As earnings season approaches, I'm excited to see three stocks I hold continue an upward march. Google, Home Capital Group, and Schlumberger have all seen 10% increases in the last week and are marching very close to the target prices I set for them almost 2 years ago. At the same time, I chose 3 other companies as well on the basis of a screen I developed after extensive research and after performing a detailed valuation of the companies that resulted from the screen to find the 6 trading farthest below their intrinsic value. This process took a long time but so far has been quite successful, with the exception of one company.
In March 2009 I purchased equally weighted amounts of Home Capital Group, Research in Motion, Intuitive Surgical, Google, Apple, and Schlumberger. It was my first foray into the stock market (aside from mutual funds and index funds) so I wanted to play around with a small figure so just used $500 for the whole kit and caboodle. I trade through Canadian Shareowner Investments, a co-op trading firm that allows investors like me to buy fractional shares in companies. For companies like Google, for example, you'd have to fork out multiple hundreds of dollars for a single share. With CSI I can just choose a dollar figure and I own a fraction of a share in conjunction with other investors. The only disadvantage is the trading fees are a touch higher if trading one security at a time and the if you want to pay the lower fees, the sales only occur on set days. So if your stock is real high and you think it's going to drop real low quick, it's a little nerve wracking to place a sell order and know it won't be final for 20 days!
So here's how I've done so far. My first success story was Intuitive Surgical, a manufacturer of sophisticated surgical equipment like laparoscopic and robotic equipment. I purchased it at $100.46 in August 2009. Exactly 5 months later it hit over my target price (what I calculated to be the intrinsic value of the company) so I sold it at $223.11. Including fees this worked out to a 76% increase. Not too shabby! But, 18 months later I have learned lesson #1. I have been taught from my reading that once a company hits your target price, it should not trigger you to immediately sell. You set a stop loss 10% below your target price and a new alert at 10% above. If it drops 10% you sell it. If it rises 10%, you reset your stop loss targets 10% below the new level and so on, until you see a dip. Had I been patient and not jumped at the excitement of gaining 76% in 5 months I would have sold it at $328.77 almost exactly a year later (based on the price history since I sold it). That would have meant a gain of 172%. So, lesson #1=PATIENCE.
I originally purchased Apple at $115.18, pegging its intrinsic value around $210. This time I was patient and when it hit its target I held on. It eventually rose above $260 before dipping enough to trigger me to sell it at $258.75. With fees included my gain was 56% in 16 months. Again, not too bad for a newbie!
After this I was pretty excited for more success. Unfortunately, since then things have been pretty slow. I also made the potential mistake of plowing my returns to date into the poorest performing stock at the time after revaluating it and finding it was still trading well below valuation (Research in Motion, by the way). It has gone up somewhat since then but it has a LONG way to go to hit my valuation! That was lesson #2. Next time I do this I'm going to take out my winnings, buy a safe ETF with them, and then by a whole new batch when the last one sells.
Right now, 3 of my remaining 4 stocks are doing VERY well. Home Capital and Schlumberger have now past my target and are just being watched closely to see when I should sell. So far they seem to just keep going up. At worst, I'm looking at gaining 110% on Home Capital Group and 85% on Schlumberger. Google is marching steadily onward to my target price and currently sits at a 60% gain. RIM endlessly angers me and is in the doldrums at -20%. Damn.
Oh well, even if I were to sell all of them now (which I won't do: see lesson #1), with all fees included, I would still sit at a 39% gain. Not too bad for someone starting out from square one! If I had put the same asset allocation (%CDN:%US) in TD e-series Index Funds (which I do with my RRSPs) I'd be at roughly the same gain, so I'm happy with that. Most professionals can't even beat the index so I'm happy to be 0.5% below it. Plus, now the fees for CSI are lower and I haven't actually sold all my stocks yet, so I'm hoping I can best the market!
