What do you think?
Rate this book
Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy
An informed look at the myths and fears surrounding nuclear energy, and a practical, politically realistic solution to global warming and our energy needs. Faced by the world's oil shortages and curious about alternative energy sources, Gwyneth Cravens skeptically sets out to find the truth about nuclear energy. Her conclusion: it is a totally viable and practical solution to global warming. In the end, we see that if we are to care for subsequent generations, embracing nuclear energy is an ethical imperative.
439 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 17, 2007
92 people are currently reading
1279 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
August 4, 2022
This is a very good reference framed as Cravens’ tour from anti to pro nuclear. The bottom line, if you consider yourself an environmentalist, be pro nuclear. If you believe in science, be pro nuclear. The fear-based questions were all asked in this book, including the worst damage found from Three Mile Island was the ‘mental distress’ from those who were evacuated. The question of radiation was evaluated over and over, with a clear answer - nuclear facilities are better regulated and cleaner radiation-wise than the 2 bananas you ate last year. This was a particularly frustrating read right now, with west coast fires and southeast hurricanes... an enormous impact we could make is to cut greenhouse gases by building nuclear energy facilities, to stop burning coal. AND, not to mention the bombs that could be harvested for fuel for our cities in the case for non-proliferation...
Also for reference:
“The energy pie needs a slice of nuclear”
https://youtu.be/thSXhIfzTMg
Also (video recording):
Long Now (led by Stewart Brand) conversation-presentation with Gweneth Cravens (wrote Power to Save the World) and Rip Anderson
https://longnow.org/seminars/02007/se...
And (another video):
Long Now debate-discussion between Ralph Cavanagh & Peter Schwartz
https://longnow.org/seminars/02006/ja...
Also for reference:
“The energy pie needs a slice of nuclear”
https://youtu.be/thSXhIfzTMg
Also (video recording):
Long Now (led by Stewart Brand) conversation-presentation with Gweneth Cravens (wrote Power to Save the World) and Rip Anderson
https://longnow.org/seminars/02007/se...
And (another video):
Long Now debate-discussion between Ralph Cavanagh & Peter Schwartz
https://longnow.org/seminars/02006/ja...
November 30, 2018
I wholeheartedly agree with the statements made in this book. There are so many arguments for nuclear power and so few against that for an intelligent person, reading this book is almost an academic confirmation exercise. The fact that the author repeatedly invokes the theory of man-made global warming as the principal argument in favour of the technology (which of course emits no carbon dioxide) is just a slight annoyance that should be generally self evident.
This is an informative book of interesting facts for educated laypeople not involved in the industry, and worth a read by those who object to nuclear power on misguided ideological grounds but who are willing to learn something. Unfortunately, the latter is likely a very small group.
This is an informative book of interesting facts for educated laypeople not involved in the industry, and worth a read by those who object to nuclear power on misguided ideological grounds but who are willing to learn something. Unfortunately, the latter is likely a very small group.
July 6, 2008
For me this book was annoying. It is a "green nuclear" book that argues that nuclear power is necessary to save the world from global warming. The author does this by taking tours with a nuclear scientist through the whole nuclear cycle from mine to power plant to waste storage repository. The author also takes a tour of a coal plant which emphasizes how bad coal is from an environmental standpoint for generating energy. Much of what the book does is talk about radiation pollution, and the book does a good job of allaying fears in that regard. I suppose with the public in general this needs to be done, but that is what I found annoying about the work. Radiation pollution is not the problem with nuclear power--despite the public's perception it never was. The problem with nuclear power is the cost. The book hardly addresses cost at all except to say it is cheap. But that is just begging the question. In fact, the cited cost of the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste repository, military radioactive waste cleanup projects, nuclear research facilities, and other places she toured suggests otherwise. These are just a few of the costs that are never considered when people price out nuclear power. So too, the author buys the claim without questioning it that there is not enough continually reliable renewable energy to provide base load electricity needs for the power grid. This is just incorrect (for example, the author has apparently never heard of high-altitude wind turbines, or wave surge power plants). In particular, high-altitude wind energy has the potential to be cheaper and much simpler to implement than a nuclear revival and at a fraction of the cost. The nuclear scientist, Rip (D. Richardson Anderson), is the person that escorts the author on her tours and explains to her why nuclear power is the way to go. Rip does a great job of making the case for nuclear. But, when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail, and if you are a nuclear scientist then it is not surprising that nuclear power is the answer to our energy crisis. The book does a good job of educating the public about the safety of nuclear power, and that is important given that there is going to be something of a nuclear revival. But in suggesting that nuclear power is necessary to save the world, the book is a failure; mainly because the author just didn't do her homework with regards to alternative energy sources.
