Why We Need Nuclear Power: The Environmental Case

by Michael H. Fox

Nuclear power may just be the most important solution to our search for clean, sustainable energy sources. Although wind and solar can contribute to our energy mix, we need a reliable source to meet large-scale energy demands and break our dependence on fossil fuels. However, most people are wary, if not downright afraid, of nuclear power. Given nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, it's not difficult to see why. In the wake of these events, fear has clouded the public's understanding of the facts. It's time to clear up those misconceptions and examine the science behind nuclear power, in order to determine what role it could and should play in our future.

In Why We Need The Environmental Case , radiation biologist Michael H. Fox argues that nuclear power is essential to slowing down the impact of global warming. He examines the issue from every angle, relying on thirty-five years of research spent studying the biological effects of radiation. Fox begins with the problem, carefully laying out how our current energy uses and projections for the future will affect greenhouse gases and global warming. The book then evaluates each major energy source and demonstrates the limits of renewable energy sources, concluding that nuclear power is the best solution to our environmental crisis. Fox then delves into nuclear power, looking at the effects of radiation, the potential for nuclear accidents, and the best methods to dispose of nuclear waste. By systematically analyzing each aspect of the nuclear issue, Fox clarifies which concerns have a scientific basis and which remain unsupported. His in-depth exploration of the facts persuasively
demonstrates that nuclear power is critical to reducing the effects of energy production on the global climate.

Written in an engaging and accessible style, Why We Need Nuclear Power is an invaluable resource for both general readers and scientists interested in the facts behind nuclear energy.

Genres: Nonfiction

320 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Charles Berteau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before I launch into my review, I had best set down a few personal beliefs. I believe in the validity of the case that we are in the midst of anthropogenic climate change - even if the precise timelines and impacts are ill-understood (and sometimes exaggerated for effect), the underlying physics is just too strong to dismiss. That said, I am at heart a "lower-case l" libertarian, and I don't trust in the effectiveness or efficiency of government-coordinated action - even if market failures also have to be acknowledged. In fact, I have to admit to a generally fatalistic attitude about our ability to avoid serious climate change over the next 100+ years, even if I retain some faith in technology to mitigate the negative implications as they happen.

This book by turns irritated and impressed me. So let me start with my conclusion - the author makes a very convincing case that nuclear power both must and can be an integral part (indeed, the dominant part) of any minimum-carbon energy framework. He puts paid to thinking that other "renewable" energy sources (wind, solar, etc) can meet the baseload electrical demand that coal and natural gas plants serve today. I found the case so convincing that I will henceforth have a fundamental question for anyone arguing about the need for climate change action: "Do you believe we should make a large-scale leap in nuclear power generation?" If the answer is no, it will seriously affect my belief in their seriousness, and I will urge them to read this book.

The book systematically destroys the myths and fears that are regularly deployed to hinder nuclear power. It examines the entirety of the industry: nuclear energy principles, including important differences between power generation and bomb-making; the (very well studied) effects of radiation on humans, including a great description of background radiation; how likely actual human illness and death is in various radiation contexts and dosages (hint: a lot less than coal-based generation); the industry's safety record and lapses, and the doom-mongering and amplification that tends to surround them; the mining and supply chain; waste storage and the potential to minimize it through reprocessing; etc. The upshot is a completely convincing view that the risks are overstated and are in reality very small - that even major catastrophes (most notably Chernobyl) have resulted in fairly low loss of life (on the order of 4000 people, compared to 3000+ deaths PER YEAR in China alone from coal mining, let alone the tens of thousands of secondary deaths from particulate pollution in that same country). The author is not naive, and emphasizes that nuclear is not risk free, but makes effective arguments that the risks are low, relative to other options, and the benefits potentially vast.

As mentioned, parts of the book irritated me. Too much space was spent on building the case that climate change is real, which I found essentially pointless. Two types of reader will read this book - those that already agree with his conclusions in this area, and those that don't and won't. In both cases, this section is a distraction from the main message. The author could have quickly described climate change as a "given," explained why he did so, and moved on.