I do it mostly for fun and the challenge. I'm not going to get rich on it. My getting rich scheme is slowly socking away significant savings in an index fund portfolio. Pretty boring, I know!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
New Years Resolutions
I've never done them. Ever. They don't work. I work in retail pharmacy, an industry that arguably is the only one to see higher sales in January than in December. We have so many people buying vitamins, minerals, herbals, detox kits, weight loss pills, etc. to realize New Years Resolutions. The sad thing about New Years Resolutions is that the majority of them crash and burn. Weight loss is the most common of course. The first Weight Watchers meeting after January 1 is standing room only. In obesity treatment circles we say that a diet consists of the least amount of calories and most exercise that a patient can tolerate. A healthy lifestyle is the least amount of calories and most exercise a patient can enjoy. That is, there is no point making any lifestyle change unless it is something you can continue forever. Going to the gym 5 times per week at 6:00 am is not likely to be one of those unless you are a fitness buff to begin with. So this year, do yourself a favor. Don't make any New Years Resolutions. Instead, aim to make small, sustainable changes in your life every day of the year that will accumulate into a healthier you by next December.
In the meantime, if you're feeling like some self-masochistic exercise, I dare you to do this workout and not feel like you want to die at the end. (Yes, the freeze frame is purposefully provocative.)
In the meantime, if you're feeling like some self-masochistic exercise, I dare you to do this workout and not feel like you want to die at the end. (Yes, the freeze frame is purposefully provocative.)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
I am officially a Bodyrocker
It's amazing the things you find while randomly perusing Youtube. I was watching a hilarious video of Cookie Monster doing vocals for Rammstein's Du Hast when I saw an intriguing thumbnail on the side. I will openly admit it was not the subject matter that intrigued me. Anyone who sees this video will understand why I originally clicked on it. I'm not going to sugarcoat it people.
Now, aside from the obvious visual candy this video provides, I must say I was interested in this concept. I really do enjoy working out but I HATE weights, I don't want to go to a gym because it just won't happen, it's too damn cold outside to exercise outdoors, treadmills and ellipticals bore me, and a man can only do so many pushups and situps before he dies from boredom. So the thought of having a nearly endless smorgasboard of bodyweight exercises I can do in my own home makes me salivate. (Okay, maybe it's the scantily clad instructor causing the salivation, but I need motivation so I'll take what I can get.)
From where does the impetus for this come might you ask? Well, if you recall, I did a post exactly two months ago on getting back on track with Weight Watchers. It hasn't turned out so well. I had one good week and then it all went to hell from there. I have been baking for about the last month at least twice a week to produce this cornucopia of sweetness.
I bake every year at this time. I love it. It relaxes me and I give away a bunch of goodies to friends and family. But I INSIST on the highest quality in my finished product which means a LOT of quality control. That translates into my pants fitting quite snug. I got a little bummed out when I looked in the mirror the other night. Yes, men have body image issues too. Well, at least some men. My bigger concern though is what the image represents. Love handles are more scientifically known as central adiposity and they are a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. See below for more on that.
So I thought, I'm going to become a Bodyrocker. Not only am I going to get my ass back on track with Weight Watchers (I know how to do it, I just have to smarten up and actually do it and realize finally 20 pounds later than I'm not invincible anymore) but I'm going to get in shape. Honestly, working with people with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome every day makes me really want to get in shape so I'm here to see my grandchildren grow into adults. And I also realized, after feeling to keep my weight off for more than a year, that keeping your weight off WITHOUT exercise is next to impossible. The scientific evidence supports that and I loves me some scientific evidence, but when it comes to my personal life I usually turn a blind eye to it.
I started with Bodyrocks Absolute Beginners series that you can get on Youtube. Then once I slaughtered myself doing that I am now joining in on her nightly exercises. They are different every night and usually fairly short, like 20-30 minutes. They're fun and they make you sweat like mad. Seriously. Check the one out tonight. 75 high knee jump ropes followed by 25 squats. Repeat 9 more times. Puke. This woman did all 10 sets in 18 minutes! It took me 35 minutes and now I can barely walk up the stairs. Seriously. That's half the reason I'm writing this post. I can't get out of the computer chair. And Zuzana did this with a freakin 8kg sandbag on her back for the squats. You have to respect that. And her form sickens me. I look like a gyrating ectomorphic mass most of the time. But that is why she looks like this (yes, they're fake),
and I look like this (mine're all real).
But some day I will be a certified Bodyrocker too! Wait and see!
