1 comments about Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change.

1. 1. It is more expensive today than renewables when decommissioning costs and waste disposal are included.
   2. In the intermediate time frame, it is more expensive than LNG or (projected) coal gasification + CO2 sequestration.
   3. Yucca Mt is a flawed repository. For example, it is an oxidizing not reducing environment, which will speed corrosion. Waste encapsulating materials are "exotic" man-made alloys that have existed for less than 100 years. These are supposed to operate normally for 100,000+ years. The site is riddled with cracks and clear evidence of past volcanism.
   4. All reactor designs that could be deployed soon enough to even slightly mitigate climate change (Gen III+) generate copious amounts of waste that can be reprocessed to isolate and expedite to bomb-grade. "Just 1% of the enrichment capacity required by the global growth scenario's reference case would be enough to make between 175 and 310 nuclear weapons each year." (p. 114). If you think that the standoff with Iran over its NPT-rights are tricky, note that new reprocessing techniques are much less energy intensive and much more covert than centrifuges, heightening difficulties in detecting a parallel weapons program.
   5. The industry has a history of "normalizing deviance", only to be surprised when e.g. corroded reactor vessels are found. Reactors are being relicensed for 40 years, and there are discussions of going to 60 years or more without evidence of a skeptical and cautious mindset.
   
   This book is very impressive in its documentation and attempt at balance, and is remarkably cheap but well made with relatively few typos. It is a detailed and comprehensive summary, and should be read by anyone trying to assess our energy options and who cares about the world we are leaving for our children. With oil supplies set to decline from their current peak within the next 5 years, Mexican oil production crashing, natural gas supplies in North America no longer growing, all without official recognition of clear trends, we have few routes forward. Can wind and solar fill the gap as nuclear plants reach the point where they become recurring maintenance nightmares?
   
   This book is best read with Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and (see my review), which examines some Gen IV concepts. Perhaps we can return to nuclear power in a few decades after more work on those designs, which rethink the problems while keeping sustainability and stewardship at the forefront. Perhaps a thorium based approach, with transmutation and other tricks? But this book made clear to this physicist that Gen III+ plants should not go forward in any number that would have a significant effect on net power generation or global climate change.

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.

1 comments about Handbook of Radiation Effects.

1. This text details nearly everything one need to know for a basic understanding of radiation effects on electronic components and systems. Lots of very useful tables and graphs that are needed nearly daily by the radiation experts as well as the beginners in the field. Andy & Len have done a great job putting all this information in a very understandable format. A must reference/test for everyone in the Space Radiation business. Dr. Michael K. Gauthier, ICS RADIATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

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

1. 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)



2. 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.




3. 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 :)



4. 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. The book was well researched and written. It showed another side to the "official" investigation and cleared up a lot of the mystery surrounding the explosion and deaths of the men involved. For those who have not heard of this mishap, it can definitely open the eyes as to what it took to propel us forward into the nuclear age and the limitations of human emotion. Three Mile Island was not our first mishap...obviously, this was, but more tightly controlled media and national security. It happened when I was young (though I lived nearby) and my neighbor had to respond to the site when it occurred. A very interesting and informative book.

2 comments about Atom—Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applications.

1. Atom Photon Interactions is an excellent text for atomic and optical physics. I refer back to the review material---transition amplitudes, quantum electrodynamic fundamentals, etc--- over and over again. Naturally, these sections are very brief, and the book works best along side Cohen-Tannoudji's more elementary texts Quantum Mechanics and Photons and Atoms, or their equivalents.

   The later chapters are rich in techniques and intuition applicable to atom-trapping, spectroscopy, laser theory, etc. Cohen-Tannoudji covers a lot of material, and manages to link it all to a few basic fundamental principles. The book is extremely well-organized, with bite-sized sections and appendices to each chapter. An excellent collection of exercises with solutions is included in the back. Unfortunately, the text does not prompt the reader to try working these problems at appropriate times (sadly, I didn't realize the exercises were there until I'd been using the book for some time). Like Photons and Atoms, this is primarily a book for theorists; its one weakness, I feel, is that the principles, however clear, never seem connected to the actual numbers that an experimentalist or system designer can relate to.




