5 comments about Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.

1. Readers looking for an objective look at nuclear power will not find it here. The author's hysterical and passionate fear of radiation pervades the discussion. Caldicott does get most of the major issues on the table, but she distorts the facts badly: she repeatedly condemns the cost of nuclear power and praises solar even though solar clearly costs more than nuclear (and she ignores the large roll that anti-nuclear activists have had in driving up the cost of nuclear power through law-suits and licensing delays); she does not like government assistance for new nuclear power, but tax credits for wind power are just fine; she complains of nuclear power plants' need for cooling water (which has caused some river-side plants in France to shutdown temporarily during a recent drought) but ignores the same need in geothermal plants; she criticizes the large amount of energy it takes to build a nuclear plant even though solar voltaic plants are similar; and she says we don't have enough affordable uranium to grow the industry (only a century worth at the current usage rate) even though government reports say that a small increase in price would enormously multiply the accessible reserves; and she totally ignores the very promising thorium-cycle breeder reactor types, which like all breeders turn nuclear power into an in-exhaustible resource via their miserly fuel use and have no nuclear bomb useable materials in the waste, but unlike some plutonium breeders (which she does discuss and dismiss) could potentially meet or beat today's prices, would avoid creation of long-lived radioactive waste, and would have much lower risk of a severe accident.
   
   But worst of all, she totally conceals the enormous environmental damage and loss of human life caused by the coal industry, and the enormous difficulty and expense we'll face if we try to phase out coal without using nuclear power. How could any evaluation of the risks of nuclear power fail to compare this risk to that associated with coal which produces more that half the USA's electrical power? Caldicott offers a wildly optimistic world view, powered by wind, solar power, and other renewables. She apparently has chosen not to listen to the often repeated statement by experts that these sources can supply at most about 20% of our power because they are intermittent (with the exception of geothermal, but most of the affordable geothermal is already in use). Even reaching the 20% level requires either energy storage using big hydro (which most parts of the U.S.A. do not have) or plentiful natural gas (which is quickly becoming a depleted resource in the USA) for use in cost-effecting "peaking" plants and with compresses air energy storage systems (which boost the efficiency of natural gas fired generation). Hydrogen-based storage is possible of course, but with an optimistic round trip efficiency of about 50%, it will likely be two to four times more expensive than electricity from coal, so it will be a tough sell in the USA. Renewable energy is a wonderful thing, but it cannot compete economically with coal, so ultimately a "no" to nuclear power is a "yes" to coal.
   
   With all of that said, she did have some useful points: our nuclear plants are aging and need to be replaced one way or another; new plants should be more robust against terrorists; the nuclear industry (like any big business) can sometimes get too cozy with the government. There's room for improvement, but nuclear power is still a good answer.



2. I always thought that a nuclear power plant was something like a sketch from a Simpson's cartoon, with a rock (uranium) behind a piece of glass emitting radiation which somehow turned into electricity.
   
   After reading this book my metaphor for a nuclear plant has changed -- rather it's a type of giant Rube Goldberg device with thousands and thousands of interconnected parts which are jumbled together, which leak radiation in innumerable ways, and which, as they continue to age, are deteriorating more and more. What comes to mind in this regard, is the space shuttle -- how many have blown up and how many do we have left anyway? (Who else but the government would send a thirty year old vehicle into space, when we scrap cars after fifteen year.) Who else but the government would support an industry where after forty years, we still haven't been able to figure out what to do with the highly toxic waste products, tons and tons of which are created each year.
   
   This book provides a lot of information about nuclear power which seems worth knowing. I noticed that this book has received "Ones" by quite a few of the reviewers. It seems their criticisms are based on something other than the interesting insights into nuclear power provided by this book. Personally I am fairly optistic about alternative energy and believe that USA civlization can move forward without nuclear power or coal generated energy for that matter.



3. If one believes as dogmatic truths even half of the erroneous information in this book, the sometimes religious opposition by some to nuclear power is understandable. Caldicott does a great job in reassembling in one single book about all the untruths about nuclear technology which have been spread around for decades. I think it is the main merit of this work, hence 2 stars.
   
   The main theme is that all « official » information, be it from nuclear organisations, national agencies, international bodies like the United Nations, is propaganda which tries to minimize the dangers and averse effects of nuclear power, and tries to advocate erroneously positive images of this industry.
   
   I only point out a few of the many pertinent erroneous statements.
   
   CO2 production
   
   According to Caldicott, the current fuel cycle brings about 1/5 of the CO2 exhaust of equivalent oil consumption (1/3 for gas is about 1/5 for oil) (p 6). But there's a simple argument that shows the claim wrong. 1 kg of natural uranium costs about $130,- and delivers the energy equivalent of about 10 000 kg of oil. According to Caldicott's claim, extracting this 1 kg uses (today) already 1/5 of this « oil equivalent », so 2000 kg. But that's 13 barrils of oil at each more than $100,- ! So an uranium mine uses for more than $1300,- of oil just to extract 1kg of uranium, which is then sold for 1/10 that price, namely $130,-...
   
   Enrichment
   
   On p 10 it is stated that uranium enrichment is a huge CO2 producing activity. In France, in Pierlatte, there is a COGEMA factory that produces enriched uranium for about 100 1GWe reactors, and uses the power of 3 reactors. So 1) it runs on nuclear power, not using fossil fuels doing so, and 2) it only uses 3% of the «production capacity », hence only diminishing nuclear efficiency with 3%.
   
   Tritium and C-14
   
   Caldicott claims that the effects of these two radioactive materials « are not yet understood » (p 13)
   However, tritium is a material with low radiotoxicity, and the limit on annual intake is given to be around 1 G Bq for ingestion, and around 10 T Bq for inhalation.
   For C-14, this is around 30 M Bq for ingestion, and 30 G Bq for inhalation. C-14 is also produced naturally in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation (that's why one can use C-14 dating of archeological objects!).
   
   Breeder reactors
   
   On p 17, it is stated that breeder reactors have yet to be realised, while there have been build about 20 of them world wide. The first one was the EBR-I, in 1954, and the French Phenix reactor which started out in 1973 is still in operation.
   
   Radiation and cancer
   
   On p 44 she states « it is generally accepted that many cancers in the past and in the present are caused by background radiation ». But under the linear no threshold model which she uses, background radiation can account only at most for 0.6% of death causes, while cancer in general is about 20% of death causes. So about 35 times more cancers are of non-radiative origin.
   p 45 Cancer is on the rise and Caldicott suggests that is because we pollute the environment with « chemicals and radioactive materials », but nevertheless, the main dose increase we receive is from medical diagnosis, and is still 10 times smaller than the background (and nuclear power accounts for still 100 times less).
   p 62: The argument « plutonium is so carcinogenic that the half ton of plutonium released from the Chernobyl meltdown is theoretically enough to kill every one on earth with lung cancer 1100 times over if it were uniformly distributed into the lung of every human being » is as pertinent as the claim that the world ocean contains enough water to drown every human being 100 billion times over if the water were distributed uniformly into the lungs of every human being. The observable fact that this Chernobyl plutonium didn't kill many people after all.
   