Current weight: 185lbs
Current BMI: 28.1
Goal weight: 164 lbs
Goal BMI: 24.9
PS-For all you BMI naysayers, a MASSIVE study published in the New England Journal of Medicine recently looked at mortality in 1.5 million white adults over a period of 10 years. It found that the healthiest weight was one with a BMI of 20-24.9. Death rates in the group 20-22.4 were similar to those in the 22.5-24.9 group. They used to think lower was better but now it appears a 22.5-24.9 BMI is just as healthy, which is good news for us who struggle with weight as it is much more attainable and sustainable. Even being a bit overweight (25-29.9) increased risk of mortality by 1.13X. Those with BMIs 40-49.9 had the highest mortality rates, increasing their risk over normal weight individuals by 2.51. To give you an example of how big that is, I'd have to weigh 265 lbs on a 5'8" frame.
Now, aside from the obvious visual candy this video provides, I must say I was interested in this concept. I really do enjoy working out but I HATE weights, I don't want to go to a gym because it just won't happen, it's too damn cold outside to exercise outdoors, treadmills and ellipticals bore me, and a man can only do so many pushups and situps before he dies from boredom. So the thought of having a nearly endless smorgasboard of bodyweight exercises I can do in my own home makes me salivate. (Okay, maybe it's the scantily clad instructor causing the salivation, but I need motivation so I'll take what I can get.)
From where does the impetus for this come might you ask? Well, if you recall, I did a post exactly two months ago on getting back on track with Weight Watchers. It hasn't turned out so well. I had one good week and then it all went to hell from there. I have been baking for about the last month at least twice a week to produce this cornucopia of sweetness.
I bake every year at this time. I love it. It relaxes me and I give away a bunch of goodies to friends and family. But I INSIST on the highest quality in my finished product which means a LOT of quality control. That translates into my pants fitting quite snug. I got a little bummed out when I looked in the mirror the other night. Yes, men have body image issues too. Well, at least some men. My bigger concern though is what the image represents. Love handles are more scientifically known as central adiposity and they are a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. See below for more on that.
So I thought, I'm going to become a Bodyrocker. Not only am I going to get my ass back on track with Weight Watchers (I know how to do it, I just have to smarten up and actually do it and realize finally 20 pounds later than I'm not invincible anymore) but I'm going to get in shape. Honestly, working with people with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome every day makes me really want to get in shape so I'm here to see my grandchildren grow into adults. And I also realized, after feeling to keep my weight off for more than a year, that keeping your weight off WITHOUT exercise is next to impossible. The scientific evidence supports that and I loves me some scientific evidence, but when it comes to my personal life I usually turn a blind eye to it.
I started with Bodyrocks Absolute Beginners series that you can get on Youtube. Then once I slaughtered myself doing that I am now joining in on her nightly exercises. They are different every night and usually fairly short, like 20-30 minutes. They're fun and they make you sweat like mad. Seriously. Check the one out tonight. 75 high knee jump ropes followed by 25 squats. Repeat 9 more times. Puke. This woman did all 10 sets in 18 minutes! It took me 35 minutes and now I can barely walk up the stairs. Seriously. That's half the reason I'm writing this post. I can't get out of the computer chair. And Zuzana did this with a freakin 8kg sandbag on her back for the squats. You have to respect that. And her form sickens me. I look like a gyrating ectomorphic mass most of the time. But that is why she looks like this (yes, they're fake),
and I look like this (mine're all real).
But some day I will be a certified Bodyrocker too! Wait and see!
Current weight: 185lbs
Current BMI: 28.1
Goal weight: 164 lbs
Goal BMI: 24.9
PS-For all you BMI naysayers, a MASSIVE study published in the New England Journal of Medicine recently looked at mortality in 1.5 million white adults over a period of 10 years. It found that the healthiest weight was one with a BMI of 20-24.9. Death rates in the group 20-22.4 were similar to those in the 22.5-24.9 group. They used to think lower was better but now it appears a 22.5-24.9 BMI is just as healthy, which is good news for us who struggle with weight as it is much more attainable and sustainable. Even being a bit overweight (25-29.9) increased risk of mortality by 1.13X. Those with BMIs 40-49.9 had the highest mortality rates, increasing their risk over normal weight individuals by 2.51. To give you an example of how big that is, I'd have to weigh 265 lbs on a 5'8" frame.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Dinosmarts
My wife spent the weekend in Edmonton having a little time with her sisters before baby #3 comes along. She brought home a sticker book for Sacha filled with dinosaur stickers and tons of facts about dinosaurs. It states a fact about a dinosaur and then has an outline of the sticker you need to place there. While going through the book with him, he made so many astute observations I just had to share them. Keep in mind this boy is only 4 years old.