March 1, 2022
My worldview was rocked by this book. I am so angry after it because this contained information that I simply didn't know how to access until I went looking. It shouldn't be that hard.
It is alarming to me that we can lament the lack of belief towards the science community when it comes to climate change, but when they also have consensus over the utility and importance of nuclear energy, we turnaround and not consider it. Science shouldn't be politcised. And prior to this book, I really did consider nuclear energy a conservative energy policy with little merit. I was wrong.
I was a bit wary that I would be overloaded with information I would not be able to cohesively understand as someone who doesn't opt for non-fiction. But the writing was easy, and the information was well put.
It is alarming to me that we can lament the lack of belief towards the science community when it comes to climate change, but when they also have consensus over the utility and importance of nuclear energy, we turnaround and not consider it. Science shouldn't be politcised. And prior to this book, I really did consider nuclear energy a conservative energy policy with little merit. I was wrong.
I was a bit wary that I would be overloaded with information I would not be able to cohesively understand as someone who doesn't opt for non-fiction. But the writing was easy, and the information was well put.
February 14, 2017
Hoo boy. Giving this a rating of 4 because I think the information presented in the book is really valuable, but man this writing style really grated on me after a while and it was a struggle to get through the final few chapters. That being said, I've always been very pro-nuclear, so I think if I were more wary of nuclear power in the first place I would have appreciated the way this book was written a little bit more.
June 4, 2021
Daughter read this book for her Biology debate and told me that it may change my opinions about the right kind of energy to use in the future...so here I am. After finishing the book in two days, I have to say...I'm impressed. Gwyneth Cravens presented a very complex and scary subject(in most people's mind, including mine) in a way that is fun and simple to read. She addressed every fear that we have, including waste disposal, safety, radiation, cost, cancer risk..., about nuclear energy (which most were speculation) and convinced me and most readers that this IS the best option. It's not only the best, but the only option that we have for energy generation for now....in order for our children and grandchildren to continue to enjoy the world as we do...
There are many surprising facts about nuclear energy, as well as the alternatives, that she presented in her book. The ones were the most shocking was that if we use nuclear energy to power all our need, in our whole life, the amount of waste would fit perfectly in a SODA CAN. I also learned the cost, the pollution, the danger, and the space and cost that are required to use other forms of energy production, including wind, sun, water and our present fuels. There's just no other way that would produce enough energy to power what we need, which increases exponentially yearly, with lowest cost and the least pollution. This book definitely opened my eyes and my narrow-mindness. I'd recommend it to everyone I know. We need to educate our children early, so they'd not be fed with fear and the wrong information.
PS- Daughter won her debate.
There are many surprising facts about nuclear energy, as well as the alternatives, that she presented in her book. The ones were the most shocking was that if we use nuclear energy to power all our need, in our whole life, the amount of waste would fit perfectly in a SODA CAN. I also learned the cost, the pollution, the danger, and the space and cost that are required to use other forms of energy production, including wind, sun, water and our present fuels. There's just no other way that would produce enough energy to power what we need, which increases exponentially yearly, with lowest cost and the least pollution. This book definitely opened my eyes and my narrow-mindness. I'd recommend it to everyone I know. We need to educate our children early, so they'd not be fed with fear and the wrong information.
PS- Daughter won her debate.
January 21, 2021
This is an important book. We're ankle deep in the literal rising tide of the climate crisis. This book lays out the argument for why nuclear has to be part of our solution portfolio.
