When Abandoned Mines Collapse
practical.engineering
practical.engineering
"And so, amazingly, for the first 20 years of its use, the main effect of the most important lifesaving technology in the history of coal mining was to increase the efficiency of the mines while preserving existing probabilities of death and injury."
To me, this is the hardest-hitting sentence of the entire article.
Be sure to remember this whenever a new achievement in efficiency (power or otherwise) is announced, be it in computing, industry, or transportation. Such advances are rarely aimed at lessening the load on the environment; not at first, anyway. Instead, they are used for extracting more profits, while burdening the environment just the same -- I think "more profits" is the incentive for such research and advances in the first place. I think the EU does it right, by demanding progress via regulations. Whether those directives are issued after the technological advances are reported, or the directives are the motivation for the research, I cannot say; either way, advances can be steered toward public benefits only via regulations.
>Mark began by taking a vertical slice of, say, Chartres and replicating it in a special kind of plastic. He’d then hang fishing weights from various points on the plastic replica, like ornaments on a Christmas tree, to simulate the actual external forces acting upon various parts of the cathedral. There was the direct load of the overhead stone, of course, but also the winds. (To estimate the winds in the 12th century, he found anemometer readings in rural France going back a century. Not perfect, but good enough.) He placed his fully loaded plastic model in an oven, where it was subjected not just to heat but also light. Warmed, the plastic model revealed its stresses, sort of like the way an MRI reveals damage to soft human tissue.
>“The very words ‘statistical analysis’ seem foreign to many in rock engineering. Engineers are trained to see the world in terms of load and deformation, where failure is simply a matter of stress exceeding strength. Statistics are generally given short shrift in engineering curriculums, and so the entire language of statistics is unfamiliar. Yet statistics are the tools that science has developed to deal with uncertainty and probability, which are both at the heart of mining ground control.”
>Real-life American workers were different from his mental model of them. “I had thought if they only knew what I thought, they’d see things how I do,” he said. That idea now struck him as so obviously nuts that he didn’t bother to let them know what he thought. His fellow coal miners were less concerned with his ideas about the economy and their rightful place in it than in simply making a living. Their morale, at that moment, was actually sky-high. “Coal was booming,” said Chris. “We were going to save the world. Thank god we have all this coal so we’re not reliant on Arab oil. People felt good about themselves.”
>“A mine is unlike any man-made structure,” said Chris. “It’s not a designed environment. Most of the material the structure is made from is kind of unknown. With rock you don’t know what the engineering properties are — what the loads are. You have a problem that is really not an engineering problem, but people were insisting on using an engineering mindset to solve it.”
>Again, he found work done by others and repurposed it for his uses. Back in the 1940s, geologists working for the Agriculture Department in national forests created a crude method for work crews to determine if some rock would work as a road: whacking it with a ball-peen hammer. Oddly, it didn’t matter how hard you whacked it. There were just a handful of ways the rock might react, and its specific reaction revealed its strength. Chris started whacking mine roofs with ball-peen hammers. “It’s not precise,” he said, “but it does get you in the ballpark.”
"Both spent their lives measuring the stress in stone. Both used scientific methods to answer questions that had seemed to everyone else beyond the reach of science."
Nothing, I repeat NOTHING is beyond the reach of science!
Go and investigate something that no-one investigated before, and you will find something that no-one found before.
Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise.
Now whether [what you find] is worth the trouble of investigating (or: where one's efforts are best spent), that is another matter.
Events outside of our light cone? (I was going to say "past events" but I suspect that's superfluous)
One evidence of greatness: Humbolt has more geological features named after him than anyone else. Like the Humbolt Current etc.
The Canary - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41478771 - Sept 2024 (54 comments)
The issue with private insurance when it comes to natural disasters is they don't like losing money (understandable) and the climate is changing.
Those two things together mean that this year you could have good insurance that covers freak accidents, but what about next year, or next decade? An area that may have only seen flooding once a century might be predicted to see it once a decade or even once a year.
People still live there. Some people lived there with the insurance coverage for those natural disasters only to see it slowly go away or to be outright cancelled. We can't expect that they all migrate.
They can’t expect us to cover their losses, especially predictable and repeated losses.
However, that doesn't neccesarily imply that there should be flows of money available to rebuild in vulnerable locations. Insurance becoming unavailable or unaffordable is probably the best signal available that someplace is a bad place to live. If you can't afford the price or the risk ... There are lots of other places in the world.
It's one thing to say "don't buy beach front property in the Florida everglades" but what do you do with the millions who already own such property?
This came up with hurricane Katrina and Louisiana. Multigenerational communities were completely obliterated. I really don't find "the market said you should move" to be a compelling response.
