klimatnyckeln: en fungerande lösning på världens största problem

by Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist

Klimatförändringarna är en ödesfråga för mänskligheten. Över hela världen tas initiativ för en långsiktig hållbar energiproduktion. Men chanserna att vända utvecklingen med 100 procent förnybar energi är små.

I denna bok visar författarna hur redan befintlig teknik drastiskt kan minska mänsklighetens klimatpåverkan. Gamla rädslor och föråldrade föreställningar måste omvärderas i grunden, inte minst i föregångslandet Sverige. Denna utgåva är kompletterad och beskriver utförligt svenska förhållanden.

Klimatnyckeln har potentialen att frigöra de låsta positionerna och bana väg för en ny energipolitik som, med Steven Pinkers ord från bokens förord, kan rädda världen.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Climate Change, Environment, Politics, Economics, Sustainability

226 pages, Hardcover

Published January 1, 2019

About the author

Joshua S. Goldstein is an International Relations professor who writes about the big issues facing humanity. He is the author of six books about war, peace, diplomacy, and economic history, and a bestselling college textbook, International Relations. Among other awards, his book War and Gender (2001) won the International Studies Association's "Book of the Decade Award" in 2010. Goldstein has a B.A. from Stanford and a Ph.D. from M.I.T. He is professor emeritus at American University in Washington, DC, and research scholar at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he lives.

Reviews

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am suspicious of anything that Steven Pinker is a part of. He seems to be an academic who was grown in a vat by oligarchs specifically to make them feel better about feeding on the wreckage of the third world and owning more wealth than the bottom half of humanity. So I came into this book skeptical. I am between a 3 and a 4, but to be generous I am going to award it 4 because it sold me on the part that I was really interested in: nuclear power.

The arguments I have heard in opposition to nuclear power were never that strong and always relied on scare-stories that were never actually that scary when you dug into them. Maybe I'm being sold a bill of goods here, but many of the statistics here I have actually seen before, and seem to be cited. I can't claim to have read as extensively in opposition on the subject to be honest, but I have heard the arguments and worries (many of which I have shared at one point), and they are addressed here. The most important point that I thought was offered was that the frame was shifted to "fossil fuels vs. nuclear power" or "nuclear power vs. climate change" rather than the usual "nuclear power vs. 100% renewables" construct that is usually given by environmentalists. I should say, I am a leftist, and I am highly sympathetic to environmentalists (I have donated to Greenpeace and the like), but after reading on the subject, it seems there is not much plan right now for "100% renewables", at least one that is actually in anyway actionable. As the authors say, whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned, fossil fuels almost always fill the energy gap.

This book doesn't differ from most books I'd expect Pinker to preface: it argues that most things will be fine if we change very little about the structure of our society, in this case excepting where we get our energy from. Now, authors Goldstein and Qvist use Sweden and France as examples of countries that have done this under a capitalist framework. In the case of Sweden, it relied on luck of timing. They happened to be transitioning to new sources of power right when the oil embargo in the 70's was going on, so they went with nuclear. This worked out well, now they produce a large amount of their power from nuclear energy. Will this work with market mechanisms? Can this be accomplished with simply a carbon tax? Is this something we want to risk?

And here we come to my issue with the book... In the Pinker-esque framing of the book, Goldstein and Qvist have shot themselves in the foot with the people they probably most need to convert: leftists like me. As I said before: I am highly skeptical of Pinker. Amongst the left, he's widely regarded as a hack. And in the first chapter the authors do the exact type of bomb-throwing I'd expect out of Pinker, complaining about people's concern with inequality and social justice in these fights for particular climate/energy projects (p.12-13). Now, point taken (and even agreed) that these are of lower concern than climate change if you take a step back and think about the big picture. Charles Mann's "The Wizard and the Prophet" even talks about environmental groups trying to shut down solar power projects for chrissake. My concern is that the authors hand-wavy tone makes it sound as if they do not care about these issues (maybe they don't? I have no idea) rather than just are saying that climate change is a bigger fish to fry. Like I said, I think it is a fair critique, but given that Goldstein is in international relations, I think he should be more diplomatic. Further, they proceed on the next page to mischaracterize Naomi Klein in her book "This Changes Everything": "liberals too often fold the issue into a wider agenda of ending capitalism, globalization, inequality, and injustice. Author Naomi Klein calls climate change a 'historic opportunity' to achieve these long-standing leftist goals." (p. 14). Firstly, the tendency to use "liberal" and "leftist" interchangeably is quite annoying, but that's neither here nor there. Secondly, I have read that book, and Klein is making the argument (and you can agree or not, I imagine that the authors would not) that capitalism must be ended in order for climate change to be stopped, since capitalism is inherently prone to growth. Thus, it would make little sense for Klein not to call for ending capitalism, as she was writing a book about finding an end to climate change.

I am not happy to have to embrace nuclear power, and I don't think many leftists will be, but the fact is that climate change is much, much worse. Plus, it seems like it is inevitable, though, at least until we come up with more efficient renewables. But the authors make another important point: developing countries deserve energy. Hell, they will get energy whether we like it or not, and to tell them that they have to stop and continue to live in poverty while we live in climate controlled places and have a thing called "rolling coal" is complete bullshit. So if we aren't going to embrace nuclear energy, then we should be the ones who have to cut the cord.