It also tells the history of how a anti-nuclear sentiment grew so strong in the first place. Namely, nuclear power began as an offshoot of the nuclear arms race. Anti-war sentiments bled over into anti-nuclear sentiments. Also, radiation is scary and people don't understand it well. This book does a stellar job steel manning these concerns and dispelling the myths that underpin them.
Throughout the book its author is making a case for nuclear. This gets exhausting as constant, sustained rhetoric distracts from the educational content. I also think this is a strategical error on the author's part. I want anti-nuclear folks to read this book. Cravens is the best person to write it because she's informed, and used to be anti-nuclear, herself. She makes a great spokesperson. But one thing I wish she'd incorporate into her argumentation is a little more balance and less persuasion. For example, she tends to sprinkle conclusions in between concrete details. It doesn't ruin the book, but it's worth pointing out.
It also tells the history of how a anti-nuclear sentiment grew so strong in the first place. Namely, nuclear power began as an offshoot of the nuclear arms race. Anti-war sentiments bled over into anti-nuclear sentiments. Also, radiation is scary and people don't understand it well. This book does a stellar job steel manning these concerns and dispelling the myths that underpin them.
Throughout the book its author is making a case for nuclear. This gets exhausting as constant, sustained rhetoric distracts from the educational content. I also think this is a strategical error on the author's part. I want anti-nuclear folks to read this book. Cravens is the best person to write it because she's informed, and used to be anti-nuclear, herself. She makes a great spokesperson. But one thing I wish she'd incorporate into her argumentation is a little more balance and less persuasion. For example, she tends to sprinkle conclusions in between concrete details. It doesn't ruin the book, but it's worth pointing out.
April 30, 2011
For anyone who is truly concerned about the environment and is willing to accept that we've been given a bunch of feel-good bones while oil and coal manufacturers politically maneuver our leaders and the media into positions that ensure their profits and bypasses any regulation to curb their underestimated environmental impact. At times, the book is a bit heavy-handed as Cravens dispels myths about radiation, nuclear power, nuclear waste, and the impact of the nuclear industry on the environment. Nevertheless, the science is sound.
August 14, 2011
Gwyneth Cravens grew up in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Sandia Mountains in the distance. With Sandia National Laboratories close by, she worried that the Soviets were going to bomb her home into oblivion. As she got older, like many Americans, she associated nuclear power with nuclear bombs and thus became anti-nuclear. After relocating to Long Island, she joined protesters in successfully preventing the Shoreham nuclear power plant from ever coming on line. It's now something she regrets.
In the early 90's, while visiting friends and family back in Albuquerque, she met Dr. D. Richard "Rip" Anderson, a scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, and his wife at a party. She struck up a conversation with him that would ultimately lead her over the next decade through a tour of the entire nuclear power industry: uranium mines, research labs in Idaho, Three Mile Island, power plants, old weapons test sites, and waste disposal sites. Although she didn't visit Chernobyl, there's a chapter that analyzes what went wrong and why it couldn't happen here. Cravens covers radiation, mining, fuel supply, politics and regulations, costs, risk assessment, waste storage, improvements in reactor design, safety, terrorism, baseline energy demand, and contrasts the nuclear industry with coal. The end result is: "Power To Save The World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy."
This is an amazing book. Cravens, a novelist by trade, is able to make a book about physics and engineering, which could be dull to non-technical readers, a compelling read. We're there as she makes her journey through the nuclear world. Vivid descriptions and colorful anecdotes break up the science lessons and statistical evidence presented to destroy the myths and allay the fears that people (including herself) have regarding nuclear power.
The most illuminating portion of the book for me was the fact that we are awash in radiation from natural sources. The universe, our planet, and everything we eat, exposes us to radiation. Had a banana lately? Anything with potassium in it harbors Potassium-40 atoms, which emits beta radiation. Feeling sick now? You shouldn't. Cravens tears apart the belief that radiation exposure is harmful at all levels as all the evidence shows that low level exposure is harmless and that there is a threshold that must be passed before damage occurs. However, regulations have been established that all radiation is bad, hence the great lengths that power plants and waste repositories must go through to insulate the public. For example, the EPA states that the neighbors of nuclear power plant must not be subjected to more than 15 millirems of radiation. All American nuclear power plants emit 1-2 millirem/year. By contrast, a chest X-ray exposes you to 10 millirem. Dental X-ray 29 millirem. A roundtrip flight from NYC to LA gives you 3 millirem. The granite in Grand Central Station exposes people to 540 millirem (assuming you were there round the clock). People living in Denver are exposed to 700 millirem/year (the higher the altitude, the less atmosphere there is to shield you, not to mention all that granite). Yet there are no cancer clusters among Grand Central workers, dental technicians, airline pilots, flight attendants, or the residents of Denver. By comparison, cigarette smokers who have a one pack per day habit expose themselves to 8,000 millirem/year. Tobacco plants, it seems, have an affinity for radionuclides.