   Three Miles Island
   
   p 70 a picocurie is equal to 0.037 Bq. It is stated that some milk was found to contain 21300 picocuries per liter, which amounts to 780 Bq. Now, I-131 has a limit of annual intake of 900 000 Bq to remain below the legal dose limit (1 mSv). This means that 1 liter of milk is less than 1/1000 of this annual limit, and hence corresponds to a dose of 1 microsievert, or 0.1 millirem. Caldicott puts this erroneously to 0.3 rem, 3000 more than the real dose.
   
   Global warming
   
   p 86 EdF got permission to raise the river water above the allowed temperature (simply because the inlet water temperature was already much higher than usual), this in order to be able to continue to operate the steam cycle, which produces waste heat. A coal fired plant, or a biofuel powered plant would have had exactly the same condition for functioning. But Caldicott presents it as if « the reactor was overheating » and one needed to « dump hot secundary water in the river ».
   
   Meltdown
   
   On p 96, when doses in mid-Manhattan are calculated to be of the order of 200 to 300 rem with peaks of 1500 rem. These are doses that are tens to hundreds of times higher than were the actual case in the actual Chernobyl accident in the nearby town. The highest doses received are estimated to be 70 rem, but far most people in the nearby town received doses of a few rem.
   
   Gen III and IV reactors
   
   On p 129, it is stated that gen IV reactors are so complex that no country can develop it by themselves and that they will at earliest be there in 2045, while this contradicts the already existing Superphenix build in France in the 80-ies (which is very close to one of the gen IV designs) and while France planned to have a new prototype up and running in 2020.



4. Dr. Caldicott (pediatrics) relies on McCarthyism scare tactics, employing exaggerated and unfounded statistics about nuclear energy. Caldicott's ignorance of nuclear radiation borders on superstition. Nuclear scientists and public health administrators have respectfully answered her accusations many times, with clear and well-known facts to show that she is wrong. If Caldicott practiced medicine the way she preaches anti-nuke propaganda, she would subject her patients to 18th century medical fallacies like "bloodletting."
   Her legitimate claim to fame comes from her work as a citizen speaking out against nuclear war. She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, who appreciated her efforts to educate the public about the dangers of nuclear war. Dr. Pauling himself won the Nobel Peace prize for advocating nuclear weapons disarmament.
   If you want to know the truth about radiation, read "Radiation And Modern Life: Fulfilling Marie Curie's Dream," by Alan E. Waltar. The book is about twice-honored Nobel Laureate Marie Curie who was recognized internationally for her work with radiation and the discovery of the elements radium and polonium.



5. Nuclear power boils water to create steam that spin the turbines attached to electric generators - that's it.
   
   Along the way, a lot of people make a lot of money, and a great deal of that money comes from taxpayers and electricity customers. If nuclear power were so wonderful, plant owners would be willing to build them with their own money.
   
   Solar panels and windmills have a one time cost and then they just sit there and generate power. They don't have high paid workers monitoring the core to make sure it does not overheat and release lethal radiation to anyone unlucky enough to live within 30 miles, sicken everyone within 100 miles, and endanger everyone downwind of the stricken nuclear power plant. Windmills also do not require guards with M-16's (I have been to a Nuke plant) guarding against terrorist threats.
   
   ...and by the way, why do we dam a WHOLE river instead of setting up turbines every few miles along a river that spin in a current and generate power more locally, but still let fish (and boats, gotta have boats) pass?
   
   If traditional bulbs were outlawed and LED fixtures were screwed into existing light sockets the same amount of light in every home would used just 2 percent of the amount of electricity needed to light homes now (lighting is usually the number one overall cost in one full year). If "leakage current" was outlawed so that every TV and electonic device drew 0 to 5 micro amps while turned off (depending on the device) we would conserve up to an additional 90% of "idle device" power usage per ratepaying customer.
   
   It's customers getting the same lifestyle without any sacrifice. Consider this, not a single business VOLUNTEERED to take lead out of gasoline, it was mandated. So was sulfur removal from diesel fuel. Laws help businesses compete by making the playing field level for everyone.
   
   Has that totally eliminated power plants owned by greedy people who control hundreds of thousands of shares of stocks in an industry getting more profitable with every deregulation passed? No. Power plants are still necessary for some time to come. But if these and other conservation measures take place, and if every business and home roof gets a solar panel, every farm and zoned suburban designate a windmill - why, think of all the money we would have saved by no longer giving oil companies giant tax breaks (Bush, 2002) to find more oil.
   
   There is SO much more, but I will leave you with this... Spring 2007, 60 Minutes did a story on energy, and do you know the California wind farm made famous in "Rain Man" and other films? I am not making this up, it seems that is a privately owned business, and the power company just cannot get around to hooking up ALL the windmills onto the grid to purchase all the power being generated there...

No comments about Nuclear Waste Stalemate: Political and Scientific Controversies.

5 comments about The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor.

1. 
   This book was first published in 1973 and its basic premises are straightforward. Plutonium is an almost unavoidable byproduct of a uranium based nuclear power industry. It is incredibly easy to make a working atomic bomb with plutonium. It is also incredibly easy to steal plutonium. It is possible to make a nuclear bomb as small as a rugby football. Terrorism with a plutonium bomb seems to be inevitable.
   
   Much of the book is about Theodore Taylor, who was one of America's most brilliant nuclear bomb engineers. Technically, he was a physicist, but he was really lousy at true theoretical physics, and he ended up working at Los Alamos as a nuclear bomb designer only because he had flunked out of the Ph.D program at UC Berkeley. Taylor was more of an inventor with the mentality of an engineer in the way he focused on using best estimates and trial and error experimentation to solve difficult practical problems.
   
   Later in his life, Taylor was involved in the abortive Orion project (a space ship that was to be powered by hundreds of small nuclear bombs), and became a strong advocate of improved safeguarding of nuclear materials in the nuclear power industry. It should be clarified that after he quit as a nuclear bomb designer, Taylor never became an anti-nuclear activist. I say this mainly because this book does seem to have been used by the anti-nuclear movement.
   
   The remainder of the book is mostly devoted to describing just how lax the safeguarding of nuclear materials was at the time, as well as brief descriptions of the chemical processes needed to isolate enough plutonium from these byproducts to make a crude bomb.
   
   One annoying aspect of this book is its coy squeamishness at revealing the secrets of making hydrogen (fusion) bombs. Hydrogen bomb design is actually pretty straightforward once you have a fission bomb to ignite the fusion materials - other books like "Dark Sun" lay out the basic details that this book would not.
   
   A major concept missing from this book is that, while stealing several kilograms of plutonium and making one or two plutonium bombs might be fairly simple, when it comes to governments building a nuclear bomb, it is clearly more advantageous to have a complete nuclear industry, so as to be able to build an endless supply of nuclear bombs with either uranium or plutonium. And so these states would want to start by first developing a uranium enrichment capability together with nuclear power plants. This is in fact how things have played out today.
   