2. This is one of the best books in the field of QED. I used it for self-study. Only downside (also upside) about it is that everything is explained so completely that the reaser might become a bit lazy at times to spend some intellectual effort. An excellent book for self-study.

2 comments about Fallout.

1. Although Fallout is in a comic book format it is serious history. The portraits are accurate. The events leading up to the bomb are covered in depth.

   The account of the government's digraceful treatment of Oppenheimer is chilling, reminding us of how the people at the top here were much like the leaders in the USSR.




2. This graphic novel, subtitled "J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and the Political Science of the Atomic Bomb", is a good quick read. It's hard for my generation, raised with the fall of the Soviet Union, to appreciate how stupendous the atomic bomb really was. But this book does a great job of making the history of that period accessible. The book is not that short-around 200 pages-but, due to its graphic nature, is very easy to read.
   
   Fallout is really divided into two major sections. The first is concerned with the idea and creation of the atomic bomb, starting from Szilard's ideas in the 1930s and ending with the Trinity test in 1945. The second is concerned with the inquiry into Oppenheimer's advisory position to the Atomic Energy Commission, which occured in the political climate of the 1950s. Both these are worth reading, but the second one, which has much more text-portions of letters are printed along with the graphics-is a chilling reminder of the craziness of that time.
   
   With 6 different authors listed on the cover (and more in the back pages), the illustrations change often enough that you do have to pay attention to know who is speaking. Additional difficulties arise because there are so many characters. I think the book would be stronger if one author had been responsible for all of the graphic content because the characters would be easier to keep track of.
   
   One very nice aspect of this book is the end notes. At the back of the book, extensive text outlines what parts are true and what parts are surmise. As the front of the book saysm "many of the quotes and incidents that you'll think most likely to be made up are the best documented facts." For example, Teller, one of the scientists, denies his similarity to Dr Strangelove, and another, Szilard, devises his own cancer treatment using radiation.
   
   All in all, if you're in for a light introduction to the history of one of the heaviest subjects, Fallout is a good choice.

5 comments about In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks.

1. 't Hooft's journey through particle physics is pleasant and sometimes exciting. In the last chapters he discusses the latest theoretical models in a clear and synthetic way. He seems to think that, as we know more and more about the basic structure of matter, time and space, classical physics and quantum mechanics somehow will get closer and closer, and maybe will eventually rejoin. And this is surely a fascinating perspective.



2. Gerard 't Hooft is one of the best and most thoughtful physicists in the world; there are many who think he should have received the Nobel Prize long before he finally did (in 1999). This short book is a marvel. It can be read with almost no prior knowledge of mathematics or physics, and it gives an extremely clear and well-balanced view of the well-established state of knowledge in particle physics and field theory as of 1997; little has changed in the intervening four years.

   't Hooft has his own prejudices and enthusiams, but in this book he tried scrupulously to stick with the mainstream concensus in the first 21 of 28 chapters. In the last seven chapters, he describes some of the current and more speculative work being done by various people all over the world who are attempting to create a "Grand Theory of Everything". This discussion is cautious and somewhat skeptical, as I believe it should be, but the underlying ideas of the various approaches are clearly described.

   I consider 't Hooft to be one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, and I consider this to be one of the half-dozen best books for laymen on any aspect of modern physics that I have come across. I believe that's because 't Hooft himself thinks so clearly.




3. Gerard t'Hooft is a surprisingly rare example of a rational physicist who is not-so-willing to support all those main-stream paradoxical and irrational claims which often saturate works of some celebrated theoretical physicists. Consequently, Dr. t'Hooft is not so popular among the fashionable camp of string mystics, but rather remains an idependently thinking theorist of Einstein's or Jaynes' scientific ethics.

   In my opinion, Dr. 't Hooft wrote a very honest, competent, sincere, and yet highly readable book. In comparison with those popular but misleading books in the style of "The Elegant Universe" (B. Greene) or "The First Three Minutes" (S. Weinberg), this book is a much better example of a fair popularizing book on fundamental particle physics and its recent history, from a perspective of a personal scientific advanture.