While she defends the science of nuclear power and defends the engineering incorporated into structures, she doesn't brown nose the corporations that own the power plants. She acknowledges that they've miscommunicated, kept things hidden, and made poor strategic decisions. The industry is over regulated. And while that's forced workers to adopt a culture of safety (a good thing she argues) it's over the top. I worked for a chemical company that would've been shut down if it had to report every single little spill that happened. A few milliliters of a non-reactive substance is harmless. So too are the "accidents" at nuclear power plants that you read in the paper or hear about from shrill anti-nuclear groups. But even water leaks that don't come into contact with the reactor are required to be reported. Do you tell your health insurance company every time you blow your nose? In fact, if the chemical, oil, and coal industries had to live up to the standards imposed on the nuclear industry, they wouldn't be able to stay in business due to regulatory expenditures. "Cheap coal" would be an oxymoron.
There's just so much in this book. I could go on and on and on about the material in this book (especially about radiation) but time, space, and my kids prevent me from doing so. I strongly recommend that everyone read this book (it's in paperback now too) to get the facts about nuclear power. Or go to Cravens' website.
At the end of the book, Cravens visits a clinic to determine her level of exposure after ten years of researching her book. After visiting uranium mines, Three Mile Island, a couple nuclear power plants, nuclear research sites, bomb test sites, and waste repositories, her test results came back negative.
In the early 90's, while visiting friends and family back in Albuquerque, she met Dr. D. Richard "Rip" Anderson, a scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, and his wife at a party. She struck up a conversation with him that would ultimately lead her over the next decade through a tour of the entire nuclear power industry: uranium mines, research labs in Idaho, Three Mile Island, power plants, old weapons test sites, and waste disposal sites. Although she didn't visit Chernobyl, there's a chapter that analyzes what went wrong and why it couldn't happen here. Cravens covers radiation, mining, fuel supply, politics and regulations, costs, risk assessment, waste storage, improvements in reactor design, safety, terrorism, baseline energy demand, and contrasts the nuclear industry with coal. The end result is: "Power To Save The World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy."
This is an amazing book. Cravens, a novelist by trade, is able to make a book about physics and engineering, which could be dull to non-technical readers, a compelling read. We're there as she makes her journey through the nuclear world. Vivid descriptions and colorful anecdotes break up the science lessons and statistical evidence presented to destroy the myths and allay the fears that people (including herself) have regarding nuclear power.
The most illuminating portion of the book for me was the fact that we are awash in radiation from natural sources. The universe, our planet, and everything we eat, exposes us to radiation. Had a banana lately? Anything with potassium in it harbors Potassium-40 atoms, which emits beta radiation. Feeling sick now? You shouldn't. Cravens tears apart the belief that radiation exposure is harmful at all levels as all the evidence shows that low level exposure is harmless and that there is a threshold that must be passed before damage occurs. However, regulations have been established that all radiation is bad, hence the great lengths that power plants and waste repositories must go through to insulate the public. For example, the EPA states that the neighbors of nuclear power plant must not be subjected to more than 15 millirems of radiation. All American nuclear power plants emit 1-2 millirem/year. By contrast, a chest X-ray exposes you to 10 millirem. Dental X-ray 29 millirem. A roundtrip flight from NYC to LA gives you 3 millirem. The granite in Grand Central Station exposes people to 540 millirem (assuming you were there round the clock). People living in Denver are exposed to 700 millirem/year (the higher the altitude, the less atmosphere there is to shield you, not to mention all that granite). Yet there are no cancer clusters among Grand Central workers, dental technicians, airline pilots, flight attendants, or the residents of Denver. By comparison, cigarette smokers who have a one pack per day habit expose themselves to 8,000 millirem/year. Tobacco plants, it seems, have an affinity for radionuclides.