   And so, this book turns out to be somewhat myopic in its fears. Its warnings against the production of plutonium by the nuclear power industry, while important, and salient at the time (1970's) to the fears of terrorism by small radical groups, pale in comparison to the much greater current problem of global nuclear weapons development by nation-states. The book misses completely the fact that today, almost any technologically advanced country, and many that are not so advanced, can build entire arsenals of nuclear bombs if they want to.
   
   Is nuclear war inevitable? That possibility seemed to have faded with the breakup of the Soviet Union, but has risen again as the numbers of conflict states developing nuclear weapons increase.
   
   But then look on the bright side, for all of you liberal, anti-growth, anti-nuclear, anti-people environmentalists out there. The nuclear winter first predicted by Carl Sagan, together with an accompanying drastic reduction in the numbers of homo sapiens defiling this planet, could be just the cures for global warming and global over-population that you are seeking.



2. I picked up this book to learn something about the risks associated with nuclear technology in the hands of terrorist states. What I read instead was an unexpected cautionary tale about the risks of irresponsible journalism.
   
   The Curve of Binding Energy is an early piece by the talented essayist, John McPhee. McPhee explores the psyche and experience of a nuclear engineer, Ted Taylor, who in the 1950's made substantial contributions to the miniaturization of fission bombs and then became an advocate for "nuclear safeguards" - i.e. methods and policies to keep weapons-grade material or bomb-making technology out of criminal or terrorist hands.
   
   Mr. Taylor's involvement in the book is highly ironic. Like most in the nuclear weapons community, he originally justified the work for its deterrent potential. Looking back two decades later, Taylor tells McPhee that the original rationale was naive. But unconsciously applying the same logic, Taylor was now willing to publicize all that he knew about the easiest ways to make a cheap A-bomb in the hope that proliferation of that knowledge would scare governments into adopting more effective safeguards.
   
   Throughout the book, McPhee relates conversations in which he pumped Taylor for technical details about bomb construction. Each time, Taylor states that he has gone into just as much detail as he can on various subjects without breaching official secrets. This of course is nonsense. Any attempts to delineate the bounds of official secrets, and especially the juxtaposition of related methods and means are expressly forbidden by the security oath that Taylor once swore. If a terrorist nuclear bomb is ever detonated, Taylor will bear direct personal responsibilty.
   
   Fortunately, the value of Taylor's technical insights is much less that McPhee implies. He reports many kind comments about Taylor from distinguished nuclear physicists who worked on the same projects. But none of these scientists express particular respect for his technical skills. And at least one of Taylor's important judgments in this book - that successful fission detonations are easy to achieve - was proved untrue last year when a DPRK demonstration fizzled.
   
   No, to date no one has been killed or injured by one of Ted Taylor's creations. But the same cannot be said of John McPhee. The most intriguing details in The Curve of Binding Energy are its repeated speculations about the attractiveness of the WTC towers as terrorist targets and their vulnerability to destruction from a sub-nuclear explosion. It appears highly likely that this book was the original motivation behind O. A. Rahman's truck-bomb attack in 1993 and K. S. Mohammad's follow-on attack in 2001.
   
   This is not a personal criticism of John McPhee. The point is that journalists - even great journalists - plying their own craft can do just as much unintended damage as any of their usual suspects.



3. First and foremost this book was published in 1973. Any book about nuclear security that's 35 years old will have some obvious gaps but this one makes many bold predictions about the growth in nuclear power that obviously did not happen.
   There is quite a bit to learn here though and anyone interested in how nuclear materials might be used for terrorism would do well to read this.
   I found it very enlightening and honest and a good read on some reasons why nuclear power could be a problem in the future. Truly though, this is a book in need of a major rewrite and updating. The same material covered once again would be very worth reading.



4. The book is written by a respected author who appears to have become enamored with Theodore Taylor, an nuclear weapons designer. The two traveled to many places together, and the author plied Taylor with questions. The setting was the early 1970s, and nuclear weapons information was still secret, and the nuclear industry still appeared to be viable. Taylor did his best to answer questions and explain nuclear physics without violating classification. Since then, much has changed, and today Taylor could be more specific. When I wrote "The Rings of Allah," a story based upon gun-type atomic weapons, I would Goggle an item to see what was in the public domain before using the material in my book. Frankly, I was amazed and frightened by the amount of nuclear weapons data available on the internet.
   
   THE CURVE OF BINDING ENERGY must be viewed in this context. Also, the author, John McPhee, had to record and then present in a understandable manner, the technical information provided by a remarkable man. The author does not have a degree in physics or nuclear physics, and thus can be excused for not understanding some of what Taylor told him.
   
   The book contains a wide ranging view, from Dr. Taylor's perspective, of the early nuclear industry and weapons program. Most of the errors I found are unimportant, since only people in the nuclear weapons program would recognize them. These I attribute to the author not understanding Taylor's remarks. I do take exception to Dr. Taylor's obsession with plutonium as a source of nuclear weapons materials for terrorists. Plutonium is the wrong choice for complex technical reasons. Should a terrorist obtain weapons grade plutonium (Pu-239), he would most likely accidentally assemble a critical mass, a self sustaining nuclear fission reaction--the equivalent of a nuclear reactor melt down. In other words, a small Chernobyl.
   
   Dr. Taylor grossly oversimplifies explosive implosions spheres. He talks about fabricating one from TNT or C-4, using bowls as a mold. Pure fantasy. He also describes casting plutonium components, half spheres for the "pit" of an implosion device. Yes, in general terms that is how it is done, but he left out a large amount of details. Anyone attempting to follow his crude outline will meet with an untimely end, and so would the neighbors. Perhaps that was his intention.
   
   Taylor styles himself as the inventor of several innovative small, high yield nuclear warheads. He looks at nuclear weapons from an inventors perspective, while I look at the weapons from an engineer's and users' perspective. I do not recall coming across his name, but since most of my dealing were with Sandia Corporation and the AEC, this in not surprising. I am, however, familiar with the weapons he mentions. I will only point out one minor mistake: the Mk-41 was similar in physical size to the Mk-17, and had a yield of 25 MT. It was the highest yield nuclear weapon in the U.S. inventory.
   
   Taylor's major concern centered on the isotope he worked with--Pu-239. As stated in the book, Pu-239 is superior to U-235 for small, high yield nuclear weapons. Pu is a very toxic, hazardous metal to work with. For example, plutonium has five phases, while most elements have three: solid, liquid, and gas. Recovering Pu-239 from power reactor spent fuel rods is extremely difficult and expensive. Plutonium used in nuclear weapons is produced in a special type of nuclear reactor, a breeder reactor. Iran has one breeder reactor operating and another under construction. Dr. Taylor's warning about nuclear weapons proliferation is right on target.
   
   Much of the book is devoted to the danger of theft of nuclear materials from poorly guarded storage facilities. If Taylor were discussing these issues with McPhee today, I believe he would place emphases on two different issues: poorly guarded spent nuclear fuel rods stored in cement pigs at nuclear reactors, the ideal source of radioactive materials for a dirty bomb; and, nuclear programs in North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran.
   