[Raghu Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Those who believe in the impending climate change apocalypse are likely to have a favorable view of only renewable energy as the solution. The authors of this book are very much in the apocalypse camp. The book’s opening lines give it away with “If you think climate change is a serious problem, we have bad news; it is worse than you think.” With such a view, one would think that they would offer renewables and more renewables as the only carbon-free solution. So, I was agreeably surprised to see them giving deep consideration to nuclear power as a much better alternative than renewables to replace coal and Natural gas. My interest in this book is chiefly educational and not as one who is convinced by the logic of climate change believers. The central thesis of the book is that we move forward in the battle against carbon emissions only by replacing coal with nuclear power. If we do this, we return one form of 24- hour power generation that produces a lot of CO2 with another 24-hour source with zero CO2 emissions. Using Methane instead of coal reduces CO2 but does not eliminate it. Using renewables like solar and wind does not result in 24-hour power supply unless we have Methane or coal or hydropower as back up. All three have severe environmental or CO2 consequences. The authors say that the nuclear option is a proven fact because countries like Sweden, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and regions like Ontario have done it with success. They also say that Germany opted for closing their coal power plants and replacing them with solar and wind while simultaneously shutting their nuclear power plants as well. The result was that their carbon emissions did not decrease but ended up increasing slightly.

The first half of the book is in support of its thesis. Over the past decade, the world has spent $2 trillion on wind and solar but seen no progress on decarbonization. Renewable rollout is slow and does not scale. In the period 2005-2015, Germany added about 120 kWh/year per person, California about 70 kWh/year/person each year. It pales against nuclear power in speed and scale. In the same period, Sweden added 600 kWh/year/person and France 450 each year with atomic energy.

On wind energy, the authors say that wind farms need lots of land area, unlike nuclear. The windiest places are often far from cities where the electricity is consumed. So, we need expensive upgrades to the grid, such as what Texas did recently. Offshore wind is closer to coastal towns, but prime locations are limited because we don’t often have shallow water close to shore in too many places. Denmark has many offshore wind farms. However, it produces electricity at 11cents/kWh which is three times as expensive as Natural Gas and 2-4 times as onshore wind. Wind is variable, blows more on some days and less at other times. This results in inconsistent production. For example, Germany produced 10% less in 2016 than in 2015.

On solar energy, the authors say that solar is variable like wind and totally unavailable for parts of the day. In northern countries, it drops off for months in winter when people need it the most. When the share of solar reaches as much as 20% of the total, it causes problems on the grid with its sudden surges. California is given as an example. On a sunny day, 50% of electricity in California comes from solar. When the sun goes down, natural gas, coal and nuclear power from Nevada and Arizona fill up the gap, which is about 33% of the total demand. In the morning a massive shift happens in reverse. The grid needs upgrades, back-up fossil fuel plants and transmission lines at the ready to cope with such variability. Germany is spending $20 billion on such backup and upgrades. All this makes power in California the most expensive in the US, at 60% above the national average when renewables expanded in CA from 2011 to 2017. According to the expert, Varun Shivram, the hidden costs of integrating solar to the grid add 50% to the stated price of solar power, in addition to subsidies from producer/consumer countries. None of these costs is included when solar energy is discussed. Solar cells last 25 years and then recycled. This is a large scale, dirty and toxic operation that is carried out by children in poor countries with few safeguards. Unlike nuclear power, decommissioning solar farms are not priced in the discussions.

On batteries as back up, the authors say that it is expensive on a scale and when used for long hours. For the cheapest solar installations in the south-west US, ten hours of battery storage doubles the cost of electricity. At such rates, ‘solar with battery storage’ is unsuitable for developing countries. It is also unsuitable for locations where the sun fails to shine for more than 10 hours at a time. The world uses 68 Twh / day of electricity. The investment in batteries to store one day’s worth of production would exceed $20 Trillion!

People in California may be familiar with these issues ever since Dr. Mark Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere and Energy Program at Stanford, released a report called ‘50 States 50 Plans’ in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It lays out individual plans for all fifty states to reach 100 percent renewable energy for all purposes: electricity, transportation, heating and cooling, and industry. The state of CA is considering a 100% shift to renewable energy by 2045. However, there are others who have questioned the viability of this proposal. In 2017, a rebuttal appeared from a team of prominent researchers in the same journal, saying that the ‘50 states 50 plans’ paper used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.

The second half of the book argues for nuclear energy as the solution to replace coal and methane. It bats for atomic energy as safe energy. Issues like nuclear waste, risks associated with the production and possible weapons proliferation are discussed. I wouldn’t go into the details as these issues have been discussed threadbare over the past sixty years without reaching any consensus. The authors seem to assume that nuclear energy’s time has come and that the world will accept it now. I wish they had devoted a chapter as to why repeatedly civil society organizations have stood on the opposite side of the scientific arguments and blocked useful technologies from being adopted more widely. I too agree with many of the positives of nuclear power as discussed in the book. But scientists have repeatedly failed in engaging the general public and civil society in assuaging the various safety and security concerns in these technologies. As a result, we have seen environmental groups stick to ideology instead of rational debate on such issues. For example, genetically-modified crops and shale gas are two instances where science and industry could have done a better job in reaching out to the public. Unless the advocates of nuclear power seriously reach out to the citizenry, its acceptance will always be trumped by fears raised by environmental groups. I can even see the same problems cropping in embracing CRISPR gene-editing technology and Artificial intelligence. Here, too scientists and engineers are going ahead leaving the ethical concerns for industry and the politicians to address. If nuclear power is anything to go by, we might see these useful technologies also running up against a brick wall.