1. Book-"Dinosaur X was a speedy carnivore and hunted its prey at night."
Sacha-"Oh, cool. That means he is nocturnal."
2. Book-Showed various dinosaurs and where they were first discovered. They showed one dinosaur that was discovered in Argentina.
Sacha-"Oh, yeah, just like the Argentinosaurus."
3. Book-Shows a picture of a velociraptor a la Jurassic Park, that is, hard scaly features, not feathers. Paleontological evidence proves that velociraptors had feathers because arm bones have been found of them with quill knobs in the bone. Sacha has learned about velociraptor feathers on his favorite show, which is also highly educational, Dinosaur Train, on PBS.
Sacha-"Hey, that picture is wrong. That velociraptor has got no feathers."
4. Book-Shows a veritable cornucopia of pterosaurs.
Sacha-Pointing to one of the smallest picture on a page of probably 30 different pterosaurs says, "Hey, there's a peteinosaurus." And he was right.
5. Book-Shows a picture of an archaeopteryx.
Me-"Do you remember what 'archaeopteryx' means?"
Sacha-Somewhat incredulous that I had the nerve to ask. "Uh yeah, it means 'old wing'."
6. Book-Shows a picture of a pterosaur flying low to the ground and says "Pterosaurs had to be careful not to be eaten by spinosaurus."
Sacha-"Daddy, but spinosaurus eats fish."
Daddy-"Well, maybe they ate birds too."
Sacha-"No. Pterosaurs aren't birds. They aren't dinosaurs either. They're just pterosaurs."
And he's right. They were flying reptiles, not birds, not dinosaurs. Silly daddy.
The kids knows more about dinosaurs than me.
1. Book-"Dinosaur X was a speedy carnivore and hunted its prey at night."
Sacha-"Oh, cool. That means he is nocturnal."
2. Book-Showed various dinosaurs and where they were first discovered. They showed one dinosaur that was discovered in Argentina.
Sacha-"Oh, yeah, just like the Argentinosaurus."
3. Book-Shows a picture of a velociraptor a la Jurassic Park, that is, hard scaly features, not feathers. Paleontological evidence proves that velociraptors had feathers because arm bones have been found of them with quill knobs in the bone. Sacha has learned about velociraptor feathers on his favorite show, which is also highly educational, Dinosaur Train, on PBS.
Sacha-"Hey, that picture is wrong. That velociraptor has got no feathers."
4. Book-Shows a veritable cornucopia of pterosaurs.
Sacha-Pointing to one of the smallest picture on a page of probably 30 different pterosaurs says, "Hey, there's a peteinosaurus." And he was right.
5. Book-Shows a picture of an archaeopteryx.
Me-"Do you remember what 'archaeopteryx' means?"
Sacha-Somewhat incredulous that I had the nerve to ask. "Uh yeah, it means 'old wing'."
6. Book-Shows a picture of a pterosaur flying low to the ground and says "Pterosaurs had to be careful not to be eaten by spinosaurus."
Sacha-"Daddy, but spinosaurus eats fish."
Daddy-"Well, maybe they ate birds too."
Sacha-"No. Pterosaurs aren't birds. They aren't dinosaurs either. They're just pterosaurs."
And he's right. They were flying reptiles, not birds, not dinosaurs. Silly daddy.
The kids knows more about dinosaurs than me.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
I saw a hilarious video today on YouTube narrated by Jeremy Irons that mocks nature films and describes the life of the "majestic plastic bag". Then when I started to recall the truth about this video, a phenomenon known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, it made me sad. There is a floating mass of plastic trash in the north Pacific that some estimates state is the size of Texas. There are some very disturbing pictures here. Or you can just Google Image "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "North Pacific Gyre" or "Pacific Trash Vortex". That's the last time I forget my reusable bags in the car. How depressing.