   Today's terrorist nuclear threat is uranium nuclear weapons--gun-type U-235 devices that a terrorist can make if provided with a sufficient amount of highly enriched uranium (90% U-235). Dr. Taylor mentions the Little Boy (page 220), the simple gun-type nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and gun-type nuclear bombs several times. He, Dr. Taylor, finally gets to the real danger on pages 189-191. In 1973, Dr. Taylor, nor I, could envision a world where a rouge nations (North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan) would obtain the ability to produce weapons grade U-235 and Pu-239. Our concern was the Soviet Union and China. Weapon design information did not exist on the internet--there was no internet--and the thought of a nation purposefully providing U-235 and plans for a simple gun-type nuclear device to terrorists was beyond comprehension. Today this situation exists.
   
   Today, it is possible to take the Little Boy design, and by incorporating commercially available components, build a nuclear device with a yield several times the Little Boy. A that can be disassembled and imported as parts into the U.S. or any other nation. I tell such a story in The Rings of Allah, and the consequences in Behold, an Ashen Horse. I wish Dr. Taylor was alive to comment on my work. I found his story fascinating.
   
   The CURVE OF BINDING ENERGY is a thought provoking, enlightening, if out of date, book. Reading it will be time well spent.



5. The Curve of Binding Energy by John McPhee is just a terrific read for anyone interested in the twin topics of nuclear energy and the nuclear bomb. We've all read stories about the negative environmental effects of storing used nuclear fuel, but you rarely are made aware of the other negative externality of used nuclear fuel; the threat to national security.
   
   In this quickly-read, reportorial book written at the end of the seventies, McPhee follows the thoughts of Ted Taylor, a nuclear physicist and bomb designer. Taylor provides accounts of his work at Los Alamos and how the development of the nuclear bomb evolved from Fat Man and Little Boy to Super Oralloy and Mike. This is very interesting stuff with descriptions of bomb material, explosive yields, fission and fusion. Taylor was clearly conflicted with his work around the bomb and subsequent to leaving Los Alamos has devoted his expertise to developing safeguards and to raising awareness of the threat of a rogue bomb. This is where the connections are made between nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry. Much of the spent nuclear fuel stored in various physical states can be used to develop a workable nuclear bomb. Taylor focuses on the weaknesses in protective measures and the vulnerability of these supplies. An interesting point that is brought up near the end of the book is the comparative figures invested in fission research and coal power versus the amount of investment in fusion research (a much cleaner, less dangerous alternative). It leaves you seeing no reason why the government would resist funding a Manhattan Project around fusion technology. While no one can debate the usefulness of nuclear energy, especially given current conditions, it is important to remember the negative externalities associated with this power platform.
   
   As with any McPhee book, I'm amazed at the level of detail he is able to provide which leads you to a much better understanding of a topic you may have known very little about before. The book also seems very topical as economic pressures will now encourage further development of nuclear power resources.

1 comments about Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects.

1. I am amazed that nobody wrote yet a review of this book.
   
   I liked this book a lot. David Bodansky's style is logical, concise and fun to read. What I liked most is that the author succeeds to attack with equal clarity a wide range of diverse subjects about nuclear energy:
   - Economic considerations on nuclear energy.
   - The physics principles behind nuclear reactions, and their relevance in reactor design, etc.
   - Engineering considerations around nuclear reactor design and operations
   - Administrative considerations around waste disposal.
   
   To conclude: if you have some background in physics, math and/or economy, and you need a no-nonsense introduction in the field of nuclear energy, then this book is for you. However, if you just like to read prose, (and you don't enjoy technical details being sprinkled during the exposition) then the book migth be too high-level.

5 comments about Introduction to Nuclear Engineering (3rd Edition) (Addison-Wesley Series in Nuclear Science and Engineering).

1. Nice. Book is new as said. Fast. Thanks for being a good seller.



2. I have used this book effectively for the past three years of my Nuclear Engineering Graduate degree and have a fond place for it in my heart. Admittedly there are better texts out there and the book has many typos and errors, but the advantage it has is the text is written so straight forward and plainly that most, if not all of the errors, can be found readily by the reader.
   
   Overall, I recommend this book to someone who is new to the nuclear engineering field and is uncertain where to start with his or her study of the subject. Once the foundation has been laid by the material presented in this text the reader is ready to pursue other books, which may be more accurate, but not nearly as clear in their presentation of concepts. (such as Duderstadt and Hamilton.)



3. Excellent reference text for nuclear engineering undergrads.
   
   Book not limited to neutronics coverage, goes a bit into radiation protection, and other essential topics that are a must read for any serious reader.



4. I read the book cover-to-cover. For a third edition, it has an astounding number of typos and errors - dozens per chapter - many math blunders - a few conceptual mistakes. It's fairly distracting from the material. The reader is constantly second-guessing the text - looking for the next mistake, which is never far away. There's something dysfunctional about this publishing team - to continue ignoring the huge number of errors - now into the third edition. (The list of "errata" at the Prentice-Hall website is obsolete. All of those have already been corrected - printed 2005. Their list says nothing about the hundreds of errors in our copy.)



5. First, the caveat to my review: I am probably unique among the reviewers of this book in that I am not a nuclear engineer. I have a strong educational and professional background in chemistry, physics, and math, and have been working on projects involving engineered safety systems and risk management in other technologically advanced industries. I have recently become involved in talks with representatives from the nuclear industry. For my own preparation I undertook the long hard slog through the Lamarsh-Baratta book, "Introduction to Nuclear Engineering" (Third Edition) to help me grasp background information and concepts in this field. Although I was sometimes initially unclear about the use of units (barns, dollars, etc.) and nomenclature (meat, safe shutdown earthquake, etc.) I generally found the text to eventually explain them adequately. One critique is that at some points in the text the authors use terminology freely without first defining it, only to define it much later. I found this and the relatively large number of typographical errors to be distracting.
   
   This is clearly a very complex subject, and would no doubt be helped by good classroom instruction. Nonetheless, I still found considerable value in the book. I liked chapter seven, "The Time-Dependent Reactor" particularly well, and especially found sections 7.3 and 7.5 "Control Rods and Chemical Shim" and "Fission Product Poisoning" to be enlightening. I found the commentary on reactor stability and the explanation of post-shutdown Xenon-135 buildup and reactor deadtime extremely helpful. I also found section 7.6 on incore fuel management useful.
   
   From my experience in aviation (where it is a common parameter), I enjoyed the discussion of the utility of the Reynolds number in section 8.4, and found the ensuing discussions of turbulent flow, liquid metals, and boiling heat transfer to be fascinating. My safety systems background is primarily in aviation, where it is stressed that every design is a compromise: I was pleased to see the same acknowledged on p. 455 by Bill Minkler (who now writes the "Backscatter" commentary for "Nuclear News") with his quote that reactor design is "the art of compromise."
   