Next, I would like to touch on the authors’ enthusiasm for pricing carbon pollution through a carbon tax. According to a NYTimes report, as of today, more than 40 countries worldwide have adopted some sort of price on carbon. It is either through direct taxes on fossil fuels or through a cap-and-trade program. These efforts have been in place since the early 1990s. However, in practice, most countries have found it difficult to implement them with prices that are high enough to induce deep reductions in carbon emissions. In Australia, efforts to increase carbon taxes were suspended after a backlash from voters. No one wanted rising energy prices. Similar backlash happened in France as well. As a result, carbon pricing has, so far, played only a subsidiary role in efforts to mitigate climate change.

I found the book a fast-paced read. A lot of the research in the book on solar and wind is familiar to me, having read about similar concerns in other books on the same subject. Climate change believers come in two flavors. The fundamentalists want ‘100% renewables and nothing else’. The authors belong in the second group and believe in a combination of nuclear and renewables which they call ‘nuables.’ Finally, there are the climate change skeptics. For them, all this is just ‘a storm in a teacup.’ In the chapter titled, ‘More energy, not less,’ the authors debunk the focus on ‘overpopulation’ and its impact on the rise in carbon emission ’. In support of their contention, they remind us of the predictions of Paul Ehrlich and others in the 1960s. It was predicted then that hundreds of millions would starve and humanity would break down by the 1980s due to overpopulation. The authors say that it didn’t come true and similarly ‘overpopulation’ is just a distraction on the question of carbon emissions. It is ironic that all the doomsday predictions of climate change believers also sound eerily similar to Paul Ehrlich if one is a skeptic.

[John Valett · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is essentially a case for nuclear energy to decarbonize the world. And I guess it gets the job done because I’m convinced. It’s a valid case, but it primarily argues for nuclear not because it’s the best thing ever, but more because it’s the best realistic option we have. It is very rooted in rationalism.

[George Matthews · Rating 3 out of 5]

Published in January 2019, A Bright Future offers a clear path to address the existential issue of our day, climate change. Unfortunately the author is a big fan of fission, not fusion nuclear energy. Still the book is well written and readable. Unfortunately, 5 and 1/2 years after publication the book is dated. But it is a good source for understanding the need to address climate change. In the United States in 2024, as much of the nation suffers an extreme heat dome, we have an opportunity in this election year to VOTE, the single most important action we , as individuals, can take to address the climate emergency. Climate change, abortion rights, voting rights, and saving democracy are the four most important issues in the 2024 elections at all levels, from president, senate, house of reps. to local school boards. I might add that not voting, or voting for Kennedy Jr., Cornel West or Jill Stein for president is a vote for Donald Trump and the climate, abortion, voting, and democracy denial Republican party.

[Jessica Shepard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whoa, I’ve always been kind of meh about nuclear power. I was pretty uneducated about it, but it just seemed less inherently sustainable than solar and wind power. Boy was I wrong. The authors explained how Sweden has already had a lot of success with decarbonizing through nuclear power. They use one-third more energy per person than Germany (who has been phasing out nuclear power and replacing it with renewables) but Germany emits twice as much carbon per person. They also talked about how plans to use less energy in the future are not reasonable because more people in poorer parts of the world are going to need energy for a better standard of living and it is not environmentally just to ask them not to use that energy cuz rich countries have already screwed up the planet. Nuclear is an inherently concentrated energy source on the same orders of magnitude of coal whereas renewables are inherently diffuse and dont provide energy on the same order of magnitude (though they are still useful) so it can actually provide the kind of energy we need with apparently manageable waste. To visualize, the authors said that the average american uses about one gigawatt-hour of electricity in their lifetime, and the latest nuclear design could provide this using one quarter of one pound of fuel and generate the equivalent amount of waste. This compares to a coal plant at about 50,000 tons of fuel and waste per day. And apparently, nuclear is actually relatively safe compared to other energy sources. I may have been converted, but I would need to read more from an opposer of nuclear. It did give me a lot of hope that our world isn’t fucked tho which is nice.

[Venky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Climate change is undeniably the single most urgent, compelling and critical issue that has both captured the imagination and contorted the thinking perspective across continents today. However, the debate surrounding this seminal subject has assumed ideological hues and entrenched colours, thereby threatening to obfuscate the big picture. While the left hurls ridicule on an irresponsible and greed fueled consumerist right, the right in its defense holds the left totally culpable for what it alleges are contemptible anti-capitalist views. However, when it comes to the question of global warming, by engaging in this needless mudslinging, both parties miss the woods for the trees.