Other wasteful human behaviors visible in my community that enrage me:
1. Running your unnecessarily large truck for 45 minutes when the outside temperature is a devastating -1C.
2. Producing 4 full garbage bins of waste every week for a family of 3.
3. Throwing out easily recyclable materials like paper and cardboard.
4. Driving past a collection of 3 houses where no special events, holidays, or birthday parties are occurring, only 1 family lives in each house, yet there are over 10 vehicles parked outside.
5. Making 4 even more depressing, driving down a residential street on which every single house has a double car garage but not a single one has a vehicle parked in it. The garages are full of stuff that long ago lost all utility even though when they were purchased they were considered a "need".
Other wasteful human behaviors visible in my community that enrage me:
1. Running your unnecessarily large truck for 45 minutes when the outside temperature is a devastating -1C.
2. Producing 4 full garbage bins of waste every week for a family of 3.
3. Throwing out easily recyclable materials like paper and cardboard.
4. Driving past a collection of 3 houses where no special events, holidays, or birthday parties are occurring, only 1 family lives in each house, yet there are over 10 vehicles parked outside.
5. Making 4 even more depressing, driving down a residential street on which every single house has a double car garage but not a single one has a vehicle parked in it. The garages are full of stuff that long ago lost all utility even though when they were purchased they were considered a "need".
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Terrestrial Energy
When I first moved here two years ago I was interested in nuclear energy more for what it represented as an economic prospect for this town than as an energy production method in and of itself. In the ensuing years I heard so much misinformation and emotional banter thrown around about nuclear power I decided to dig deeper. I did a lot of research from trusted sources on the Web. The more I dug, the more this incredible technology interested me. So, I did what I always do and I bought two in-depth books on the subject.
Now, don't get me wrong, I really did try to find a book that presented the anti-nuclear viewpoint. I just couldn't. I found a few but when I read the excerpts it was very clear they were not looking at the issue from an objective standpoint. When I research something in the scientific literature I want to see references to back up statements. The few anti-nuke books I found were so devoid of references as to be essentially personal diatribes against the industry. Not so for the two balanced yet conclusively pro-nuke books I finally purchased.
The first is called Power to Save the World by Gwyneth Cravens. Cravens is a former anti-nuclear protester turned pro-nuclear supporter after she set out to find as much about the industry as she could to fight it. What she found so astonished and amazed her that she couldn't help but support the cause, which she did by writing this overview of the entire nuclear industry from uranium extraction right on to handling of nuclear waste. The book is exhaustively researched and well documented. It's a thick sludge of a read at times but for the most part is quite captivating, especially for those of a scientific mindset.
I am now onto the second book, called Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker. In contrast to energy sources derived from solar energy (wind, biofuels, fossil fuels, solar) terrestrial energy is that which comes from the Earth. Geothermal energy is the most obvious form of terrestrial energy, but believe it or not, nuclear power is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is responsible for the balmy molten core of the Earth. The book attempts to look at the entire energy picture, starting with discussing the ongoing public disagreement about the causes of global warming, then moving onto fossil fuels, solar and renewables, and finally onto nuclear, ending the book with a discussion of the nuclear industry in France, world leaders in nuclear energy.
Honestly, if every Albertan were to read these two books, or even just excerpts, Alberta would be jumping on the nuclear bandwagon. We would be able to stop importing electricity from British Columbia and possibly even start exporting some at a net economic gain. According to Alberta Energy, we currently net import $110 million worth of electricity per year. We would also stop emitting more greenhouse gases than any other province in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, in 2005 Alberta produced 30 million more tons of GHG emissions than Ontario, a province with a population 4 times that of Alberta. If Alberta were to replace one 4000MW coal plant with one 4000MW nuclear plant, that single act alone would make us achieve our carbon emission reduction targets for 2030 (I cannot reference this statement; it is from an engineering study done internally by a company for which a colleague works).
So why aren't we? Well, like I said, read the books. I'm seriously considering sending my copies to Ron Liepert, Alberta Minister of Energy, once I'm done with them. Although, I think a bulky package arriving in his office might arouse suspicion. But for those of you reading this, I treat you to an excerpt from Mr. Tucker's incredible book that I found truly awe inspiring. Enjoy. (Emphases added.)
