randform

In the content of the previous blogpost I used the word knowledge economy. In an Interview, which was given at the Innovationsforum 2010 Prof. Wurzer of the Steinbeis Transfer Institute gives an introduction to the difference between classical industrial economy and knowledge economy.
Citation form the transcript of the interview (without guarantee that I heard everything rightly):

[…] da erleben wir eben, das wir heute immer weniger Geld damit verdienen Produkte herzustellen, die man sozusagen anfassen kann [..gives examples for tangible products…] all die Hersteller, die Dinge produzieren, die man anfassen kann die haben eine relativ geringe Produktivität [..thats what I understand he probably menat Profitabilität…] und die Unternehmen die weiter hinten in der Wertschöpfungskette stehen also zb der Telekom Provider, die haben schon eine etwas höhere Profitabilität und Unternehmen, die dann ganz hinten stehen, wie zb Research in motion, also Blackberry, die haben eine extrem hohe Profitabilität. Und so ein Unternehmen wie Blackberry das betreibt bestenfalls noch Rechenzentren, wenn sie das überhaupt tun, genaugenommen ist alles was das Unternehmen macht einen Übertragungsstandard zur Verfügung zu stellen, ihn zu lizensieren und insofern also ein vollkommen immaterielles Geschäftsmodell zu betreiben. […]

Translation without guarantee:

[…] we see here that we earn less and less money with tangible products [..gives examples for tangible products…] All those producers which produce tangible products have a relativ small productivity [..thats what I understand he probably meant profitability…] and companies which stand at later stages of the value chain, like the telecom provider have a higher profitability and companies at very later stages, like research in motion, i.e. Blackberry are extremely profitable. And a company like Blackberry operates at best data centres, if at all. Strictly speaking all what the company does is to provide a broadcasting technology, to licence it and thus to provide a completely immaterial business model.

There is eventually more to hear on that issue at the trendforum 2012 for those who want and can pay the conference fee of 1980 Euro +tax for march 21 and 22 in 2012 in Berlin.

The discussion about certain nuclear waste problems which was indirectly adressed in my previous post about mini nuclear reactors went a little further on the blog Azimuth (here, here and here). Connected with the Azimuth blog is the socalled Azimuth project and the Azimuth forum, where amongst others people voluntarily discuss scientific studies on climate and environmental issues and even do some related software projects (like for example this here). So in the comment I suggested that someone could eventually do the necessary calculations to check wether there is a higher cancer rate in the San Francisco Bay area which may be due to a nuclear waste site in the waters close to San Francisco. Likewise one could eventually do similar calculations for the 25000 undersea radioactive waste sites in Russia mentioned in the post about the mini nuclear reactors or to other known sites in the world (see also this post and this comment about sites in India). It would of course also be interesting to hear about related studies.

related randform posts:
->on a recent study of increased risk of cancer in the vicinity of german nuclear power plants
->On the socalled Greiser-study
-> and the general overview on nuclear science posts on randform

“verticalized overhead power line with book lover using excessive light”, fotography of the Sony Center court yard on Potsdamer Platz by Loretta (see also the randform post chains)

I was recently looking a bit into the issue of smart grids and ran over an interesting european strategy analysis.

In 2005 the european smartgrid platform www.smartgrids.eu was set up. On their document page the currently newest document linked to is from 2010, it is a Strategic Deployment Document for Europe’s electricity networks of the future (2010) on page 53 one finds:

Engineering in the energy sector, electricity grids in particular, is seen by many as old- fashioned and “difficult” as it requires a high level of competence in mathematics, physics and other sciences. This discourages the potential new students from studying and pursuing a career in power engineering.

… and

All stakeholders in the electricity sector have a responsibility to improve the image of the sector, e.g. by engaging with educational institutions and explaining in an understandable way the real benefits of being involved with and able to deliver solutions to the energy, climate and environmental challenges of today.

This sounds very much as if the major problem of getting new working force for the electricity high-tech sector is mainly a question of hipness. In part it may be true that science and math is regarded as highly “unhip” in certain circles (and the reasons for this are manifold), however the comment in the document seems to miss somewhat a crucial point. Or maybe lets say it sounds a bit strange in the view that even fields medallists in e.g. Great Britain or France try to politely point out that there is structurally something at odds with the whole european science and math research and education.

Happy holidays to all randform readers!

supplement 1.1.2012: a happy new year to all randform readers!