These places are no longer safely inhabitable due to rising ocean levels. People are going to have to be relocated one way or another.
And I have no sympathy towards the "been there for generations" argument. The circumstances of your grandma just can't be a reason for what people do in the present - it s too unfair.
Chicago is a more scalable model, as both raising the city and moving existing housing worked quite well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago
The Chicago TARP was commissioned in the 1970s and won't be completed until 2029. It's cost > $3 billion to date.
For better or worse, markets are the clearest signals we have in a hugely messy world. That shouldn't prevent us from doing the best thing available, but the world is not inherently fair and safe, and it's not possible for it to be perfectly fair and safe with our current technology and psychology.
The millions that own beach front property should accept the value of their land will decrease as it becomes harder to insure. If they don't want to lose equity, sell it sooner than later.
Built by the Spanish in 1565 and continuously occupied since then.
Florida existed this way for 100 yr. You have lots that had a house built in 1850, wiped out in 1900, rebuilt, wiped out in 1950, replaced with a double wide, wiped out in 2000, and then the owner gets told "sorry, build a multi million dollar house on stilts with windows rated to stop a flying patio chair and a roof you could dangle the house from or F-off"
I understand that there's a desire to stop sketchy interests from billing off "disposable" construction as "this will resist a hurricane and is prob good for 100yr" and pocketing the difference before vanishing (especially among the HN crowd because they're demographics who usually get left holding the bag) but it's not economically tenable to force communities to construct above their means either by law or by proxy with provisions written into insurance and lending requirements.
Those parts of New Orleans that never bounced back are just the denser more vertical versions of those poor Florida communities. There just isn't the money there. And while you can potentially cover this with state and federal programs (e.g. FEMA), it seems like in practice they don't quite bridge the gap.
What kind of low quality development makes sense when you know it's only going to be washed away into the ocean at some random point within the next 50 years? Who is going to live in a place like that? What happens to them when they lose everything?
Should the government assist or are you of the opinion that it's just bad luck that they need to deal with on their own?
Personally I think the most rational option would be for the government to build non-profit apartment complexes across the country, but localized in areas that are projected to be safe for 100+ years where affected families could be relocated. I don't think they should be pumping money into rebuilding homes in the exact same vulnerable location though - I don't know if that's happening or not.
Normal people who've "put down roots" incur a HUGE cost when they move away from all that. Lives become optimized, you establish relationships with businesses. You make friends and engage in mutually beneficial favor trading. Ripping all that away is probably on the order of a 15-30% reduction in real income depending on the individuals in question.
People who are able to move out of areas that are projected to be hit hardest by climate change should consider moving away sooner rather than later to manage that transition more on their own terms.
Globally, we're looking at billions of climate refugees needing to move somewhere and some of them will be displaced Americans. It's not going to be optimized for anybody and even people who don't have to move will be impacted by the influx of people coming into their cities.
I agree, we should be building up infrastructure and housing in those areas to provide places for climate refugees both for those in the US who are forced to move and to house the millions we'll need to bring in from outside of the US. As far as I can tell we're just ignoring that the massive wave of migration due to climate change has already started and we're not doing anything to prepare.
When people throw money at an IPO only for it to tank we don't go around refunding them. Investments generally are NOT guaranteed, this includes assets like a house.
Should society at large be paying for someone's luxury beachfront home to be rebuilt over and over in the face of lack of insurance? Should people ignoring the climate observations and making dumb decisions NOT be penalised by losing their assets?
Honestly, there are good answers to this last question - no one wants to see an instant slums and the ongoing effects burdening society. No one wants to see grandma thrown to the curb. To be considered a society one has to act like it, which includes helping those who are down.
But not by trying to reset it back the way it was. Not by guaranteeing that people can make decisions - silly or not - with any level of guarantee.
Maybe a government buyback for property in an area that is rezoned because of climate reasons. Maybe a change in building standards to make rebuilds more reliable in the face of the new normal. Maybe public housing elsewhere to absorb the impact of such events until people can remake their lives and move on. Feel free to insert better ideas.
But the change in circumstances - in this case climate activity - has to be handled or it borders on stupidity.
I strongly believe in mandatory house insurance. We live in an area where full house insurance was mandatory and organized by the government until the 90ies. It was cheap, because it was subsidized and everybody paid in. Then they privatized the insurance, and they weren't mandatory anymore. A relative of mine realized that insurance that would cover flooding would now be nearly twice as expensive in his area as the previous mandatory insurance, so he got one which did not cover flooding. 8 years later, his house was flooded.
A few years ago, a family of 5 here became homeless because their house burned down. They did not have any insurance and lost 600,000 EUR and their place to live.