In a commendable attempt to clear the clutter and cut away the cobwebs clouding the climate change argument, Joshua S. Goldstein (Professor Emeritus of International Relations, American University and Research Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, University of Massachusetts) and Staffan A. Quist (University of California, Berkeley), in their new book “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow” (“the book”) take the issue of climate change head-on. Forcefully arguing that the need of the hour is for the world to put into effect a policy of decarbonisation - the reduction or removal of carbon dioxide from energy sources – the authors highlight the fact that “at today’s rate, every year the world puts about 35 billion tons of new CO2 into an atmosphere…. That much CO2 weighs about as much as 15 billion Ford Explorer SUVs….” This alarming tendency as per the authors illustrates in stark detail the difference between the “inconveniences and expenses of today’s climate change” and the “catastrophe of climate tipping points in the upcoming decades of centuries”. Imagine Boston going under a mile-thick sheet of ice as was the case 12,000 years ago!

Where the book gets extremely interesting and equally controversial is in the solution proposed by the authors to ameliorate and reverse the thrust of CO2 into the atmosphere. Taking the examples of Sweden, France and Ontario as precedents, Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Quist propose nuclear energy as the most viable, feasible, durable and reliable source of energy substituting the currently prevalent coal based power generation. According to the authors by adopting the nuclear approach, Sweden, from 1970 to 1990, “cut its total carbon emissions by half and its emission per person by more than 60 percent……Sweden’s economy expanded by 50 percent and its electricity generation more than doubled”. To clarify the authors do not advocate the abdication of other alternative energy sources powered by renewables. What they instead propose is a judicious and prudent blend of nuclear energy and renewables: what they imaginatively term “Nuables”.

Citing the Swedish success story liberally, the authors explain how “Sweden built a series of power plants using a new energy source called karnkraft (Swedish for nuclear). One pound of karnkraft fuel produces the same energy as more than 2 million pounds of coal”. In the event one was to replace the nuclear plant at Ringhals in Sweden with its coal equivalent, the result would be “almost 11 million tons of coal each year – a train more than 1,300 miles long, producing 2 million tons of toxic solid waste, and spewing huge clouds of particulates into the air – enough to kill about 700 Swedes each year”.

While relying on renewables as a source of energy is a wonderful proposition, the authors engage in a comparability between a policy having renewables as its focus and an alternative one based on nuclear energy. For solar power to be effective, weather not surprisingly is a key determinant. Peak energy is produced only during the best season, the best weather, and the best time of the day. At night, during winter and even on cloudy days, the production outcome is closer to zero. Add to that the sprawling area required for the installation of a solar power facility (the largest solar power facility in Europe, the Solarpark Meuro in Germany covers about 500 acres on a former lignite coal strip-mining site), the scale and timing issues of solar power generation is complete.

Similar are the drawbacks with employing wind power. Wind is rarely more reliable than sunshine and even with the installation of the most sophisticated wind turbines, production of wind power would not occur when needed, but variably and at times too much and at others too little. Further, the windiest places are normally farthest from the cities where the wind power is consumed. Europe’s largest wind farm Fantanele-Cogealac in Romania covering a whopping 2,700 acres produced 25 percent below capacity in 2013.

As the authors, aided by their meticulous and painstaking research inform us, “over the past decade, the world has spent $2 trillion on wind and solar power but has seen almost no progress towards decarbonisation”. Equally disappointing has been the experience an experiment with hydropower. The debilitating impacts of the hydroelectric dams being developed on the iconic Mekong river in Southeast Asia and the catastrophic Banqiao dam disaster illustrate in chilling detail the failings of hydro power.

The authors also address concerns regarding the safe operations of a nuclear reactor. Commonly (in as per the authors) wrongly termed “regret solution”, a nuclear reactor invokes emotions of dread, catastrophe and apocalypse especially in the light of tragedies such as The Daiichi Fukushima tsunami, The Chernobyl disaster and The Three Mile Accident. In an exceptional piece of revelation, the authors disclose, “the health risks from the Fukushima reactor (even when employing the absolutely most conservative analysis methods possible), were in fact so low that in retrospect, the optimal responses would have been to not evacuate anyone”. Continuing with this stunning defense of the nuclear reactor, the authors go on: “the unnecessary evacuation…. caused about 50 deaths among patients moved from hospitals, and as many as 1,600 deaths in the longer term, owing to elevated mortality from causes such as diabetes, smoking and suicide among psychologically stressed evacuees”. While the earthquake and tsunami themselves took 18,000 lives, not a single one of them was attributed to the reactor or the radiation per se! Yet Japan in the wake of this disaster closed fifty-four reactors and Germany eight more. As the authors conclude their argument with a flourish, “radiation rarely kills anyone, but fear of radiation kills a lot of people”. Nuclear power which has until now completed more than 16,000 reactor years, has had one fatal accident in the form of Chernobyl that consumed 4,000 lives; a Japanese disaster that killed none and an accident in the USA that merely destroyed an expensive facility. Coal on the other hand is what the authors profess to be a silent killer. “Mortality effects have been estimated at 29 deaths/TWh in Europe and 77 in China, which suggests an order of magnitude of 600,000 deaths a year just from coal use in generating electricity.”