“Dreimäckriges Blauquallendrachengespenst verwandelt sich in einen Kugelblitz um die ausgecyborgte, zweigebeinigte “Jeanne die Arge”, zu töten”. Artwork by Hugo Buster, acrylic paint and pencil

Just a quick link to what seems to be an interesting study about biodiversity with the title Experiment gives insight into how species maintain diversity (via physorg.com). In the study it was investigated how biodiversity could be maintained despite dominance. Experiments with male voles, ordered by testesterone level, were performed:

when they released just a few of the high testosterone males and lots of low testosterone males into the same area, the males once again reigned supreme with the ladies. But when they released lots of high testosterone males with lots of lots of low testosterone males, the males with the lower levels actually did better than those with the high levels, indicating that there was something clearly at play. The researchers suggest that such results came about because the high testosterone level males spent more time fighting or showing off than mating, which gave the low testosterone males more of a chance to mate.

My talk at the open knowledge confence was well perceived, however on the other hand there were not so many participants listening to my talk. In general it seemed to me that games were not (yet) in the focus of the open knowledge community. That is tere were not so many talks involving games at the conference. Nevertheless there were enough issues of importance and the conference was fun.

The slides of my talk are currently too big for upload, so I only uploaded a newer version of the article.

update (130711): The slides are available now at slideshare.net:

Talk: “Testing new toy economies/political structures in MMOGs” at slideshare.net

The above counter is not a Geiger counter but a money counter in a game area in a shopping center in Japan.

This blog post is a comment on how fast the replacement of fossil and nuclear power with renewable power generation may happen.

In the article draft at the randform post “New economic schemes in games” it was illustrated by a quick calculation that alone solar power can in principle replace fossil and nuclear power. However apart from the technological feasibility a major obstacle is of course the economical feasibility.

There is a new study (277 pages 5.5. MByte) by the german ministry of economy with the title: “Vorraussetzungen einer optimalen Integration erneuerbarer Energien in das Stromversorgungssystem”
(I couldn’t find the link path of the study from the front webpage of the ministry…its seems to be a little hidden…)

This study displays how economical considerations play a role in Germanys development of renewable energies; from page 134 of the study:

“Die darauf aufbauende Analyse der Auswirkungen auf das Stromerzeugungssystem zeigt, dass die Auswirkungen eines EE-Anteils von bis zu 40% für den konventionellen Kraftwerkspark technisch realisierbar und wirtschaftlich vertretbar sind. Ab einem EE-Anteil von 40% sind ohne Veränderungen der rechtlichen und regulatorische Rahmenbedingungen sowie technischer Regelwerke zum einen erhebliche ökonomische Verwerfungen auf den Märkten zu erwarten. Zum anderen ist ein solcher EE-Ausbaupfad mit einer erheblichen Kosten- und Preissteigerung verbunden. So steigen bspw. die Kosten für Systemdienstleistungen und damit auch die Netznutzungsentgelte im Vergleich zur 30%-Variante deutlich. Zusammen mit der enormen Erhöhung der EEG-Umlage liegen die Strompreise für Haushalte im Jahr 2020 in der 50%- Variante rund 20% höher im Vergleich zur 30%-Variante. Die Mehrkosten die von den Verbrauchern im Jahr 2020 in der 50 %-Varianten gegenüber der 30 %-Variante zu tragen sind, belaufen sich auf rund 20 Mrd. €2009. Grundsätzlich ist aber in keiner der untersuchten EE- Ausbauvarianten die Versorgungssicherheit in Form von ausreichender installierter Kraftwerksleistung oder die Versorgungszuverlässigkeit in Form ausreichender Erbringung von Systemdienstleistungen bis 2020 gefährdet. “

Rough translation without guarantee:
The depending analysis of the effects on the electric-current-generation-systems displays that the implications of a 40% share of renewable energies [comment: for electricity generation until the year 2020] are fully realizable and economically justifyable for conventional powerplant configurations. Without a change in the juridicial and regulatory framings, as well as without a change in technical regulatory regimes there would be however above a 40% share considerable economical warpages. So for example the costs for system services as well as the costs for the usage of electric grids are clearly higher than for the 30% variant. The additional costs for consumers for the year 2020 for the 50% variant versus the 30% variant are about 20 billion Euros (2009). In principle however for all considered variants there is no danger for the security of energy supplies in form of installed power plant power or service reliability until 2020.

So according to this study making Germany get half of their electric energy from non-fossil and non-nuclear power by 2020 would have an additional cost of about:

20 billion Euros

As a comparision:

the bank HRE got sofar about 100 billion Euros in help and guarantees.

(According to Wikipedia of this sum 87 billion Euros are state money (?), Bloomberg sais in the article “Hypo Real Estate Receives Extension of Financial Aid (Update1)” that “the rescue package includes alone 52 billion euros in Soffin guarantees.”)

It currently looks as if this Hypo Real Estate bank has really no future (see e.g. the german article “Experten empfehlen Abwicklung der HRE”).

This was somewhat forseeable already two years ago and I wonder now and I wondered back then what this does imply for the german state obligations. May be this information is again hidden somewhere on the webpage of german ministry for economy and I just can’t find it.