   Dr. 't Hooft is evidently well aware about some fundamental intrinsic difficulties in modern theoretical physics, which many other physicists either ignore, or simply cannot recognize. Just one typical quote from t'Hooft's book which many quantum, statistical and string physicists should read as a mantra every morning:

   "Probabilities and statistics are mistreated a great deal, even by physicists." (p. 14)

   Yes, here is the root of many "paradoxes" of modern physics. As a theoretical physicist (and independently from my personal preferences), I think that Gerard 't Hooft is right also on many other sensitive issues of modern physics and that he wrote a very honest popularizing book. This book is fair to a layman and interesting even to an advanced physicist. (As a rare exception to this rule, I cannot fully support his section on Planck's radiation law (p. 9) where I found some common physical misperceptions and some traces of a historical myth.)




4. It included a Eureka moment for me, t' Hooft sets the elementary particles into a sensible context in his smart particle tables, it was one of those "I get it" moments, in which strange quarks (and the rest) just made sense.
   The text is lucid and includes light touches of humor, mainly at the expense of the TOE "theories", this is a real physicist, which gently advices "reality checks" to those who will forget that physics is about the world we experience, with experimental verification high on the priority list.
   Not many of us (me included) had the pleasure of a Physics Nobel laureate explaining his field of expertise to us in a personal way, this book is the closest most of us can get to that.
   My only negative comment is that it should have been a longer book, including more subjects and more of `t Hooft's insights.



5. Perhaps I was taken in by the 5-star average review of this book when I bot it, or seduced by the reviewer who claimed even a raw beginner could profit by reading it. I should have been more cautious when one reviewer said that it was not for the timid or faint of heart.
   
   I have read some popularizing books on this subject and even taken a course for non-physicists in the subject of particle physics. I found the book unreadable for several reasons. Professor t'Hooft undertook by himself to translate this book from its Dutch original into English; it is clear that his upbringing in the excellent Dutch school system allowed him too early to specialize in the sciences at the expense of language study. Even though the book's English was vetted by Robin Mize, in many places--averaging once per page--the English expression is nearly unintelligible. A difficult subject whose mathematical elegance is apparent to the baptized but admittedly difficult to convey in language for tyros is here often beyond hope of being understood.
   
   The first 11 chapters, wherein the author presents a history of the subject with its brilliant breakthroughs and sometimes insurmountable problems, are readable. But once the author himself, then a graduate student seeking a thesis topic, enters the history and the account becomes personal, the book ceases to be intelligible. Sadly, this is the very selling point of the book: "This is a first-hand account . . ." The cover reviewers from Nature and Physics World are enthusiastic, but then they are scientists. "Sharp statements" and "novel formulations" are not the stuff that open doors for novices in search of broad avenues of understanding. And the "dry ingenious humor" of the author was quite lost on this reader who was struggling to parse the English with Dutch syntax. Sorry

No comments about Fallout: An American Nuclear Tragedy.

4 comments about The Warning: Accident at Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Omen for the Age of Terror.

1. Very intriguing book about the near disaster at Three Mile Island. Very well written, it keeps you spellbound to the very last period. It explains what went wrong with excellent detail. Enough information to keep you spellbound, but not enough to bore you with unnecessary details. A very well written book. A must if you want to learn the true story about Three Mile Island.



2. As someone who works at a Nuclear plant, I've had much training on the accident at TMI in much greater detail than provided in this book (although, Gray does do a decent job at explaining how operators responded to that paricular event...he does leave out a lot, however). The best thing about this, for me, was his obvious research with regard to other facilities that had the same problem prior to TMI and the lack of a Nuclear network to help get the word out (we have an extensive network of information sharing now). The character descriptions are excellent and the story does flow like a novel...get this book (if you can find it...it's been out of print for a while) if you want a reasonably close explanation of what occured at TMI, but get it more for the story and the background information.



3. This story DOES read like a novel - I agree with one of the other reviewers. I was only 9 years old when the accident happened, but not long thereafter I bought this book during its first printing. Adding to my fascination to the accident is the fact that I was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and my father was a long-time employee of Met-Ed. My interest in nuclear plants is alive and well, since I now live within 5 miles of one of the largest nuclear plants (in Megawatt producing power) in the United States.