   I was pleased with chapters nine ("Radiation Protection") and eleven ("Reactor Licensing, Safety, and the Environment"), which are the most directly applicable to me. The concept of "Relative Biological Effectiveness" is well covered beginning on p. 472, and the discussions of radiation protection are helpful. I found the section dealing with deterministic versus stochastic effects of radiation on pp. 479-480 to be helpful, and thought the glossary of radiation protection on pp. 539-542 to be a valuable reference. I wanted to better understand the principles of Monte Carlo analysis, which is covered in chapter ten, and while much of the discussion was helpful, it was a bit more general than I had expected.
   
   The overview of reactor licensing in chapter eleven is quite helpful, although becoming a bit dated. The discussion of multiple barriers to prevent to escape of radiation begins on p. 623 and provides an excellent general overview to the safety systems involved at a reactor site. Section 11.4 ("Dispersion of Effluents") was excellent overall, with plume formation and diffusion of effluents well covered for all Pasquill conditions (except G). This was an area new to me, as I have minimal meteorological knowledge, and I found the qualitative explanations and illustrations to be excellent, although the mathematical reasoning was at some points a bit hard to follow.
   
   The discussion of Design Basis Accidents (and particularly LOCA scenarios) beginning on p. 681 is excellent, as is the recap of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents which follow. I was pleased to see the introduction to risk management beginning on p. 711, which discusses 10CFR50.34a requiring operators to keep radioactive materials in effluents "as low as reasonably achievable." Oddly, the book the fails to name the acronym that logically follows from this (ALARA, of course) or discuss its use in the contemporary nuclear community to any significant degree.
   
   There is a lot of great content here, and while I am sure that I missed some of the more intricate mathematical nuances of the book, I think it was helpful to me overall. The book is sometimes a bit unclear, and some of the mathematical reasoning seems a bit fuzzy. A bigger complaint is that each chapter has numerous problems at the end, yet there is no answer key to determine if you did the problem correctly.
   
   I don't claim to have as much experience in the field as the vast majority of people who will read and review this book, but I do believe that overall the book, while not perfect, gives a good introduction to the subject, and will serve as a valuable reference in the future.

5 comments about Idaho Falls: The Untold Story of America's First Nuclear Accident.

1. I read this book while visiting my son in Idaho Falls this summer. I found it quite interesting, so much so that I drove the fifty miles or so out of the city into the Lost River desert, and toured the facility where nuclear energy was first generated back in 1951.

   This is a well-written book, and I thought the author did a fine job of presenting all sides of this little-known mystery.




2. McKeown does a good job of pulling together the many strands of this story, giving just enough technical detail to know what went wrong, and enough (relevant) human interest to keep the story interesting. Yes, it's true that Idaho Falls isn't exactly a brand-new 'revelation', but few outside the nuclear industry have heard about it, or know its significance. McKeown shows that the ultimate cause was a failure by the designers of the reactor to take into account Murphy's Law - if something can go wrong, it will. This is a common thread running thru nuclear incidents ranging from Windscale to Chernobyl. With some energy experts now calling for us to embrace nuclear power again in order to meet energy demand without triggering excessive global warming, McKeown's book is a very timely reminder of why and how things went wrong 50 years ago, and what we need to look out for the second time around (if nuclear power is granted one)



3. In the interest of full disclosure I will say up front that I am not in any way connected to The Site (locals' name for the facility out on the desert now called the INEEL) I have friends who work there and friends who would love to see it shut down.

   That said I think McKeown does an excellent job in telling what's known about the SL-1 accident (if that's what it was) and the rumors that surrounded it. I found it an first-rate read (I read it in two days) and very informative.

   McKeown goes to great lengths to delineate between what can be and is known and what is rumor and supposition. He also repeatedly explains (which keeps me from giving the book a 5th star) how different attitudes were then, particulary among the personel working at and responsible for the facility. This is the excuse given and accepted by the author for the lack of disclosure at the time. There's nothing here about what changed, or more importantly, what didn't change, as a result of SL-1.

   Its unfortunate that the story of this incident is completely unkown by the general public. Both the heroism of those there immediately after the incident and the behavior of those in charge should be common knowledge. Reading this book goes a long way in correcting that.




4. I read half of this while waiting for the train! The author's style is very clear and he's a good storyteller. While some of the chapters were a bit sensationalized, this book is well worth your time and money. "Idaho Falls" is more interesting than 99% of contemporary fiction out there :)



5. Was there at test site when this happened. Mostly accurate and alerts the reader to the dificulty in managing a nuclear accident. Accidents are rare but the nuclear waste problem is real challenge of all operational reactors. Probably mostly enjoyed by someone familiar with or working in nuclear field.

5 comments about The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power: Economic, Medical, and Political Considerations.

1. A one sided tome, missing two of the most basic facts about nuclear energy. A) The mineral, Uranium Oxide upon which today's nuclear power technology rests is depleting at the rate of between 1 and 2 percent a year. I.e. 50 - 100 year supply. (This includes all factors such as Russian missiles, etc.) B) Nuclear energy today only supplies about 8% of all world energy. Nuclear power would only last 5 to 10 years!
   Once they get done explaining how safe and clean nuclear power is using today's technology, when confronted with the shortage of fuel, a quick side step is taken. Expense and dangers of bomb making technology, waste disposal at 10x the rate and magic are quickly mixed up and the lesson is over.



2. In this book Robert Morris does a generally credible job explaining the benefits of nuclear power. His book is factually accurate and informative, and particularly useful to people who have listened to extensive anti-nuclear rhetoric without attempting to hear the pro-nuclear arguments.
   
   While I agree with most of the points Morris makes, I do have a couple of quibbles with the book. The first is endless, mind-numbing repetition. I don't know how many times he says that 50,000 people a year die in the US from carbon-based air pollution, but you can bet it's a lot. The basic point here is that while that is likely true, repeating it every other page for 200 pages or so does not help make the case: this book needs editing. The second issue I have with the book is the presence of grossly inflated, yet trivial arguments. There is no question, for instance, that coal and oil use are air polluters; that is a valid point to make in this book. Where the logic gets stretched, however, is when he claims that because of all this air pollution (that would not be present with more nuclear power) that humans probably have more fatal traffic accidents because carbon monoxide makes driver reaction times longer, seems improvable at best, and ludicrous at worst. These are the two big criticisms I have of the book.
   
   While I believe his data on nuclear safety statistics, I do think that he overestimates nuclear safety features, and perhaps underestimates dangers. Safety engineering professionals study not only the accidents in an industry, but also the incidents that did not lead to accidents, yet could have. On this matter Morris is totally silent, and I think that detracts significantly from the scientific validity of some of his arguments: in other words, accidents are actually very rare, incidents more common. Since Three Mile Island the nuclear industry has become much better about sharing trend data, but this book leads readers to the conclusion that nuclear power is a 100 percent safe, utopian energy source. I personally agree that it is a generally safe source of power, and that the US would be wise to follow Europe's lead (for once) and develop more of it. Having said that, I also believe that nuclear accidents could potentially be quite dangerous, despite Morris' reassurances.
   