->see also randform post About the “Concept for an integrated energy-research program for Germany”

In the blogpost on the return of investments I proposed to use games for testing new economical scenarious. I currently try to make an article out of that.
In the draft I sofar have given an overview about games and roughly motivated why I think that it may be a good idea to introduce new economical schemes. In particular I talk about the limitations of this planet, design and in particular about something that I dubbed “recycling-run-away effect”.

Amongst others I also try to line out why I think that the nuclear waste problem may be a worse problem than the safety of reactors (see also the first post on Fukushima).

Comments are appreciated, here is the draft:
update (06072015) :
It currently looks as if an article format is rather not suited for the writings and findings made within the context of the game draft article. It is also still not clear wether this project will ever be finished and if in which form. You may though still find on and off some informations in this context, likethis blog post is an example.

update (06072011) : This blog post is now used as a referrer URL for the game scheme article, thus newer versions of the article and comments will be uploaded more or less regularily. Please note that this offer to our randform readers costs our private money. Since randform is currently purely financed by Tim Hoffmanns income as a math professor, we may eventually be forced to reduce or close this offer, depending on download rate, inflation, etc. Most of the content of the article is also spread on the Azimuth project like the section about the Game environment. The Azimuth updates are usually more current.

->version July 06, 2011

The most essential content article of the article was presented on July 1st at the open knowledge conference 2011 in Berlin:

Talk: “Testing new toy economies/political structures in MMOGs” at slideshare.net

older versions of the article:

->version May 25, 2011

->version april 26, 2011

-> New economical schemes in games, version march 25, 2011

On sunday the 7 th fleet reported:

The U.S. 7th Fleet has temporarily repositioned its ships and aircraft away from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant after detecting low level contamination in the air and on its aircraft operating in the area.

The source of this airborne radioactivity is a radioactive plume released from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant. For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship’s force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun.

The ship was operating at sea about 100 miles northeast of the power plant at the time.

24*30 = 720

So this means the boat received a 720 fold radiation at a distance of about 160 kms of the troubled Fukushima nuclear plant from what’s supposed to be normal.

Even if one assumes that the density of such a plume disperses quadratically one would have 720*(160^2/270^2) = approx. 250 times higher dose then normal, or in other words in one hour one would perceive about a third of a months radiation dose above normal being in such a plume at a distance of 270 kms (which is the approximate distance between Fukushima and Tokyo). Luckily the ship could get out fast of the hazardous zone.

Unfortunately the possibilities to alter weather are very small. In fact there were experiments in Abu Dhabi and it seems China is also doing a lot of research in that direction, seen critical by some others. The latest research item in cloud seeding seems to have been laser shots into the air over the sky of Berlin (see also this article ).

The information about what’s really going on at the plant is fuzzy. It is understandable that some people would like to avoid a panic and thus would not make all information available to a broad uninformed public, who might draw false conclusions. But some people would like to appease people by making unscientific claims about certain likelyhoods (while at the same time claiming that nothing can be measured!). But one should think about how such an approach may impair credibility…this holds especially true for some certain news agencies, who’s reports are less based on facts but on biased commentaries disguised as “facts”.

So here a bit of information taken together:
An interactive map from the New York times of the Fukushima plant with a BWR design which (if I understood correctly) is by General Electric. An illustration by Hitachi of the concrete Fukushima plant seems to be in this pdf. The design looks a bit differently than the General electrics one…
A rather matter of fact and informative blog post about what happened at Fukushima by what seems to be a pro-nuclear writer (at least he cites pro-nuclear sources). What one got to hear sofar is that the reactor vessels and the containment of the troubled plants are still intact.

Our thoughts are with the japanese people and their grief.

Moreover we hope that the brave workers at the Fukushima power plants will succeed with their plans to avoid the worst. We hope that it will be possible to supply more and better equipment (see e.g. Kyodo news about the 5 fire pumps) to the dangerous Fukushima area and that with international help the results of the earthquake, Tsunami and nuclear disaster can be mitigated and that the worst possible nuclear scenarios won’t happen at Fukushima.

update 16.3.2011: I forgot to include a link to the

->overview on nuclear energy on randform

In this overview I actually saw the probability of a terrible accident with currently exisiting reactors as rather small. So in this overview I focused on problems with future types of nuclear energy generation (which include even more dangerous nuclear technology) and with the waste problem. I am asking myself now if I should give nuclear energy even more critical scrutiny.

(more…)

Unfortunately the laptop crash problem is still unresoved and blogging will stay retarded. Before the crash I edited already two posts.

This here is the first post it is about comments on nuclear energy which I left on other blogs. Moreover it gives a motivation why I wrote the second post which is an overview over the posts on nuclear energy on randform. (please see below)
(more…)