   I read it at least 5 times because I found it so fascinating and I loved the characters that Rosen and Gray bring to life, such as plant superintendent Gary Miller and control room operator Bill Zewe. The technical details are explained in easy-to-understand language that makes reading the book a pleasure, not a pain.

   I plan on buying this book again to reread it, as my original copy is long lost. But, I enjoyed it the first 5 times I read it, and I'm buying another copy.

   If you want a great overall perspective on the America's "Near-Chernobyl," pick up a copy and enjoy.




4. I read this book 5 times over the course of several months because it combines technical depth with superb and witty writing.
   
   As a former Power Plant engineer for Duke Energy, I'm all too familiar with the design of power plants and this account of the accident is very accurate.

5 comments about Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy.

1. Kicking The Carbon Habit: Global Warming And The Case Of Renewable And Nuclear Energy doesn't adopt the usual focus on cutting oil consumption: instead it focuses on reducing coal use. Coal-fired plants produce over half of the electricity in the US, accounting for some 40 percent of the country's greenhouse gasses. Sweet doesn't advocate a singular path of change another unusual feature but proposes a mix of environmentally sound technologies from wind power to nuclear reactors. Chapters survey not just techniques but political pros and cons, social effects, and environmental impact.



2. William Sweet's book, Kicking the Carbon Habit, provides clear and convincing evidence that global warming and cooling trends are directly correlated with changes in carbon in the atmosphere. He accomplishes this by providing an overview of scientific research. He compiles the research, organizes it, and presents it to the reader in a fairly easy-to-read narrative. As someone who is new in the area of carbon emissions and global climate change, I found the book very educational, convincing, and a nice introduction to the scientists who have worked diligently on global climate change.
   
   Sweet believes that we can create a "no-carbon-growth path" within the next 50 years. Three-fourths of the reduction in carbon emissions would come from a combination of conservation, improved energy efficiency, reduced gasoline consumption, and the use of renewable energy. Sweet believes that these, alone, will not succeed in leveling off the use of carbon in the next 50 years.
   
   The remaining quarter would come from nuclear power. Sweet feels this cannot be achieved without an increased use of nuclear power by a handful of wealthy countries. He touches on security issues relating to the use of nuclear power and notes that modern-day reactors and their waste products were relatively safe.
   
   While I'm more convinced that we might need additional nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions, the optimist in me looks at Sweet's work and says, "Wow, we can accomplish about 75% reduction in carbon emissions by becoming conservationists and using renewable energy," a very tall order... to be sure... but possible. I also wonder if it's possible that we may find a way to produce the other ¼ reduction as we progress towards the year 2054.
   
   With or without the use of nuclear power, it seems that we, as a global population, are likely to trade one risky future for another. Which future do we wish to have; one with the risks associated with nuclear power or one with the risks associated with global warming?



3. Anthropomorphic global warming is probably a large threat to our planet. Unfortunately the United States is doing very poorly in this area, and the rest of the world is loosing patience with us. The average American produces 20 ton of CO² per year. So what is the solution? Should we radically change the way we live, destroy modern society, perhaps starve to death? How can we significantly reduce CO² production and continue functioning as a society.
   
   The answer is that the American CO² output can be significantly reduced in a relatively short time if we focus mostly on the main source of CO² and that is COAL. My home country Sweden does not use Coal generated electricity because of Sweden's higher reliance on nuclear power and hydro electric power. This is very similar to what William Sweet prescribes. Increase the use of Nuclear Power and to a certain degree wind power. He is also suggesting a carbon tax and maybe an increased gasoline tax, but nothing of the sort that they have in Europe. This solution is possible to implement in a short time and without much cost. Nuclear power is a well-proven technology capable of producing electricity at costs that are commercially competitive right now. A new nuclear power plant takes 3-5 years to build.
   