   Most of the low rating reviewers here are clearly in the anti-nuclear camp, and I think it's admirable that they read the book (if they actually did). I do question where most of them got their information; some of the armchair critics seem unclear on basic physics or other issues (like Uranium ore production, for instance.) One particularly offensive reviewer thought that this book proves that Morris was worse than Hitler and hated babies. My take on that: if you can't objectively criticize the book, you must not have anything important to say...frequently like the media establishment. It is clear that Morris' assertion that the media spreads a virulently anti-nuclear message is correct, probably in part because they are politically to the left in general, but more likely simply because it sells. For the same reason that you never see a headline reading "Jetliner Lands On Time After a Smooth Flight: Passengers Enjoyed A Light Snack" you will also never see a headline reading "Nuclear Plant Releases No Radiation; Nobody Injured; Electricity Produced At A Reasonable Price." This is a differentiation that I think needs to me made, and while he attempts to make that argument in the book it falls a bit flat.
   
   While parts of this book are a bit overblown, and the book is clearly in the pro-nuclear camp, at least Morris makes his sympathies clear at the outset. I am glad that he wrote the book, and despite a few qualms about the presentation, I think it is worthy reading for anyone on either side of the nuclear debate, preferably in conjunction with the excellent and considerably more unbiased masterwork on contemporary nuclear safety organizations, "Hostages of Each Other" by Joseph Rees.



3. Contains perspectives on environmental risks of nuclear power compared to other energy sources.
   The book is circa 1999, and some parts are out of date:
   - In presenting the risks of air pollution from autos, the author points to the higher death toll from (producing electricity from coal-fired power plants) electric cars vs. relatively reduced levels of sulphor dioxide from gas-powered cars. Then, he seems way off base in saying "Los Angeles plans to completely ban gas-powered automobiles in just a few more years." Huh?
   - Likewise, the book is not current in the plans to dispose of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants at Yucca Mountain, NV. He says the spent fuel will be encased in vitrified glass logs that will not corrode or release radioactive materials. The current plan is to use corrosion-resistant metal containers. He is right to say that disposal of nuclear waste is not "unsolvable" from a technical standpoint, although it remains to be seen whether it is solvable politically.



4. When assessing nuclear power, the public should know about the baby tooth study which documents the nuclear emission strontium-90 in baby teeth, at birth, passing from mother to infant during pregnancy. This is linked to cancers. Look at radiation.org Have you noticed the ever increasing cancer rate seen in our younger generations? The NRC states that 50% of the US population live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. The government's breast cancer mortality map lines up with the governments's nuclear map, all across the country!
   
   I discovered some of this data, after having non-genetic breast cancer, 11 months after my mother died of breast cancer. She lived on Long Island, downwind of 3 nuclear plants. Be careful if you live near a nuclear plant.
   
   I hope this author is aware of this data.



5. This fact filled, convincing, and well researched book eloquently explains why we must start using Nuclear Power more extensively at the same time as it dispels many of the misunderstandings and myths surrounding Nuclear Power. Robert Morris is clearly not a fan of antinuclear activists, however, he understands the immense damage they have caused our Nation and to our children and grand children.
   
   Nuclear Power is without any doubt the most powerful, the safest, and environmentally the cleanest viable energy source in existence. However, antinuclear activists have scared the wits out of the public for decades by disseminating deceitful propaganda, superstition and outright lies. According to Ralph Nader and other antinuclear activists nuclear plant accidents would kill many hundreds of thousands of people; they spread radiation and mutations, and leave forever deadly nuclear waste behind. All this is, of course, not just totally false but intentional lying! Unfortunately the sensation hungry media chose to believe the antinuclear activists instead of the Scientists. Until 1982, nuclear power was our cheapest source of electricity. Then the cost overruns caused by frivolous lawsuits filed by antinuclear groups made them as much as ten times more expensive. No orders has been placed for the construction of a nuclear power plant in America since 1979
   
   Fossil fuels killed five million Americans in the twentieth century, and are estimated to kill about 50,000 Americans every year. 300,000 American former coal mine workers has died from black lung disease and 90,000 U.S. Coal miners have died in coal mining accidents since 1907. Fossil fuels are also causing global warming and acid rain, something R. Morris is discussing extensively. However, Nuclear Power has not killed a single American, not even a rabbit. Nuclear waste is a relatively small problem and most experts agree that the safe disposal of nuclear waste is a rather simple and easily solved problem. However, antinuclear activists have made this into a dangerous political issue.
   
   Dr. Helen Caldicott, a well known antinuclear activist, predicted that if a meltdown would have occurred at the Three Mile Island reactor 3,000 people (Nader said 100,000) would have died immediately and 500,000 people would have died within 15 to 50 years. When a real meltdown plus explosions occurred in a reactor without containment barriers; 31 people died within days and 4,000 or 20,000 (depending on whom you believe) will die in 50 year period. For Three Mile Island it might have been none because of the containment barriers.
   
   It should be noted that the Chernobyl reactor would never have been allowed to be built in the West for a number of reasons; it had a positive feedback loop (not allowed in the West), and lacked containment barriers. It was also used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons in addition to producing electricity, and it was operated in a manner that would be extremely unlikely in the west. The Chernobyl accident was made possible because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state.
   
   Uranium is everywhere in the earth crust, it is a very common mineral, and yes you have plenty of it in your yard. It is not very radioactive. Radon on the other hand is about 300 billion times more radioactive than Uranium. When something is extremely radioactive it disappears quickly and so does Radon. That is because there is an inverse relationship between half life and radioactive heat. However, Radon is continuously supplied from the enormous Uranium deposits in the earth crust and ends up in our basements, which is why Radon unlike Nuclear Power is a real problem. 14,000 people are estimated to die each year from the radioactivity from Radon, but no one dies from Nuclear Power.
   
   The author also discusses alternative energy sources and explains that they have immense wastes disposal problems (solar power), efficiency/economic problems, and environmental problems. He discusses terrorism, which is a larger problem for many other energy sources; nuclear Weapons, which cannot be created from the commercial Nuclear Power plants used in the West, and he also argues that the use of commercial Nuclear Power plants does not affect this issue much.
   
   Many of the European countries are using Nuclear Power a lot more extensively then the U.S. (U.S. about 20%, France about 80%). My home country Sweden is using a combination of Nuclear Power and Hydro electric Power to become fossil fuel independent by 2020. The U.S. cannot rely on Hydro electric Power but could use Nuclear Power a lot more. The fact that it has not done that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, maybe millions, and adding to this malaise we have global warming. Not using Nuclear Power more is clearly the largest mistake the U.S. has ever made.
   
   I also would like to state a few facts from the book. These facts clearly support using Nuclear Power for electricity generation.
   
   (1) No excess genetic mutations have ever been produced in any of the children born to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors after the war.
   
   (2) The fuels antinuclear activists have forced us to use instead of Nuclear Power are releasing 40 million tons of known chemical mutagens into the air each year.
   