While she defends the science of nuclear power and defends the engineering incorporated into structures, she doesn't brown nose the corporations that own the power plants. She acknowledges that they've miscommunicated, kept things hidden, and made poor strategic decisions. The industry is over regulated. And while that's forced workers to adopt a culture of safety (a good thing she argues) it's over the top. I worked for a chemical company that would've been shut down if it had to report every single little spill that happened. A few milliliters of a non-reactive substance is harmless. So too are the "accidents" at nuclear power plants that you read in the paper or hear about from shrill anti-nuclear groups. But even water leaks that don't come into contact with the reactor are required to be reported. Do you tell your health insurance company every time you blow your nose? In fact, if the chemical, oil, and coal industries had to live up to the standards imposed on the nuclear industry, they wouldn't be able to stay in business due to regulatory expenditures. "Cheap coal" would be an oxymoron.
There's just so much in this book. I could go on and on and on about the material in this book (especially about radiation) but time, space, and my kids prevent me from doing so. I strongly recommend that everyone read this book (it's in paperback now too) to get the facts about nuclear power. Or go to Cravens' website.
At the end of the book, Cravens visits a clinic to determine her level of exposure after ten years of researching her book. After visiting uranium mines, Three Mile Island, a couple nuclear power plants, nuclear research sites, bomb test sites, and waste repositories, her test results came back negative.
August 6, 2013
A thorough look at nuclear energy and the options the world faces for power in the future. Cravens was an organic gardener in the 1970s, marched against the Bomb as well as a nuclear power plant in NY state, she is a classic north easterner who wrote for the New Yorker and now a novelist by trade - so her liberal credentials are impeccable. She writes about her journey of learning about nuclear energy from a starting point of knowing nothing and so takes us with her on the path of discovery. She wants to know everything and asks every question that the ordinary non-scientist punters like myself wish to know. It is all written up thoughtfully as well as extremely thoroughly as would befit a former New Yorker writer.
I learned that nuclear radiation is everywhere and that natural background radiation in some parts of the world is many times higher than elsewhere, including even places like Chernobyl. Taking an airplane flight hugely ups your radiation dose, again much more than Chernobyl, but is still safe. Life itself evolved in concert with natural background radiation - from rocks, from space, from bananas even, so radiation is a natural part of life and its low level effects, even in relatively highly radioactive parts of the world, have not been proven to be dangerous. The nuclear industry has an extraordinarily good safety record, especially compared to other energy producers. I realised that my fear of nuclear energy is based on superstitious ignorance because I did not understand it. The many ecologically minded scientists in the book tear their hair out at the lack of public understanding and paranoia about nuclear energy probably partly caused by its conflation in people's minds with nuclear bombs.
Costs are high but if carbon were priced according to its true cost nuclear is good value long term. Renewables like solar and wind are good but cannot and will not for the foreseeable future provide nearly enough energy, let alone at the right times. The best argument for nuclear is of course in comparison to fossil fuels especially coal. Even if coal did not pump out carbon it is still poisonous, full of lead, arsenic and other nasties. The visit to the dirty coal plant (and this was as show plant that the industry were keen for people to see) is shocking after the ultra clean, ultra organised nuclear plant visits. Coal also produces a lot of radiation, in quantities vastly larger than a nuclear power station. As James Lovelock has urged for decades, the world needs a massive building program of nuclear power stations so we can all be like France which is 80% nuclear and has the cleanest air in Europe
I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in energy, global warming or the the world at large, I think it is hugely important and has certainly changed my mind on this issue. This book intelligently and thoughtfully explains all the issues from every angle.