Thus in a stirring and spirited argument, the authors exhort us not to get swayed by the vindications of anti-nuclear protest groups and purveyors of doom and to instead, embark upon a portfolio approach, which consists of a mix of nuclear power and renewables. The authors also bring our attention to the most sophisticated third and fourth generation nuclear reactors that are being constructed according the highest possible degrees of protection against natural calamities and man made threats. A classic example of one such reactor being the EPR (originally the “European Pressurised Reactor”) created by the French nuclear company AREVA. With India and China bringing out thousands of people out of the pernicious clutch of poverty, there is a burgeoning demand for energy from these two countries that have hitherto been ravenous consumers of coal. The authors argue that it is time for these two economic behemoths to concentrate on nuclear energy and thereby prevent an irreversible destruction caused by an uncontrolled release of CO2 emissions.

There is yet hope as there exist some 449 reactors in 31 countries producing 11 percent of the world’s electricity. A continuing reliance on nuclear power coupled with emission containing measures such as a revenue neutral carbon fee (of the likes being administered in the Canadian province of British Columbia) will, in the opinion of the authors go a long way towards the path of attaining decarbonisation. We have a choice of either leaving a clean, fair and habitable planet to the future generation or to act in a selfish manner by damaging the ecosystem with reckless abandon. Either of these approaches would result in significant outcomes as to quote Robert Green Ingersoll “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences.” Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Quist opine the same!

[Aravindh C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nuclear energy is a thing many have an aversion for, largely a result of accidents like Fukushima. This led to huge protests against nuclear power and a decision in Japan and Germany to practically phase out nuclear power. India was no exception: a few hours away from where I live, the Kudankulam plant had faced huge protests while it was being constructed.

But how bad is nuclear really? A simple glance at the deaths per unit of electricity graph in Our World in Data (a really excellent resource) shows that coal is hundreds of times more deadly than nuclear, and the latter actually is comparable with renewables in terms of safety. And nuclear waste can safely be stored in dry casks.

This books lays an eloquent case for nuclear energy to prevent climate change. Renewables alone just aren't enough for a clean energy grid, as solar can't produce electricity at night or wind when the air is still. Battery tech has to yet reach maturity; they cannot yet store enormous quantities of electricity to power a cities for a few minutes, let alone entire countries.

Indeed, the energy transition happened far more quickly in places that focused on nuclear than on renewables; Sweden, Ontario (Canada), and France being a case in point. A glance at a live emissions intensity map confirms this: nuclear (and hydropower) play the biggest roles in countries which have a low emissions per unit of electricity. In fact, since the book's publication, Finland seems to have joined the list as well, with their much delayed nuclear reactor finally in operation.

Germany, on the other hand, still relies on coal to supply a big chunk of its power, despite being a leader in renewables. This is because their new renewables simply replaced the shut down nuclear plants. Had Germany kept its nuclear plants open and replaced coal with renewables, it would have had a green shade in the emission intensity map, not a yellow-brown one. Indeed, the nuclear shutdowns in Germany and Japan may have lead to more deaths than all nuclear accidents combined, because nuclear shutdowns meant more dependence on more deadly fossil fuels.

So if nuclear is so amazing, why aren't we building more of it?

One reason is rising cost. The other is loss of building experience as the West had stopped exercising their nuclear-energy-building muscles, meaning they have to experience the body pains as they hit the gym again. But ultimately the problem is political and not technological.

The problem is fear. And fear is the mind-killer.

[Cheryl Campbell · Rating 5 out of 5]

An exceptionally insightful book on the science behind our climate crisis. But it truly shines in giving an overall history of nuclear power, including the good, bad and ugly. Turns out the ugly is quite maneagable and the engineering on this is very far along. The efficiency of nuclear power, relative to a coal powered plant, is so effective that the author believes we probably cannot "get there from here" unless we incorporate nuclear solutions with a full array of renewable technologies. He shows what damage has been done when we shut down nuclear power plants. Sure enough, CO2 begins to climb. And, so far, renewable energy has only been used and added on top of our existing fossil fuel infrastructure. The more energy we extract, the more we use. The book is not entirely a paean to nuclear power. It also covers all the issues associated with renewable energy forms, on on-going regulation towards a carbon neutral future.

[Juan Farfán · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I’ve read about solving climate change. It shows the facts about how Sweden and France hace decarbonized their economies without putting aside economic grow. The world needs more energy, carbon free energy that contributes to solve poverty and climate change. A must read if you want to have a realistic picture to tackle climate change and environmental issues

[Sharon Chase · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for my book group. It caused me to rethink my bias against nuclear power. It was not perfect, but should be read. Some risk needs to be acceptable if necessary to solve global warming.

[Sagar Jethani · Rating 2 out of 5]

A pro-nuclear treatise written by a nuclear energy consultant.

I wish this book had taken its mission more seriously, because the topic is of immense importance: is nuclear energy the only realistic path toward a carbon-free energy paradigm? Unfortunately, the authors utterly fail to advance their case.

Rather than seriously address legitimate safety concerns about nuclear power, Goldstein and Qvist engage in partisan attacks against critics by mischaracterizing them as being categorically uninformed about the realities of nuclear power. Chernobyl? User error and bad design. Three Mile Island? A harmless accident unfairly hyped by the sensation-loving press and Hollywood. Fukushima? A natural disaster masquerading as a nuclear incident. Sad the Japanese overreacted by moving away from nuclear energy altogether.

And did we mention how many people die each year breathing pollutants caused by burning coal?

This kind of facile analysis utterly fails to grapple with the realities of nuclear energy. Dismissing critics as being either in thrall to the sensationalist press, or being hopelessly trapped by their own tin-foil hats does a disservice to those with legitimate concerns about the safety of nuclear power.