   (3) We are exposed to many radiation sources, the worst ones being cosmic rays, earth, X-rays, but virtually none from Nuclear Power plants. (See table page 85)
   
   (4) After the treated wastes from a nuclear plant have been in storage for 100 years, their toxicity diminishes, and is then equal to that of arsenic trioxide, which we often spread around the food crops in our gardens to kill various pests.
   
   (5) Nuclear power plants produce only miniscule quantities of waste--equal to about one aspirin tablet in volume yearly for each person for whom they generate electricity.
   
   (6) Roughly 20,000 tons of Uranium is released into the air every year when Coal is burned.
   
   (7) Coal ashes are 180 times more radioactive than the level of radioactivity permissible for Nuclear Power Plants.
   
   (8) On October 9 and 10 1973 Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other OPEC members seized all foreign holdings of oil reserves (and equipment). The largest theft in history amounted to 254 trillion dollars, or 25 times the U.S. GDP.
   
   (9) Nuclear Power has not killed a single American, not even a rabbit, excluding a few hundred uranium miners (only indirectly linked).
   
   (10) If we can effectively extract Uranium from the Ocean we will have enough Uranium to last us infinitely.
   
   
   Finally I would like to mention that I switched from using Coal generated electricity to using wind power in an effort to become carbon neutral, however, if I had the choice of using Nuclear poer instead I would have.

5 comments about Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time Has Come for the World's Most Misunderstood Energy Source.

1. If you are only interested in economic, this book is your book.
   
   However,if you want to learn something about Nuclear Energy and you are no an enginer "A CASE FOR NUCLEAR-GENERATED ELECTRICITY ... or why I think nuclear power is cool and why it is important that you think so too", written by Scott W. Heaberlin is your book.
   
   "THE REVENGE OF GAIA" written by James Lovelock is your book if you are the kind of guy who enjoys learning and who is worried about environmental isuues.
   
   Have a look in internet ....EFN - Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy.
   
   Bye and thanks. I afraid of my English is a bit sad. See you.



2. As someone who has studied the pros and cons of nuclear energy for over 30 years, I am always interested to see what reasons people muster for supporting what I have come to see as "Jurassic technology" (doomed to extinction because of inherent insupportability). This book reads like a satire. For example, the authors list the huge cost overruns in nuclear plant construction, and note that nuclear "overnight" KWh costs are almost 4 times those of natural gas and double coal's. For them, those turn into reasons why we should pursue nuclear electricity. They say that if we ignore the environmental legislation that gave nukes a "clean image" (note: "image," letting these dinosaurs irradiate us til kingdom come), they would be price-competitive. And their safety record--since the last big accident--is exemplary!
   Their clinching argument (p. 185): "Simply stated, if new reactor technology is good enough for Tanzania, Portugal and Mexico, it should be good enough for further expansion in the United States." Why sure, if those global leaders in developing new technologies (as the authors note, Tanzania can't even afford to actually construct a nuke), renowned for their stringent environmental laws and oversight, are thinking about building new nukes, why shouldn't the US?
   I have to believe the authors wrote this with tongue firmly in cheek.



3. This book purports to support nuclear power and then doesn't make much of a case for it. I am sorry that I wasted my money on this book.
   
   Try Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Craven who is a 30 year green activist and makes a fact based argument for nuclear. She puts forward all the standard arguments against nuclear and shows how they don't hold up. She spent 8 years researching her book with another environmentalist who works at the Sandia National Laboratory.



4. Scientists and economists are working diligently to determine ways of producing sufficient electrical energy to supply our increasing demands. Electrical energy must be produced both economically and with the least environmental impact.
   
   Awareness concerning the increased production of Carbon Dioxide by electrical generation facilities has spurred new interest in energy sources other than fossil fuels. Carbon Dioxide, an odorless colorless gas is an important part of the carbon cycle which consists of the production and consumption of Carbon Dioxide in our earth. The balance of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere has increased in part due to our expanding consumption of electrical energy.
   
   The production of electrical energy in the United States is largely dependent on the burning fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuel such as coal, oil, and gas increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus negatively impacting the carbon balance in our atmosphere.The increased output is a concern of the citizens in the United States and World, but what can we do to help? Nuclear Energy Now, by Alan Herbst and George Hopley describes how we can solve both our increased need for energy while reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
   
   The authors of Nuclear Energy Now give a compelling explanation as to "why the time has come for the world's most misunderstood energy source". I find their solutions easy to understand with a wealth of information to support their thesis.
   
   Nuclear Energy now is a ready reference of information concerning the nuclear energy industry and world energy usage. Persons wanting detail information regarding the benefits of increased nuclear energy production will find a modicum of information. Those wanting to survey the major points with minimal detail, will find their summaries both compelling and logical.
   
   If you are like me and want to receive detailed information concerning the use of Nuclear Energy and the benefits to our environment and economy, this book will serve you well. If you are researching only one aspect of this large and complex issue, you will also find Nuclear Energy Now a necessary reference.



5. "Nuclear Energy Now" is an excellent book about the present status of nuclear power. Its starting point is the realization that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming and climate change. Combustion of fossil fuels is producing this chemically very stable and optically active gas. There seems to be only one effective way to stop its accumulation in the atmosphere; we must stop all fossil fuel combustion!
   The industrial revolution of the last two centuries has made many nations and its citizens very prosperous. The ready availability of huge amounts of inexpensive energy facilitated this burst of industrial activity. World economies have become utterly dependent on the unlimited supply of electricity, heating gases, and transportation fuels.
   "Nuclear Energy Now" shows that it is possible to build nuclear plants that can in due time replace all fossil fuel fired electric power plants. Nuclear energy cannot only replace fossil fuels in this energy sector. Nuclear fuel costs and nuclear plant costs are low enough to produce electricity at very competitive prices.
   However, nuclear power has a major image problem. The public does not understand the technology, is deadly afraid of nuclear radiation, does not believe that nuclear reactors are safe, and fears that the proliferation of nuclear power across the world will create security problems.
   The authors try to dispel these concerns. They make the point that the US has an outstanding safety record and that not a single person has ever been killed in an accident. They also point to France, which is producing close to 80% of its electricity from nuclear fuels. They ascertain that nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases or radioactive substances and are safe.
   Nuclear energy is the only viable option for replacing fossil fuels for electric power generation. Solar power, wind power, and other renewable energies can only replace a fraction of the electric power, which we need to keep our economies healthy.
   Replacing petroleum for powering the world's transportation systems may be an even more challenging problem than electricity generation and is even more critical for the functioning of the world's economies.
   The two authors, Alan M. Herbst and George W. Hopley have written an outstanding text that spells out the unique promises and the continuing problems of nuclear power.
   In the end, the reader is left with a choice. Are the safety measures and security provisions described by the authors acceptable or are they still found wanting.
   We need alternate ways to produce electric power urgently. Renewable energies cannot contribute enough power soon enough. Nuclear power seems our only hope. One question keeps lingering; can more be done to eliminate remaining safety and security concerns?

1 comments about Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century: World Nuclear University Press.