"[Speaking of the incredible energy inside the earth that makes its core hotter than the surface of the sun]...anywhere from 60 to 90 percent by most estimates comes from a remarkable diminutive source--the slow breakdown of two of the ninety naturally occurring elements found in the earth--uranium and thorium...Because of their size, they are "radioactive", meaning they are unstable. The internal "binding energy" that overrides the mutual repulsion among positively charged protons is occasionally overcome itself. This releases large quantities of energy, which sets subatomic particles in motion, creating large amounts of heat. Incredibly, the slow breakdown of these two radioactive elements, uranium and thorium, is enough to raise the earth's internal temperature beyond the level of the surface of the sun...Drill down ten miles almost anywhere on earth and you will encounter enough heat to boil water...But here's a better idea. Why don't we just take the source of that heat---the uranium or thorium--bring it to the surface, and reproduce or even accelerate the process that produces this heat in a controlled environment?
This is what we do in a nuclear reactor.
[This process] is really no different than tapping fossilized solar energy...We find stored solar energy beneath the earth's surface. We mine it, we bring it to the surface, we concentrate it. We ignite it, starting a chain reaction where the energy released from one molecular breakdown triggers a breakdown of the next. We capture the heat to boil water, to produce steam, to drive a turbine, to generate electricity...A nuclear reactor is nothing more than terrestrial energy brought to the surface, just as a coal plant is stored solar energy brought to the surface. There is nothing sinister or diabolical about it. We are not defying the laws of nature. Rather, we are working with a process that already takes place in nature. (In fact, nuclear fission chain reactions have been found to occur in natural uranium deposits near Oklo, Gabon)....
There is one great difference between terrestrial energy and solar energy, however, and that is the energy density. Terrestrial energy is far more concentrated--by a factor of about two million...This distinction is the key to understanding why terrestrial energy offers such a remarkable possibility for powering the planet without disrupting the environment....
Consider a gallon of gasoline. The "orbital" energy (that contained within the electrons orbiting the nucleus) stored in this gallon is enough to propel a 3,000 pound automobile about 30 miles--an extraordinary feat when you think about it...Yet if we could tap the binding energy stored in the nucleus of those same molecules it would be enough to propel the same automobile 60 million miles, almost all the way to Mars...
[Let's compare two power plants, one coal, one nuclear]...The North Omaha Power Plant in Omaha, Nebraska, produces 500MW of electricity, about one-fifth the power needed to run the city. Every three days, a 110-car unit train arrives and each car is loaded with 125 tons of coal (13 750 tons every 3 days). One car produces twenty minutes of electricity. (Roughly 36 hours of electricity produced by the whole train.) The plant occupies more than two square miles. Each day's consumption of 4500 tons of coal at North Omaha will combine with atmospheric oxygen to form 15000 tons of carbon dioxide. Across the country, America has 600 similar coal plants that provide half our electricity and put 3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year--10 percent of the world's total...
About thirty miles south of Omaha lies the Cooper Nuclear Station on the banks of the Missouri River. The plant occupies two square miles...Every eighteen months, a single tractor-trailer arrives carrying several dozen bundles of 18-foot nuclear fuel rods. These rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled safely with gloves. They are loaded into the reactor core, where they will undergo nuclear fission for three years...The Cooper Station produces no sulfur emissions, no mercury, no soot, no particulate matter, no ash, no slag, and no greenhouse gases. And it does produce more electricity than North Omaha--750MW...
Solar energy in its many forms has accustomed us to the idea that using energy must create huge environmental impacts, either by polluting or by occupying vast tracts of land. Terrestrial energy is so highly concentrated that it can provide us with enormous amounts of energy while barely leaving a trace."
Now, don't get me wrong, I really did try to find a book that presented the anti-nuclear viewpoint. I just couldn't. I found a few but when I read the excerpts it was very clear they were not looking at the issue from an objective standpoint. When I research something in the scientific literature I want to see references to back up statements. The few anti-nuke books I found were so devoid of references as to be essentially personal diatribes against the industry. Not so for the two balanced yet conclusively pro-nuke books I finally purchased.