The fact that one of the authors is, himself, a consultant to the nuclear power industry suggests that this book is more a work of marketing than serious public discourse.

[Teddy Harvey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this book if you want to understand why nuclear power is absolutely necessary as a central component of the world's energy system. The authors present a pragmatic vision, yet one that is imbued with rational optimism for how the world can be made a better place.

It has greatly reinforced my belief that nuclear energy, not renewables and certainly not fossil fuels, are what we need to campaign for. If the left wants to be serious about climate change, it needs to get serious about the fact that nuclear is the only way. This book does an excellent job of explaining why that is the case, in spite of the fact that renewables like solar and wind still have a part to play. It has, just like from Seeing the Light, infuriated me about global Green Parties who champion decarbonisation but not the stark reality that solar and wind are not, in practice, the solution. Not in the West, where the intermittency of these energy sources means that there is too much time where fossil fuels are needed to fill the gap, and certainly not in developing countries where the choice between expensive, unreliable sources and cheap but dirty sources - and with an evergrowing demand for energy that solar/wind are not able to keep up with - will inevitably lead them down that path of fossil fuels; unless such a reliable, scalable (and thus cheaper in the long-term) option such as nuclear is properly offered.

This rant of mine is important because the book highlights key arguments for nuclear power that are useful in deconstructing both the arguments of anti-nuclear 'environmentalists' as well as lapdogs for the fossil fuel industry. It also demonstrates clearly how this nuclear world can be achieved - not just some fanciful dream. Although, I am not so confident that it will be realised unless public opinion on the matter is swayed enough, by those willing to convey the arguments such as those contained in this book.

And this is precisely the problem that the authors raise in the book and which has been discussed at length - nuclear power gets such an awful reputation considering that it is by far the safest energy source out there nowadays. People are scared of it because they have been told a lie that it is dangerous. Each new model of nuclear reactor is forced to spend millions more on safety measures to make it 'safer' when it is already orders of magnitude less fatal and harmful than the other main sources. Here are some great examples from this in this book: The evacuations at Fukushima caused more injury and death than the incident itself would have: 50 deaths among patients moved from hospital and 1,600 attributed in the longer term for reasons related to psychological impacts of displacement. The deaths from the switch to fossil fuels in Japan and Germany as a result of the incident led to tens of thousands of deaths. Millions die each year due to the pollution caused by fossil fuels, and working at their sites. Yet of the three most memorable 'disasters' in the history of nuclear power - Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island - only one actually has attributable deaths.

Finally, I had to include in this review my favourite quote that the authors found, perfectly underscoring French efficiency and American deficiency with regard to nuclear energy, from the Head of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1995:

"The French have two kinds of reactors and hundreds of kinds of cheese, whereas in the United States the figures are reversed"

The Americans and much of the world (including us Brits, but not the Swedes, as the authors highlight as a champion throughout) would do well to follow in the footsteps of the French. For once I will advocate that.

[Michał Michałowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Taka jest aktualna sytuacja ludzkości - zmiany klimatyczne są takim pociągiem gnającym w naszą stronę, który prawdopodobnie spowoduje ogólnoświatowy kataklizm. Popularne rozwiązania - zwiększenie odnawialnych źródeł energii, przejście z węgla na metan i tym podobne - pchają nas we właściwym kierunku, ale nie zabiorą nas z mostu na czas. Mamy rozwiązanie, które działa, co udowodniła Szwecja i inne kraje, które nie jest bardziej niebezpieczne niż skok z tego mostu, ale jest przerażające. Jedynym rozwiązaniem jest gwałtowny rozwój wykorzystania energii jądrowej. " - Energia dla klimatu, książka po którą trzeba sięgnąć.

[Einar Arnarson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is mainly a broad overview of the issues with not including nuclear power if we are serious about mitigating catastrophic climate change. It is written for lay audience and is a fairly general overview of why the authors think that nuclear fits in the solution, not a definitive book on the subject.

According to the authors what we need is ‘not less energy, but cleaner energy’. Their vision is for non greenhouse gas emitting energy cheap enough so that the poorer people of the world can rise out of poverty and those of us who have plenty of energy can use it in the same amount. They propose “nuables” (nuclear + renewables). Ultimately what they ask is this: If nuclear isn’t that bad compared to fossil fuels why don’t we push for a massive nuclear build now instead of continuing to build up fossil fuel infrastructure hoping for better battery technology to replace them one day and then when renewables and large scale battery technology are stable and reliable as nuclear is today then switch over?

Now, that may sound like a logical solution if one is sold on nuclear being safe, cheap and scalable but nuclear power is perceived as dangerous, uneconomic and renewables are considered by most as superior clean sources of energy anyways. The book contends that nuclear if done right (their model is Sweden, France and South Korea) does in fact tick all those boxes and offers a good alternative to fossil fuels. It does a pretty good job at arguing for that cause but it is overly shallow and simplistic at times with nuclear portrayed as almost perfect and almost everything else (especially fossil fuels) terrible in comparison. All in all I think the book is pretty good for what it’s intended to be and would hand this book to someone interested in learning more about the subject.