1. Ian Hore-Lacy has written a brilliant introduction to nuclear power in "Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century". The book is written for a generalist audience with an interest in nuclear energy issues. It is both comprehensible and comprehensive, a very difficult task given the complexity of the subject matter. The book is extremely well illustrated, and always provides all necessary background information before delving into deeper subjects: a firm foundation is provided for any reader regardless of their previous knowledge level about nuclear energy.
   
   The book discusses energy demands of the future and the potential role of nuclear power in meeting those demands. The nuclear fuel cycle is fully explained from mining uranium through disposal of high level nuclear waste. Hore-Lacy's presentations argue powerfully for the use of nuclear power without overt editorialization: he lets the science speak for itself. Nuclear safety features and technological improvements in different reactor types from common Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) and Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) designs, to very obscure lead-bismuth and the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) currently in development are emphasized. Safety on a global level is also a theme of the book, both in explaining the dramatic effect nuclear energy has on lowering greenhouse emissions, as well as containing nuclear material proliferation, with particular emphasis on returning nuclear weapon reactants to use in the civilian electricity production network of the US and Russia.
   
   The book is filled with helpful charts and illustrations, as well as useful appendices and glossaries. One of the most useful references is on page 155, which shows the radioactive decay and half-lives of the uranium, thorium, and actinium series elements.
   
   Anyone who has an interest in nuclear energy, electricity demands and production, environmental safety, or energy independence should read this book. It is an excellent guide to the nuclear industry from both a historical and technological perspective, and is an invaluable reference book.

5 comments about Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy.

1. If you like your science with endless, irrelevant narrative concerning facts arbitrarily selected by the author based on their romantic attachment to whatever, then this book is for you. I bought this book for some meat-on-bone reading. What I got was tedium ad nauseam. "The driveway and an area around a garage were occupied by an ancient wooden hay wagon with iron-bound wheels from the Idaho ranch, a battered van, an antique school bus Rip had turned into a camping vehicle, various tools and farm equipment, and a metal-working shop with sheets of corrugated metal, lengths of pipe, and coils of wire". (p.22) Oh PUH-lease. Let's get on with it. The book reads like a kindergartener's first reader, and the name of the scientist involved adds to this feel. "See Rip run. See Rip exhale carbon dioxide. See Rip's exhaled carbon dioxide contribute global climate catastrophe."
   
   The chapters on WIPP and subsea were the best, and are the sole reason for my giving this book two stars. As a degreed engineer, I could seriously have done without the grandma-knows-best, romantic visions of the environment discourse.



2. The good sides of this book are manifold. First of all, probably due to the fact that the author is a professional novelist, one has to say that "it reads like a book": it is difficult to put it down, and the fourhundred something pages are read with ease and fun. The second good side of this book is that it is full of very interesting, and not always well-known information, even to people in the field. It is a mixture of technical issues and human relationships.
   
   However, there were two points that irritated me somewhat. First of all is the somewhat naive attempt at "showing that we are environmental activists too". The arguments put forward should stand by themselves, and not because the authority in the book (Rip Anderson) and his wife are also local concerned activists for one or other ecological cause.
   The other point I found disappointing was the somewhat simplistic technical treatment of several key aspects in the nuclear power happening. The main point I found disappointing was the missing of a clear discussion of fuel reprocessing, fast breeders, thermal reactors and so on. These subjects are touched upon, but they are very vaguely treated ; nevertheless, this is an essential part in the future of nuclear power if it is to have a future. In other words, at the end of the day, you have to take some expert's word for it, as the book doesn't give you the means to verify some aspects yourself in a logical derivation, even though most of the information in the book is factually correct.
   
   That said, this book is a very good read for people who have been fed on the vocal absurdities spread around by anti-nuclear activists such as Helen Caldicott. A read of both is probably a good thing, but one should start with "Power to save the world", as it gets most of its facts right.



3. It's thorough and thought provoking -- enough to motivate me to look up parallel information as I read through the book.
   
   I really like how the author balances risk and benefit throughout, and gets her readers to think in those terms. There seemed to be little glossing over hard facts. Overall, the book takes away my concerns about the risks of nuclear, especially as compared to other sources - like the filthy coal industry. I love the idea of solar, but her perspective on the toxic manufacturing and disposal process for solar cells helps answers questions I've long wondered about. She isn't against other forms of energy generation - just puts them in perspective. Nothing is free, easy, or perfect.
   
   It was amazing to learn about the incredible advances in reactor technology and how it can be done with a tiny fraction of the waste now generated.
   
   Her dissection of the disposal issue takes away the scare factor.
   
   The book informs a highly emotional discussion in a rational, reasonable way and demolishes a lot of mythology. There are parts I had to re-read to digest, but it's written about as easy to understand as it could be to cover the subject with the depth it does for a layperson.



4. Ms. Cravens has written a very good book discussing the complete nuclear power cycle from a lay person's perspective. Her discussions concerning power baseloading and comparing nuclear sources to coal sources for powering the national power grid are narratives that are rarely, if ever, discussed outside of the power industry due to the emotional issues that nuclear power brings forth in people.
   
   As a non-technical author and former protester against nuclear power, Ms. Cravens tackles the subject material of nuclear power, the security issues, health issues and comparisons to other major power sources with a thoroughness not usually seen at this level. Her approach to "tag along" with noted retired DOE scientist, Rip Anderson and his openness and patience towards teaching a non-technically trained person the ins and outs of the nuclear power cycle add to the narrative. The unique approach she takes to treat her investigation of nuclear power as a personal journey leads to Ms. Cravens' ultimate understanding that nuclear power must be one of the power sources we rely on for our power needs as we go into the 21st century.
   
   The book provides an excellent overview partly due to the length of time it takes for Ms. Craven's accounts of her travels and interviews to be written. Ms. Cravens does not try to write this book in 3 or 6 months just to ride the coattails of the latest nuclear headlines. Instead she took the time she needed to fully understand nuclear power, other sources of electrical power and the subject of baseloading before finalizing her book. The time was well spent as she is able to competently write about the use of nuclear power in today's world of shrinking inventory of carbon based fuels, greenhouse effects and increasing international tensions.
   
   I highly recommend this book for anyone who is truly interested in the discussion and future of nuclear power. It does not answer every technical question but that was never the goal of the book. What Ms. Cravens' book does is address the necessary critical technical and nontechnical questions about the nuclear power cycle and the power needs of the United States from a layperson's level. This book should be used as reference material for any critical discussions or debates concerning the pros and cons of nuclear power.



5. Another book from a writer who says "I was anti-nuclear but I think different now". What sort of message can we expect from somebody who says "In 50 years of operation, they have caused no deaths to the public"? Obviously she has never heard about Chernobyl, or the cancer clusters near Sellafield and La Hague. And still she does not answer the questions that environmentalists raise about nuclear power: What are we going to use when we run out of uranium? what do we do about people living near nuclear power stations who get sick and die? What are we going to do with nuclear waste? Not to mention all the "what-if's" about accidents and possible terrorist attacks. This book shows you one side of the story, and hides the other one.