I learned that nuclear radiation is everywhere and that natural background radiation in some parts of the world is many times higher than elsewhere, including even places like Chernobyl. Taking an airplane flight hugely ups your radiation dose, again much more than Chernobyl, but is still safe. Life itself evolved in concert with natural background radiation - from rocks, from space, from bananas even, so radiation is a natural part of life and its low level effects, even in relatively highly radioactive parts of the world, have not been proven to be dangerous. The nuclear industry has an extraordinarily good safety record, especially compared to other energy producers. I realised that my fear of nuclear energy is based on superstitious ignorance because I did not understand it. The many ecologically minded scientists in the book tear their hair out at the lack of public understanding and paranoia about nuclear energy probably partly caused by its conflation in people's minds with nuclear bombs.
Costs are high but if carbon were priced according to its true cost nuclear is good value long term. Renewables like solar and wind are good but cannot and will not for the foreseeable future provide nearly enough energy, let alone at the right times. The best argument for nuclear is of course in comparison to fossil fuels especially coal. Even if coal did not pump out carbon it is still poisonous, full of lead, arsenic and other nasties. The visit to the dirty coal plant (and this was as show plant that the industry were keen for people to see) is shocking after the ultra clean, ultra organised nuclear plant visits. Coal also produces a lot of radiation, in quantities vastly larger than a nuclear power station. As James Lovelock has urged for decades, the world needs a massive building program of nuclear power stations so we can all be like France which is 80% nuclear and has the cleanest air in Europe
I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in energy, global warming or the the world at large, I think it is hugely important and has certainly changed my mind on this issue. This book intelligently and thoughtfully explains all the issues from every angle.
June 27, 2008
I really enjoyed this book. Anyone who is totally against nuclear energy should give it a read. I haven't read anything in depth from the opposing viewpoint, but this book definitely opened my eyes about what science has done to make nuclear safe. Who knew that plans for disposing of nuclear waste had already been worked out for a few different locations? Who knew that power plants that use nuclear waste as fuel, therefore greatly reducing it’s half life and quantity had already been developed? This book makes it seem like the only thing stopping a better world full of nuclear energy are people’s irrational fears and politicians short sighted actions based on those fears. If you don't beleive me, then read it.
July 31, 2018
Simply the best energy and nuclear power book out there. The journalist Gwyneth Cravens details her path from being an anti-nuclear environmentalist to a pragmatic pro-nuclear environmentalist, all the while writing a book the average person can understand. However, don't let that fool you, there is enough scientific punch in here to leave even a well-studied engineer or scientist sated as well. There were a number of surprising items in this book that surprised me, including where the original proposal was for disposing of nuclear waste. A great, informative read that you can't pass up.
January 7, 2008
Very well written and informative book about nuclear energy in the US. A must read for anyone interested in future energy supply.
July 14, 2010
Interesting, well researched, definite proof that using my almighty nuclear engineering skills I can take over the world. Thank Gwyneth when I'm older and run everything, will you?
May 16, 2021
I live in Ontario, Canada. Take a look at ElectricityMap.org and you will find that I'm blessed to live in a place with some of the world's cleanest electricity production. Somewhat controvertially, most of that power comes from nuclear energy. I figured I should read a book to learn more.
Gwyneth Craven's book was wonderful in the sense that I learned a lot of facts about nuclear energy all the way from mining the Uranium to handling the waste. It also covers dangers of reactor meltdowns and nuclear proliferation.
Learning about how radiation works is probably the best thing for a member of the public worried about nuclear energy. Some of what I learned in that way was surprising to me. For instance, how a person could hold Plutonium in their hand and be safe so long as a sheet of paper was between the Plutonium and themselves. That's because Plutonium primarily radiates alpha particles (one of 3 types of harmful radioactive emissions).
Another was how we're all exposed to more radiation in our daily lives than we ever would be by nuclear power plants under the current regulatory regime. For instance, the author pointed out that No Salt Sodium-Free salt that you could buy at the store has more radioactivity than the US legally allowed limit for transporting without an enclosure. For the salt that's because of the high potassium content.
I was surprised to learn that for all the famous nuclear meltdowns that have happened worldwide (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island) the reason the radioactivity spread so far was because the water steam pressure burst out of the reactor spreading a plume far into the surroundings. I wouldn't be able to do justice to the details here but many modern reactor designs use molten metal or sodium for this very reason, to keep any potential breach of the reactor local, contained, and easy to clean up for crews. Modern reactors also are purportedly exceedingly unlikely or impossible to melt down due to design advances.