[Dano Nissen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joe Manchin book club pick

[Alicja · Rating 3 out of 5]

Temat fajny, ale napisane fatalnie. Zdanie są takie długie i tak dziwnie złożone że czasem w ogóle nie rozumiałam o co chodzi XD
Ale jestem w szoku jak dobrze mi się ją czytało i jak szybko ją przeczytałam

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Poorly written, but convincing pro-nuclear energy arguments nonetheless, I learned a lot

[Emma Risinger]

I liked "A Bright Future." It explored how the world can/should expand its utilization of nuclear power to cut carbon emissions, and ultimately stop climate change. I guess I've always kind of been pro-nuclear power, but this book explained the evidence for it in a way that helps me further develop my own opinions. It also debunked some myths about nuclear power, which I thought was interesting. But, I feel like the first chapter or two read a little political in some places, and although I understand that climate change has become a political issue, I think the book could be more persuasive to different people by not catastrophizing quite so much in the beginning. I do agree with the book's viewpoint, however. The main motif in the book is that nuclear power is good and is our best tool for fighting climate change. I would recommend the book to others because it puts things in perspective in terms of how nuclear power is far less dangerous and more effective than other forms of fuel. It was a very interesting and to-the-point read.

[Pete · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Bright Future : How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Chang and the Rest Can Follow (2019) by Joshua Goldstein and Staffan Qvist makes the pro-nuclear energy about as well as it can be made. Qvist has a PhD in nuclear engineering and Goldstein is a professor of international relations.

Oliver Stone’s new film promoting nuclear energy called Nuclear Now was inspired by this book and Goldstein helped to make it.

The book has four sections. The first is Decarbonization, this section describes the imperative of decarbonization and how Sweden has succeeded while Germany hasn’t. The second section is Half Measures that outlines how more electric power will be needed and questions if 100% renewables will work. The third section Facing Fears goes into the safety of nuclear, the risks and fears, how waste can be handled and how to prevent proliferation. The last section is The Way Forward and states how current nuclear should be retained, what is coming. and how China, Russia and India are using nuclear. There is also a part on carbon taxation and then a summary of the book.

A Bright Future makes the case strongly that Sweden, France and Ontario show how nuclear power can deliver cost effective low carbon dioxide emitting electricity. The success of the three places does not really seem to have a renewables equivalent, at least when hydro is excluded.

The book also points out how little highly radioactive waste is produced for the power made and how nuclear has a good record in terms of safety.

For anyone interested in the case for nuclear power A Bright Future really does an excellent job.

[Steve Stanton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This vital new book exposes the shocking truth about climate change and the lies that have been perpetrated in America. Using data graphs and analysis, authors Goldstein and Qvist examine all the options available for a planet full of humans with rapidly emerging energy needs. They explain the fallacy of “renewable energy” and point to nuclear power as the only way to avoid a mass extinction event. Most of the climate damage has already been started, and merely curbing the growth of coal-fired power plants is not enough; only rapid decarbonization can prevent an apocalypse. The authors return time and again to the metaphor of an asteroid about to hit planet Earth. Would humans not band together and use all our resources to save ourselves? We have the technology! Three areas of the world are already producing clean electricity without fossil fuel: Sweden, France, and Ontario, using a mix of nuclear and hydro power. To quote the authors: “If the United States had built out the fleet of nuclear power plants it once planned, we would be much closer to solving climate change today.” Instead, America continues to burn coal, even though humans “get a higher dose of radiation living next to a coal plant than a nuclear power plant.” Meanwhile, China is leading the way in domestic nuclear reactor construction, and Russia is building nuclear export projects around the world, with 34 projects underway and 23 more in negotiation. America has fallen far behind once again, and it is sadly ironic that we can blame antinuclear “environmentalists” for our current climate change disaster.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book doesn't spend a lot of time on climate change or its impacts, although what's there is very good. It jumps into how Sweden, France, and Ontario have radically reduced their carbon emissions while maintaining strong to booming economies. In a word, the solution is nuclear. Goldstein and Qvist argue that renewables alone can't replace fossil fuels currently, and that they probably won't be able to for at least 3 decades. So although we may eventually build a battery, or a hydrogen economy, or something else that will let us take virtually all of our power from renewables, that won't happen soon enough to maintain a planet that's worth living on. They argue that a successful solution to climate change requires the planet to maintain existing and build more nuclear plants, which have a long track record of producing safe, inexpensive power 24/365. When they say safe, they acknowledge that nuclear power poses dangers, but nowhere near the dangers of coal. After the Yucca Mountain debacle and the Fukushima disaster, I assumed that nuclear power was done. Now I'm contemplating the fact that if it's done, so are we. This is the most influential book I've read this year, and maybe in several years.
10/27/22 Reread. This book holds up well. Even with the dramatic rise in solar and wind energy over the last five years, the conclusions of this book still hold true.