I think auto liability insurance (or an equivalent bond posting) should be mandatory, because it protects others. I don’t think theft or collision insurance should be mandatory (and in fact don’t carry it on some of our cars).
Insure against losses that you couldn’t withstand. Don’t (or self-) insure against those that you can easily withstand. No government intervention needed there IMO.
You don't think other people are impacted when families lose their homes and everything they have? Who do you think is going to end up having to pay to house and feed them? Taxpayers. The economic effects on people who still have their house aren't immediate and obvious so it's easy to pretend that nobody else is impacted, but it's almost never the case, especially when it's not about one guy whose house burned down after he tried to save a little extra money by not insuring against fire, but entire communities who lose everything.
When government manages insurance and everyone is covered the costs are dramatically lower and everyone is safer. The role of government should be to provide important safety nets to people providing stability and confidence to communities and the economy. Government can do it without needing to continuously stuff their pockets with higher and higher profits like shareholders demand, and without doing everything possible to avoid paying out valid claims the way private insurance companies do in order to protect those profits.
While there does come a point where it doesn't make sense for people to continue to live in certain areas, for more typical cases it'd be a major improvement that would save more money than letting people who just want to gamble on the odds get away with not paying for insurance at all. Eventually many of those people lose that game and instead of just upsetting their lives it destroys them while everyone around them pays the higher costs.
All of those things could help people be more successful, make them less likely to lose their job or have a better relationship, etc.
At some point, there’s a line where government should protect third parties and a different line where government protects first parties from themselves. Different people will prefer those lines be located in different places; I tend towards giving individuals power over governments.
I'd also say that in many cases the best thing you can do to empower individuals is to give preference to government over corporations. Government is (or at least can be made to be) accountable to the people. You don't have the power to elect the CEO of a company or vote for their corporate policy. Voting with wallets is largely a myth. If that actually worked there wouldn't be massive numbers of companies constantly screwing people over. Some companies are even basically universally hated yet remain highly successful. Government is where individuals hold the most power, especially at local levels. Care has to be taken to not let fear of government power back you into a position where you're being taken advantage of by others looking to force you into paying for their negative externalities.
You are thinking of programs like the NFIP (national Flood Insurance Program)...
Unfortunately, programs like this create perverse incentives. People keep building homes where none would be if disasters were priced in.
Those mines still have owners, and they can be found by the state if they really, really want to find them.
Almost certainly not.
> Owning mineral rights doesn't create liability for existing mines.
I was under the impression that it generally does. However, the documents are generally old paper records (often missing) and fragmented between multiple polities in Pennsylvania. The owners of the mineral rights obviously know who they are but reconstructing the trail from public records is quite time consuming and provides a lot of "plausible deniability".
But, boy, once fracking made those mineral rights worth something, the owners sure showed up and found those "missing" records in a real hurry.
I have owned water, mineral, grazing, and other rights in the western US in environments where these were all considered valuable. YMMV.
How many houses will be made uninhabitable by subsidence in the US in the next 5 years? I predict more than 100 and fewer than one million. There, that's a prediction. A team of actuaries armed with historic data could massively improve it.
This is much easier than the same kind of prediction for earthquakes or hurricanes, which have tail risk of unlikely but devastating events. If insurers don't want to cover this kind of risk, it's either because it's too small to be worth spending time on, or so predictable that it's not worth spreading the risk (better to just condemn the handful of houses built on top of known mines and move on).
Earth movement in general - from landslides to sinkholes to shifting foundations - is excluded from most home insurance policies.
I don't know specifically about mines or sinkholes, but I don't think they are generally excluded. However one difficulty would be that buildings are generally insured up to the value of the rebuilding cost, IE what it would take to put the building back after it was completely destroyed. But in the case of a mine or sinkhole, the land itself may also be unusable. In an expensive city the rebuild cost may be only a fraction of the cost of buying an equivalent home, including the land it sits on.
Many non Japanese who are buying in Japan without understanding this fundamentally different aspect of real estate in Japan do so at their own risk.
The entire Ruhrpott settled and sank so much that if the water pumps in the largest mines would cease operating for too long, the entire area would flood. It's literally called "Ewigkeitslasten" (forever burdens) for that reason.
Sort of an IRL Hell.
For me, I do it because I like writing more than I like making videos, and I know many people appreciate it.
But my blog maybe makes a few pennies a month, whereas my video content provides my full-time income.
So I'm not surprised most content creators who can, move to video-only. It's only out of passion for the written form/blogging that I still do my text posts :(
I do appreciate creators who give us a real website alternative, not just drop videos on <centralized platform>. Everyday Astronaut is another great one.