Normally I love the show and can’t wait for each episode.
However the recent episode on nuclear power, while it had some good thought provoking points in it, didn’t meet the usual standard.
Stating that that generation 2 reactors are safer than generation 1 reactors and generation 3 are safer than generation 2, sounds funny for four reasons.
1. It isn’t an argument, its an assertion. It sounded like a reading straight from the nuclear industry brochure.
2. It smells of contradiction. If Generation 3 reactors are so wonderfully safe, why are they dreaming up generation 4 and 5? Yeah there might be reasons to do with fuel efficiency and minimizing waste etc but without dealing with those reasons explicitly it sounds funny.
3. It flies in the face of our own experience. Just because there is a new generation of a product, it doesn’t mean that the problems are solved. I don’t know how many generations of Microsoft operating systems there have been but I’m sure that Vista still crashes. (Not a perfect analogy I know).
4. It’s incomplete in terms of a safety story, design is only part of the safety picture. Brian touched on this briefly by saying that operator error is taken out of the equation in later generation design but don’t say exactly how. The only other clue mentioned in the cast is that non flammable graphite is used in new generations.
You can imagine if the same argument had been used to promote Mona Vie. “Oh sure Generation 1 Mona Vie might not have had medicinal properties, but now we are onto Generation 2!”
It would have been much more satisfying if we had been let into the physics a little and how the design assumptions are changing. The basics of a nuclear reactor aren’t that complicated (lots of uranium in a small space plus something to stop it from exploding) so I’m sure it could have been done.
Brian could also have addressed the other issues that people might raise with more nuclear power stations, like potential uranium pilfering, possible increases in weapon grade plutonium, proliferation of catastrophic terrorist targets etc. I’m sure all of these have answers.
The strongest bits of the podcast were in the comparison with other power generations. Nuclear power isn’t safe, but then neither are dams, and coal mining certainly isn’t! So the death by particulate emissions data was great and very relevant. The insight that it’s not about finding a perfect place to store waste, its finding places better than we currently have is relevant too.
That opening statement by the way – about more nuclear power years ago would have hastened the introduction of electric cars. Was that just being provocative? Isn’t the take up of electric cars more to do with the relative cost of petrol and advances in battery technology than the cost of electricity? Even if electricity was very cheap that doesn’t help if batteries are heavy and expensive, which they have been until relatively recently.
What do people think?
However the recent episode on nuclear power, while it had some good thought provoking points in it, didn’t meet the usual standard.
Stating that that generation 2 reactors are safer than generation 1 reactors and generation 3 are safer than generation 2, sounds funny for four reasons.
1. It isn’t an argument, its an assertion. It sounded like a reading straight from the nuclear industry brochure.
2. It smells of contradiction. If Generation 3 reactors are so wonderfully safe, why are they dreaming up generation 4 and 5? Yeah there might be reasons to do with fuel efficiency and minimizing waste etc but without dealing with those reasons explicitly it sounds funny.
3. It flies in the face of our own experience. Just because there is a new generation of a product, it doesn’t mean that the problems are solved. I don’t know how many generations of Microsoft operating systems there have been but I’m sure that Vista still crashes. (Not a perfect analogy I know).
4. It’s incomplete in terms of a safety story, design is only part of the safety picture. Brian touched on this briefly by saying that operator error is taken out of the equation in later generation design but don’t say exactly how. The only other clue mentioned in the cast is that non flammable graphite is used in new generations.
You can imagine if the same argument had been used to promote Mona Vie. “Oh sure Generation 1 Mona Vie might not have had medicinal properties, but now we are onto Generation 2!”
It would have been much more satisfying if we had been let into the physics a little and how the design assumptions are changing. The basics of a nuclear reactor aren’t that complicated (lots of uranium in a small space plus something to stop it from exploding) so I’m sure it could have been done.
Brian could also have addressed the other issues that people might raise with more nuclear power stations, like potential uranium pilfering, possible increases in weapon grade plutonium, proliferation of catastrophic terrorist targets etc. I’m sure all of these have answers.
The strongest bits of the podcast were in the comparison with other power generations. Nuclear power isn’t safe, but then neither are dams, and coal mining certainly isn’t! So the death by particulate emissions data was great and very relevant. The insight that it’s not about finding a perfect place to store waste, its finding places better than we currently have is relevant too.
That opening statement by the way – about more nuclear power years ago would have hastened the introduction of electric cars. Was that just being provocative? Isn’t the take up of electric cars more to do with the relative cost of petrol and advances in battery technology than the cost of electricity? Even if electricity was very cheap that doesn’t help if batteries are heavy and expensive, which they have been until relatively recently.
What do people think?