[Angie Reisetter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is brief, pointed, and well-argued. I'm a bit dismayed to see that the publisher's blurb very carefully avoided mentioning nuclear power, when that's the main topic of the book. But they evidently thought that it's too loaded a word and chose to try to get readers hooked first. As I tell my students, if I thought it was possible to decarbonize our world without nuclear, I'd be all for it, but analysis after analysis shows that it's not possible. We really need clean, safe nuclear power to fight climate change, and our principle barrier is psychology and politics. Fear of nuclear power is pervasive. It is also based on fiction. The authors of this book address most of the arguments made against nuclear power, but of course they can't do so in depth in so brief a book. It's hard-hitting, but I don't know how convincing it will be, since others have tried to make similar arguments. Maybe they'll manage to break through some of the fear. They advocate aggressive decarbonization with what they call nuables: nuclear plus renewables. Here's hoping that their argument makes its way to the hearts of some folks, because opposition to nuclear is knee-jerk for lots of folks. I'd like to help beat the drums for this one.

I got a copy to review from Net Galley.

[John Crippen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Think Swedishly, Act Globally! The countries in the subtitle replaced their fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power plants. In this short book the authors describe decarbonization and why it's needed right now, explain why half measures (including reliance on renewable energy sources) won't work, dispel myths/fears about nuclear energy, and define the components of a path forward. Nice complement to Whole Earth Discipline: Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, Restored Wildlands, and Geoengineering Are Necessary and fills in some of the gaps left in The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations.

[Selim Tlili · Rating 4 out of 5]

Qvist and Goldstein do an excellent job of framing the scale of the climate change problem and the sheer amount of carbon emitted in the world.
They make an extremely convincing case, backed by credible data, explaining why nuclear power is the only option that we have that will solve this problem.

End of the day the world will not accept a climate change solution that doesn’t provide reliable and inexpensive power. Nuclear power is the only option that can provide those requirements at scale.

The opposition to nuclear power is not based on the evidence of its risks. This isn’t to say there are no risks to nuclear power but whatever risks it entails are nothing compared to the real danger of continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

Everyone should read this but especially well intentioned environmentalists who strongly oppose nuclear energy as a solution to climate change. Any climate change activism that doesn’t promote nuclear power is jus feel good bullshit.

[Taz Lake · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you care about a secure energy future, this is a well researched, broad reaching, relatively easy read on how the world is putting nuclear energy to work for the future and what could be done better.

[Steve Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting historical study of the landmark please decision. Traces the individual stories of the key players. Helps you understand the human factors behind Supreme Court decisions. Very relevant today’s issues re the court.

[Sebastian Alvarez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read if your are fascinated by environmentalism or want to get into it. Provided a lot of support for pro nuclear power and accurate support with the problems with coal, gas, oil, and renewable energy sources.

[Ingmar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very enlightening book!

[Tomek Germis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Zeer saai

[Dakota · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re interested in a book that gives you a mostly realistic view of how to implement nuclear power in order to tackle climate change, then A Bright Future does a pretty good job. While I disagree with a few pages/lines that seem to be “apocalyptic” about the effects of climate change and how fast we need to act, it didn’t go as overboard as I expected it to. This book provides a very quick overview of climate change and its problems, which is really all you need in order for this book to be effective.

I don’t want to provide any spoilers, but how they introduce nuclear power is actually pretty funny/cool. I was like “what are they talking about??” for the whole chapter, until finally it clicked. Haha. The book basically gets broken down into a few countries/regions that are doing things right when it comes to climate change/nuclear power (Sweden, France, Ontario) and compares them to the rest of the world. While this isn’t the most fair comparison (due to geographic differences, population differences, and others between the countries), it does get the point across and makes the reader actually contemplate things. The book really opened my eyes to the failures when it comes to other countries, like Germany (phasing out nuclear power when it has tons of coal to get rid of), and how the only alternative to nuclear power is either hydropower or fossil fuels (mainly because nuclear power can provide on-demand power) and the only other fuels that can do that are hydro and fossil fuels; Solar/wind are highly dependent on the weather and are not reliable enough to be strictly coal replacements). This means that we need to essentially always compare nuclear power to fossil fuels (as hydropower is super geographic dependent). Therefore, when compared to coal/methane, for the most part, nuclear power always wins. Whether it be energy cost, efficiency, waste production, manpower, maintenance, safety, etc, nuclear power almost always wins (things like upfront costs are higher for nuclear power, but I’m ignoring those because this is clearly a long-term investment). There are some sections dedicated to how certain countries (like China and Russia) are doing a good job at building more power plants (or at least more efficient ones), but other sections that recommend other solutions to these countries in order to expedite their reliance on nuclear power.

In the last third of the book, the authors spend a good amount of time “debunking” some myths, with the biggest one being safety. I was always skeptical when it came to safety, but after reading this book I’m convinced the lives lost due to fossil fuels every year is much higher than that from nuclear power. It goes even further to “poke fun” at the antinuclear activists who want the plants to shut down, but who also want “zero emission energy”. The authors make a good pitch as to why these activist groups are highly mistaken and are being scientifically daft. For example, Germany started shutting down its nuclear power plants due to Fukushima, but the book makes it clear that this was solely an emotional response and not one based on sound science.

The book is a super easy read and could honestly be read within a few days if you dedicate a few evenings to it. While I don’t know how scientifically accurate it all is (as I didn’t go too deep into the references and I’n not a nuclear power expert), it does make some upfront points that I agree with as a fellow scientist. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a good overview of nuclear power and how it can alter the path of climate change for the better in a relatively short amount of time. Of note, this book isn’t super helpful if you really want some in-depth knowledge on nuclear power and the different types and all of that. I would still read this book first though as it covers the general concepts.