   If you consider that the burning of coal and bio fuels kills millions of people around the world and 30,000+ Americans every year (from other pollutants than CO²), and that Nuclear Power has never killed a single American, this solution also looks good for other reasons. Sweet also advocates the increased use of wind power, however, wind power cannot realistically replace Coal in a near future. It should be noted that Sweet is not advocating nuclear power as a "long term solution" but as a relatively harmless and cheap "temporary solution" until other renewable energy sources can supply the entire country with electricity at a reasonable cost.
   
   Unfortunately people are fearful of nuclear power and many environmentalists have not embraced nuclear power. This fear is based on huge misunderstandings of its risks as well as gross exaggerations of the dangers of long term nuclear waste. For this to work people need to "wise up" and understand the science and the technology around nuclear power. For example, many people do not even understand the inverse relationship between half life and radioactive heat. It will surprise many people that the fuel for power plants Uranium 235/238 is pretty harmless and a very common substance, yes you have it your backyard, and your kids eat it in the sand box. It is also strange how we worry less about extremely radioactive substances that really cause us major harm like Radon. We all need to get smart and start being very afraid of Coal, and stop being so paranoid about nuclear power.
   
   Two thirds of Sweets book is dedicated to the history of global warming research and why we really need to worry about global warming. Unlike Al Gore he is taking a very scientific, honest and cautious approach when explaining the problem. He is never sensationalistic and still he is much more convincing than Al Gore. William Sweet will make you worry about global warming if you did not do so before. The last third of the book is his practical solutions to Americas CO² dilemma. I think his book should instead have spent 1/3 on the global warming issue and 2/3 on his solution.
   
   I would like to criticize his book for being a little weak on countering the many potential counter arguments people fearful of nuclear power might have. However, there are many other books on that subject, for example, "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens and Richard Rhodes", "The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power: Economic, Medical, and Political Considerations by Robert C. Morris", "Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim? Our Most Misunderstood Source of Electricity by Max Carbon", "A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity: (Or Why I Think Nuclear Power Is Cool and Why It Is Important That You Think So Too) by Scott Heaberlin".
   
   If other countries has relied on nuclear power, yes even recycling (like France) for many decades without any problems, why can't the U.S, when the welfare of the entire world is at stake? Also I do not consider a carbon tax or a gasoline tax "increased socialism". First of all such measures can be countered with a lower income tax, and the current gasoline tax does not even pay for the transportation infrastructure. There are also special loop holes like the one allowing SUVs to be considered farm vehicles. On the contrary the oil and gasoline industry is being subsidized and the Coal industry is allowed to kill us all and cause global warming without paying for it. William Sweet has probably written the most important book in this decade. I wish more people would take notice.



4. William Sweet's "Kicking the Carbon Habit" is a more complex, pragmatic, yet passionate analysis of global warming and related environmental issues than most of the other reviews here on amazon have acknowledged. It is NOT chiefly an advocacy for nuclear power; in fact, nuclear power is advocated only as a partial solution appropriate mainly for the USA, and this option is scarcely mentioned until the penultimate chapter of the book. Sweet's principal arguments are as follows:
   
   1. Carbon emissions are a significant problem, and possibly a catastrophic problem. The consequences are not only global warming but also serious dangers to human health world wide. Human consumption of carbon fuels (coal and petroleum chiefly) are responsible for rapidly increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
   
   2. The worst contributor to carbon emissions is coal, especially the coal used to generate electricity. Because of its wealth and technological resources, the USA is potentially well positioned to reduce the use of coal quickly, but developing countries like China and India are not so positioned. Parity in reduction of the use of coal is neither "fair" nor possible.
   
   3. The USA should and must take leadership in efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Here are Sweet's words: "...global warming represents a kind of international emergency, requiring immediate concerted effort. As greenhouse gases approach levels never seen in the past 700,000 years, we are drifting into uncharted waters, and so the rational thing to do is to reverse course and get back out, the faster the better. The United States, responsible for a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the world's richest and most capable country, should take especially aggressive action to reduce emissions. Rather than being a global laggard, the United States should be a world leader in this effort."
   
   4. Possible measures include: Conservation of energy; Increased Efficiency of Utilization of Energy; Substitution of Alternate Non-carbon Sources of Energy.
   