The book's style of writing made it for a very long read. Too long for me to recommend it to any friends. It also seems to have entirely missed the boat on why nuclear hasn't been adopted more commonly by utilities. The reason isn't public perception, the reason has been superhigh costs to build a nuclear facility in the first place, keeping it out of reach for most people and countries.
This book if anything is a call for climate conscience activists to be clear eyed about what's possible with the technology we have. Ideally, 100% of our energy would be renewable. We should work towards that future. As it stands today, only fossil fuels, hydro, and nuclear can meet our baseload demand for electricity when sun and wind are in short supply. To make a net-zero future, my province is probably going to need to keep nuclear, and other parts of the world will most likely be looking for ways to adopt it.
Gwyneth Craven's book was wonderful in the sense that I learned a lot of facts about nuclear energy all the way from mining the Uranium to handling the waste. It also covers dangers of reactor meltdowns and nuclear proliferation.
Learning about how radiation works is probably the best thing for a member of the public worried about nuclear energy. Some of what I learned in that way was surprising to me. For instance, how a person could hold Plutonium in their hand and be safe so long as a sheet of paper was between the Plutonium and themselves. That's because Plutonium primarily radiates alpha particles (one of 3 types of harmful radioactive emissions).
Another was how we're all exposed to more radiation in our daily lives than we ever would be by nuclear power plants under the current regulatory regime. For instance, the author pointed out that No Salt Sodium-Free salt that you could buy at the store has more radioactivity than the US legally allowed limit for transporting without an enclosure. For the salt that's because of the high potassium content.
I was surprised to learn that for all the famous nuclear meltdowns that have happened worldwide (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island) the reason the radioactivity spread so far was because the water steam pressure burst out of the reactor spreading a plume far into the surroundings. I wouldn't be able to do justice to the details here but many modern reactor designs use molten metal or sodium for this very reason, to keep any potential breach of the reactor local, contained, and easy to clean up for crews. Modern reactors also are purportedly exceedingly unlikely or impossible to melt down due to design advances.
The book's style of writing made it for a very long read. Too long for me to recommend it to any friends. It also seems to have entirely missed the boat on why nuclear hasn't been adopted more commonly by utilities. The reason isn't public perception, the reason has been superhigh costs to build a nuclear facility in the first place, keeping it out of reach for most people and countries.
This book if anything is a call for climate conscience activists to be clear eyed about what's possible with the technology we have. Ideally, 100% of our energy would be renewable. We should work towards that future. As it stands today, only fossil fuels, hydro, and nuclear can meet our baseload demand for electricity when sun and wind are in short supply. To make a net-zero future, my province is probably going to need to keep nuclear, and other parts of the world will most likely be looking for ways to adopt it.
December 4, 2009
A firsthand experience of a women, who grew up in the backyard of Los Alamos and feared nuclear power, and her journey researching nuclear power. Starting with a little background on how nuclear power works and then delving into the process from mining to electricity production, her position on nuclear power is changed as she learns about the safety of nuclear power. Highly recommended to gain insight into the industry and learn about the safety of nuclear power.
May 19, 2013
This book is easy to read--written like a novel. It's definitely pro-nuclear energy and would be good to read alongside an anti-nuclear energy book. It presents such a bright view of nuclear energy that it may seem like propaganda at times. However, since there are so few few pro-nuclear energy books out there, I believe this gives the book more value. The book was written before the Fukashima accidents.
March 21, 2021
I don’t think the author has done the nuclear energy movement a service by writing this expensively-published book. It contains 20-30 useful argumentative pages and surprisingly little actual information: most of the remainder is a rather poorly-written biography of one D. Richard Anderson, Ph.D., aka Rip.
February 13, 2008
Educational and insightful. A non-technical book that gets the science right and is short on hyperbole. Read and learn.
October 16, 2009
If I was sold on mass civilisation, I would be sold on powering it nuclear by this book. Resold me on Deep-Science geekdom.
July 31, 2008
Most interestesting is the description of the actual danger from radiation. The reality is not quite a scary as the non scientfic media view.
