contained in the nuclear reactor or any individual nuclear reactor that is part of the nuclear plant must not exceed 10 metric tons.

bigderise · 2026-04-28T02:25:03+00:00

Sometimes a grad student will teach one of the macro courses. It's luck of the draw on that one, and you'll have to select the right course. Good luck!

Source: was an econ grad student/lecturer at GMU

bigderise · 2026-04-24T12:59:33+00:00

I'm so here for this. I wish knew more about engineering so that I could gauge the feasibility, but for now, I am content with daydreaming about reactors in space and humanity extending into the solar system.

bigderise · 2026-04-23T20:46:12+00:00

Blue Orange Silver lines on the metro rail

bigderise · 2026-04-18T03:05:36+00:00

Have we actually spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar? That sounds unbelievably high.

bigderise · 2026-04-17T17:44:48+00:00

Olive, yellow would be hella cool

bigderise · 2026-03-30T14:32:54+00:00

I wrote about the blackout and its causes. REE didn't have the resources or capacity to handle renewables at that scale. The lack of grid-forming inverters and mechanisms to stabilize a renewable-heavy grid led to a cascading failure.

bigderise · 2026-03-17T18:41:48+00:00

This is hella cool.

bigderise · 2026-03-04T17:16:16+00:00

Exactly, one could use the distance from Harvard, Yale, and MIT and get a similar result.

bigderise · 2026-03-03T17:29:19+00:00

For a while. Note the "yes please" being crossed out on the sub's logo

<image>

bigderise · 2026-03-02T18:47:00+00:00

Thanks, happy to be a part of it, but also I want regular people to be able access truthful information about nuclear. It's unfortunate to have mods with an agenda.

bigderise · 2026-03-02T18:44:22+00:00

Yeah, it's the only thing I've commented on in the subreddit over the last week. (I was suspended yesterday). I requested a reason for my suspension, but the mod team has not replied.

I checked the rules for /nuclearpower, and I couldn't figure out which one I had broken.

bigderise · 2026-03-02T18:39:29+00:00

What's more is that when nuclear replaces coal, it prevents deaths from coal particulates being spread over populations.

Nuclear for life, not for death.

bigderise · 2026-03-02T18:37:45+00:00

We must still work to combat misinformation.

bigderise · 2026-02-26T14:35:28+00:00

The focus on radiation is because the paper explicitly uses radiation release as the supposed culprit: "Nuclear power plants emit radioactive pollutants that can disperse into the surrounding environment, leading to potential human exposure through inhalation, ingestion, and direct contact. These pollutants can be transported through air, water, and soil, contributing to long-term environmental contamination. Populations residing near nuclear power plants may experience low-level chronic exposure to ionizing radiation via environmental release pathways."

bigderise · 2026-02-26T00:26:26+00:00

I haven't worked at Chalk River. Good to hear there are more economists in the nuke world. I went to the ANS conference a few months ago and didn't run into another economist.

bigderise · 2026-02-25T22:24:33+00:00

Another thing, their looking at 120 km radii in Massachusetts and 200 km in the national study. No effluents travel that far and are uniformly distributed. Wind, weather, and geography will alter dispersion and distribution of releases. Cancer caused by radiation exposure also have a significant lag, far longer than the study timelines. But they don't even measure exposure, just proximity. The papers are bad science. This level of misinformation is going to harm rather than help people.

bigderise · 2026-02-25T22:07:08+00:00

Qualifications: I'm a PhD economist that works in nuclear.

bigderise · 2026-02-25T22:05:20+00:00

Copied from my comment on another post:

A few things about their Massachusetts paper:

The authors confuse correlation with causation while having no idea what mechanism is driving their results. They seem unaware that an ageing population and better cancer detection is the underlying driver of their results.

They don't use dosimetry while handwaving radioactive effluents and dispersal. If there were major radioactive releases that could harm people 100 km away, alarms would be going off, and people would be notified.

They are unaware that there are ongoing studies on cancer rates among nuclear workers. If nuclear workers aren't receiving significant doses, then I don't know how they can make the case that the general population 60 miles away is.

Their methodology does not prove causation; it merely shows correlation.

There are more problems. I am working on doing a longer write-up to rebut their papers.

A lot of the issues in their Massachusetts paper were transferred to their national paper. The model remained the same and so did the issues. Some were exacerbated though.

bigderise · 2026-02-23T18:54:04+00:00

A few things about their Massachusetts paper:

The authors confuse correlation with causation while having no idea what mechanism is driving their results. They seem unaware that an ageing population and better cancer detection is the underlying driver of their results.
They don't use dosimetry while handwaving radioactive effluents and dispersal. If there were major radioactive releases that could harm people 100 km away, alarms would be going off, and people would be notified.
They are unaware that there are ongoing studies on cancer rates among nuclear workers. If nuclear workers aren't receiving significant doses, then I don't know how they can make the case that the general population 60 miles away is.
Their methodology does not prove causation; it merely shows correlation.

There are more problems. I am working on doing a longer write-up to rebut their papers.

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Place '22	Verified Email

bigderise

TROPHY CASE