The first is called Power to Save the World by Gwyneth Cravens. Cravens is a former anti-nuclear protester turned pro-nuclear supporter after she set out to find as much about the industry as she could to fight it. What she found so astonished and amazed her that she couldn't help but support the cause, which she did by writing this overview of the entire nuclear industry from uranium extraction right on to handling of nuclear waste. The book is exhaustively researched and well documented. It's a thick sludge of a read at times but for the most part is quite captivating, especially for those of a scientific mindset.
I am now onto the second book, called Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker. In contrast to energy sources derived from solar energy (wind, biofuels, fossil fuels, solar) terrestrial energy is that which comes from the Earth. Geothermal energy is the most obvious form of terrestrial energy, but believe it or not, nuclear power is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is responsible for the balmy molten core of the Earth. The book attempts to look at the entire energy picture, starting with discussing the ongoing public disagreement about the causes of global warming, then moving onto fossil fuels, solar and renewables, and finally onto nuclear, ending the book with a discussion of the nuclear industry in France, world leaders in nuclear energy.
Honestly, if every Albertan were to read these two books, or even just excerpts, Alberta would be jumping on the nuclear bandwagon. We would be able to stop importing electricity from British Columbia and possibly even start exporting some at a net economic gain. According to Alberta Energy, we currently net import $110 million worth of electricity per year. We would also stop emitting more greenhouse gases than any other province in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, in 2005 Alberta produced 30 million more tons of GHG emissions than Ontario, a province with a population 4 times that of Alberta. If Alberta were to replace one 4000MW coal plant with one 4000MW nuclear plant, that single act alone would make us achieve our carbon emission reduction targets for 2030 (I cannot reference this statement; it is from an engineering study done internally by a company for which a colleague works).
So why aren't we? Well, like I said, read the books. I'm seriously considering sending my copies to Ron Liepert, Alberta Minister of Energy, once I'm done with them. Although, I think a bulky package arriving in his office might arouse suspicion. But for those of you reading this, I treat you to an excerpt from Mr. Tucker's incredible book that I found truly awe inspiring. Enjoy. (Emphases added.)
"[Speaking of the incredible energy inside the earth that makes its core hotter than the surface of the sun]...anywhere from 60 to 90 percent by most estimates comes from a remarkable diminutive source--the slow breakdown of two of the ninety naturally occurring elements found in the earth--uranium and thorium...Because of their size, they are "radioactive", meaning they are unstable. The internal "binding energy" that overrides the mutual repulsion among positively charged protons is occasionally overcome itself. This releases large quantities of energy, which sets subatomic particles in motion, creating large amounts of heat. Incredibly, the slow breakdown of these two radioactive elements, uranium and thorium, is enough to raise the earth's internal temperature beyond the level of the surface of the sun...Drill down ten miles almost anywhere on earth and you will encounter enough heat to boil water...But here's a better idea. Why don't we just take the source of that heat---the uranium or thorium--bring it to the surface, and reproduce or even accelerate the process that produces this heat in a controlled environment?
This is what we do in a nuclear reactor.
[This process] is really no different than tapping fossilized solar energy...We find stored solar energy beneath the earth's surface. We mine it, we bring it to the surface, we concentrate it. We ignite it, starting a chain reaction where the energy released from one molecular breakdown triggers a breakdown of the next. We capture the heat to boil water, to produce steam, to drive a turbine, to generate electricity...A nuclear reactor is nothing more than terrestrial energy brought to the surface, just as a coal plant is stored solar energy brought to the surface. There is nothing sinister or diabolical about it. We are not defying the laws of nature. Rather, we are working with a process that already takes place in nature. (In fact, nuclear fission chain reactions have been found to occur in natural uranium deposits near Oklo, Gabon)....
There is one great difference between terrestrial energy and solar energy, however, and that is the energy density. Terrestrial energy is far more concentrated--by a factor of about two million...This distinction is the key to understanding why terrestrial energy offers such a remarkable possibility for powering the planet without disrupting the environment....
Consider a gallon of gasoline. The "orbital" energy (that contained within the electrons orbiting the nucleus) stored in this gallon is enough to propel a 3,000 pound automobile about 30 miles--an extraordinary feat when you think about it...Yet if we could tap the binding energy stored in the nucleus of those same molecules it would be enough to propel the same automobile 60 million miles, almost all the way to Mars...