   5. Of these, conservation would seem to be the most pragmatic, and yet human nature presents obstacles which can only be overcome by earnest public awareness and, let's be frank, by governmental action and regulation. Increased efficiency is technologically within reach in the proper time frame, but history shows that efficiency has tended to be diluted in effect by profligate increases in consumption; therefore, once again, government action by way of economic policy and regulation will be necessary.
   
   6. Among the alternate sources of energy, only wind power and nuclear power are anywhere close to readiness to play a significant role in reducing emissions. Sweet explains in careful detail the obstacles in expecting much, in the important near future, from solar power, the "hydrogen" economy, ethanol, and carbon dioxide sequestration. These technologies may some day be practical but that day is not in sight. The current political enthusiasm for ethanol is an unfortunate side-track.
   7. Economic leverage through taxes and regulatory costs, plus the public recognition of the large hidden costs of coal as an energy source, will make wind power and nuclear power economically attractive eventually, but it would be wise to get started now. Nuclear power has become far safer and more efficient in the last 15 years, and can be considered a good alternative for "dirty" coal-fueled power plants across the USA. However, on a worldwide basis, nuclear power cannot do the whole job for reasons of cost and for considerations of safety. Once again, the US must take on more than a parity of responsibility. Sweet writes: "If the world's greenhouse gas emissions are to be kept from more than doubling in this century, the United States is going to have to do not just its fair share, so to speak, but a little more..... it can afford to do more; because US use of energy is singularly extravagant..."
   
   Alarming thoughts, though Sweet is nobody's idea of an Al Gore alarmist. But wait! I have the answer! I do! Just read on:
   
   Electrical generators can be attached to tread mills, stationary bikes, and step machines from coast to coast, not only in gyms but in private homes. Clearly the electricity generated by such machines cannot replace coal-burning power plants, but there's more to my idea! Beyond a minimum ration of six gallons of gasoline per week for each adult in America, gas allowances will be linked in direct proportion to the amount of electricity generated by human exercise. This can be easily monitored by simple electronic chip-implanted ration cards, to be inserted in the exercise machines for pluses and the gas pumps for minuses. The main behefit will result from the motivation to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. Thus it's a market mechanism! And think of the savings to the medical system which will accrue from all the exercise! the reduction of obesity!
   We can also attach tiny generators to the jaws of talk show hosts and screaming heads on TV, as well as voluntarily on callers-in! The net production of power will not be immense, but the pain and fatigue of generating something useful will automatically result in a significant reduction of hot air! A win-win situation.



5. Global warming is a premise, not something to prove for this book. Manmadeness is demonstrated. Strategies for a partial solution, only as far as US is concerned, are dicussed.
   Main thesis is the Faustian deal character of our coal burning habits. While burning wood is even worse in terms of CO2 output, the effect can be neutralized by reforestation. Not so with coal. What took millions of years to build is consumed in a mere few hundreds of years. The depletion of resources is not even the worst aspect of this process, worse is the interference in and reinforcement of climatic trends, which are in themselves dramatic enough when left alone. Looking at world pollution development I would go so far to say that it does not even matter very much whether man influences climate. The other negative impacts of pollution are bad enough to require rethinking.
   The inclusion of nuclear power in the arsenal for the future seems hardly avoidable, but, as another reviewer said, it is replacing one Faustian deal with another.
   While the book is hardly original, it is definitely worth reading. I am not entirely happy with all aspects of its presentation. For instance some of the illustrations are rather odd (e.g. the photo of the mining activist?) and the graphs are not all very professional. I also think that the text components are not that well balanced. These are minor irritations though and don't require a star reduction.
   I wish Mr.Sweet could make an intelligent proposal for China, which is my personal main concern. He describes the dilemmas well: no realistic alternative to large scale long term coal burning.
   Puzzling among the comments: there still seem to be quite a few believers in the market's ability to cure these problems. This has been a source of wonder to me since the first study of the Club of Rome came out.
   Thanks to Asterix Wikman and Obelix Bruno for directing me to this book! (Their summary of the book is recommendable!)