I also resented the throw-off comments on matters that the author is no expert on. For example, his reference that the Industrial Revolution brought about "unbelievable pollution, which drastically shortened lives, and it led to child slave labor in factories and mines" caught my eye. The "drastically shortened lives" is at least debatable (see studies that show an increase in the UK of average life expectancy between 1781 and 1851, for example - with even more dramatic increases later in the 19th century) and by comparison rural subsistence agriculture is no dream life for children. This sort of comment, which has no bearing whatsoever on the book's thesis and draws on modern sensitivities, just serves to distract.

Finally the editing could have been tighter. There are about a gazillion different measurement systems for dosage, absorption, radiation density, etc - and the author for some reason felt obligated to switch back and forth between them, and explain conversions. It would have been a lot clearer to stick to the one set of units throughout, and move all conversions to notes or the appendix (which already had conversions described anyway). Other slips (graph axis mislabeled Atomic Number instead of Atomic Weight, identifying Edgar Sengier as Edgar Sangier) are not likely to affect too many readers, but they bugged me in a book that is deep in detail.

But I mention these quibbles only because this is a book review, and so the presentation matters. As an overall argument, though, the book is really good, and is worth reading for anyone who believes in any or all of: (a) the need to identify pragmatic options to minimize the effects of climate change; (b) a desire to see all sources of power competing and utilized, whether or not climate change is real; or (c) a general desire to see myths dispelled. In delivering against these criteria, good job in my view!

[Nicole Conlan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of good information in here. I read it because the previous book I read about nuclear power, Power To Save The World, was written pre-Fukushima and I wanted to know a little more about that incident and what it means for nuclear power. That section of the book was great and really helpful for my understanding. The rest of the book was also very informative and written by someone with a great understanding of the science, but if this is written to convince non-scientists to embrace nuclear energy, he probably should have teamed up with a writer who could have made the tone a little less dry and more personal. There's a lot of very academic physics and chemistry stuff in here 0 I was really trying to remember back to 8th grade for huge parts of this. For understanding the risks of nuclear power altogether, I think Power To Save The World is a better bet, but I think these books complement each other nicely, and each helped me understand the other better.

[John Jaksich · Rating 4 out of 5]

A readable and deep book on why nuclear energy should be re-considered. While the world reels over the reports of meltdown at Fukushima or at Chernobyl, professor Fox lays the truth for the college level readers. Dr. Fox dispels the darkness and fear surrounding nuclear energy-- nuclear power should be one of the many options to consider.

Among some of the many highlights is the difference between radiation exposure due to cancer and the actual numbers of reported cases. He correctly states that a speck of plutonium can actually kill an exposed individual but the reality of the exposure is far different. There seem to be individuals who have urinated trace amounts of plutonium from exposure during the Manhattan project-- fascinating tidbit of information considering none of these individuals died from the exposure, itself.

However, this book is not for the casual reader-- there are plenty of quantum mechanical formulae that would scare away many individuals. I enjoyed it!

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has been unfairly overlooked - it should be foremost in the discussions of this energy/environment nexus which is debated so hotly. Chapters 6 & 7 are possibly the best explanations of radiation that I have read.

The author's background is apparent as much of the book is written like a lecture given to college sophomores. There are plenty of explanations to keep the reader from getting lost in technical terms, and the pace of the narrative is slow so that those who don't often read non-fiction should be able to keep up. But I found that, if reading when I wasn't fully alert, it was difficult to read more than a couple pages at one time. This certainly isn't a book for the bed-stand!

There are also extensive references given and a glossary included within the four appendixes.

[Michael Matthews · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nuclear power is quick to inspire emotion in the hearts of many. However, the public, in general, does not understand nuclear power. They see the disastrous effects of accidents and mistakes but not the science and technology that underpins them. They see cooling towers and think of a potential meltdown, not knowing that the reactor building is separate. This book helps dispel some of the myths and legends about nuclear power. This book puts forward a compelling argument that nuclear power is our only available answer to meeting the present and future power demands without substantially changing our way of life. There are drawbacks to nuclear energy, from the cost of mining to the need for an actual long-term storage site for American civilian nuclear waste, but its benefits outweigh those. Carbon-free baseload energy is the only source that matches the ever-increasing electrical demand from power-hungry EVs to data centers that use as much power as hundreds of thousands of people. The book explains the science of the types of radiation and how they affect DNA and the body. Fox writes in a presentable and easy-to-understand manner. He is trying to persuade, educate, and inform you about nuclear power and what it can offer the world. He is trying to lower its carbon emissions to avert the consequences of global climate change.