[Let's compare two power plants, one coal, one nuclear]...The North Omaha Power Plant in Omaha, Nebraska, produces 500MW of electricity, about one-fifth the power needed to run the city. Every three days, a 110-car unit train arrives and each car is loaded with 125 tons of coal (13 750 tons every 3 days). One car produces twenty minutes of electricity. (Roughly 36 hours of electricity produced by the whole train.) The plant occupies more than two square miles. Each day's consumption of 4500 tons of coal at North Omaha will combine with atmospheric oxygen to form 15000 tons of carbon dioxide. Across the country, America has 600 similar coal plants that provide half our electricity and put 3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year--10 percent of the world's total...
About thirty miles south of Omaha lies the Cooper Nuclear Station on the banks of the Missouri River. The plant occupies two square miles...Every eighteen months, a single tractor-trailer arrives carrying several dozen bundles of 18-foot nuclear fuel rods. These rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled safely with gloves. They are loaded into the reactor core, where they will undergo nuclear fission for three years...The Cooper Station produces no sulfur emissions, no mercury, no soot, no particulate matter, no ash, no slag, and no greenhouse gases. And it does produce more electricity than North Omaha--750MW...
Solar energy in its many forms has accustomed us to the idea that using energy must create huge environmental impacts, either by polluting or by occupying vast tracts of land. Terrestrial energy is so highly concentrated that it can provide us with enormous amounts of energy while barely leaving a trace."
Anti-vaccine fears have consequences
The fears of the anti-vaccine movement are not only unsubstantiated, but they create more disastrous outcomes than the very worst of their ignorant prognostications. Case in point: my colleague had to deal with an elderly Native man having a transient ischemic attack (mini-stroke) right in the pharmacy. It was a harrowing incident for her and many in the store. Unfortunately the gentleman refused to go to the hospital even after the paramedics arrived and confirmed my colleague's diagnosis because he "felt better". What did this lead to in our store? An outpouring of congratulations to my colleague and the brave way she handled the whole situation? Frustration at a man who was generously helped by a caring health professional but then refused to take responsibility for his own health? Nope. The spreading of unsubstantiated rumors that he had been given the stroke by the flu vaccine my colleague is giving patients right now. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence linking vaccines to strokes, not even in the most ridiculous assertions of the online anti-vaccine movement. Second of all, the GUY NEVER EVEN GOT THE FLU VACCINE.
The truly ironic fact of the anti-vaccine movement is that while they are willing to accept thoroughly disproved scientific tenets they refuse to accept well documented truths. For example, North American lifestyle causes much more morbidity and premature mortality than even the most outlandish prediction of vaccine-induced adversity ever would. More importantly, acceptance of their argument and application of their solutions to this non-existent problem would cause and DOES cause even more suffering as evidenced by an incredible article in The Guardian.
Vivienne Parry does a phenomenal job documenting the consequences of the anti-vaccine movement. The most depressing aspect of this article is that anti-vaccine fears of affluent North Americans that are able to fend off infectious disease with relative ease are causing the most harm to those least able to defend themselves against infectious disease: the impoverished in developing nations. Read the article. If after reading it you still harbor animosity toward vaccines then give your head a shake. And spare the rest of us. If you want to put your own life at risk by not getting vaccinated against dangerous diseases, fine. But don't put the rest of the world at risk by spreading your virulent misinformation.
The truly ironic fact of the anti-vaccine movement is that while they are willing to accept thoroughly disproved scientific tenets they refuse to accept well documented truths. For example, North American lifestyle causes much more morbidity and premature mortality than even the most outlandish prediction of vaccine-induced adversity ever would. More importantly, acceptance of their argument and application of their solutions to this non-existent problem would cause and DOES cause even more suffering as evidenced by an incredible article in The Guardian.
Vivienne Parry does a phenomenal job documenting the consequences of the anti-vaccine movement. The most depressing aspect of this article is that anti-vaccine fears of affluent North Americans that are able to fend off infectious disease with relative ease are causing the most harm to those least able to defend themselves against infectious disease: the impoverished in developing nations. Read the article. If after reading it you still harbor animosity toward vaccines then give your head a shake. And spare the rest of us. If you want to put your own life at risk by not getting vaccinated against dangerous diseases, fine. But don't put the rest of the world at risk by spreading your virulent misinformation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)