March 27, 2018
In malafede...
Ho letto questo libro perchè volevo sentire la campana pro-nucleare,
533 pagine di notizie anche interessanti, ma a parer mio scritte in malafede:
riporto da pagina 43-44 "...anche un'elevata esposizione all'uranio naturale o all'uranio impoverito non ha mai causato tumori in umani o animali e l'uranio non è considerato radiologicamente pericoloso da alcuna organizzazione governativa statunitense. Ciononostante sussiste una grande disinformazione sugli effetti delle radiazioni dell'uranio impoverito, presente nel rivestimento esterno dei carri armati, utilizzato per produrre proiettili anticarro... La maggior parte degli isotopi fissili dell'uranio impoverito è stata eliminata, per cui la sua radioattività è pari a un terzo di quella dell'uranio naturale. Una persona che fuma 3 pacchetti di sigarette al giorno riceve la stessa dose di radiazioni ai polmoni di un individuo che inali circa MEZZO chilo d'uranio nel corso di un anno."
Solo una persona in malafede, come in questo caso, può dimenticare completamente la Sindrome del Golfo, i morti per tumore tra i giovani soldati degli eserciti di mezzo mondo (tra cui anche parecchi nostri connazionali) e le percentuali oscenamente alte di bimbi nati malformi nella città di Falluja, pesantemente colpita da bombardamenti con proiettili all'uranio impoverito. Se la scrittrice di questo testo ci mente così spudoratamente su un argomento tanto importante e delicato, su quanti altri punti travisa i dati??? Ed allora, la domanda nasce spontanea, ci vengono qui riportati dei dati reali o mera propaganda? Questo è un saggio o un malloppo pubblicitario sponsorizzato dall'industria dell'atomo?
Ripeto, così è una lettura inaffidabile, più politica che scientifica. Spero di trovare studi molto più seri di questo, supportati da numeri e non parole.
Ho letto questo libro perchè volevo sentire la campana pro-nucleare,
533 pagine di notizie anche interessanti, ma a parer mio scritte in malafede:
riporto da pagina 43-44 "...anche un'elevata esposizione all'uranio naturale o all'uranio impoverito non ha mai causato tumori in umani o animali e l'uranio non è considerato radiologicamente pericoloso da alcuna organizzazione governativa statunitense. Ciononostante sussiste una grande disinformazione sugli effetti delle radiazioni dell'uranio impoverito, presente nel rivestimento esterno dei carri armati, utilizzato per produrre proiettili anticarro... La maggior parte degli isotopi fissili dell'uranio impoverito è stata eliminata, per cui la sua radioattività è pari a un terzo di quella dell'uranio naturale. Una persona che fuma 3 pacchetti di sigarette al giorno riceve la stessa dose di radiazioni ai polmoni di un individuo che inali circa MEZZO chilo d'uranio nel corso di un anno."
Solo una persona in malafede, come in questo caso, può dimenticare completamente la Sindrome del Golfo, i morti per tumore tra i giovani soldati degli eserciti di mezzo mondo (tra cui anche parecchi nostri connazionali) e le percentuali oscenamente alte di bimbi nati malformi nella città di Falluja, pesantemente colpita da bombardamenti con proiettili all'uranio impoverito. Se la scrittrice di questo testo ci mente così spudoratamente su un argomento tanto importante e delicato, su quanti altri punti travisa i dati??? Ed allora, la domanda nasce spontanea, ci vengono qui riportati dei dati reali o mera propaganda? Questo è un saggio o un malloppo pubblicitario sponsorizzato dall'industria dell'atomo?
Ripeto, così è una lettura inaffidabile, più politica che scientifica. Spero di trovare studi molto più seri di questo, supportati da numeri e non parole.
April 18, 2021
A journalist teams up with Dr. Rip Anderson and other scientists to explain why we need nuclear energy as part of the solution to decarbonize and stave off climate change. Her "nuclear tour" includes visiting uranium mines, test sites, research reactors, nuclear power plants, coal power plants, nuclear waste and spent fuel storage facilities, and finally a radiation exposure testing clinic. The book is very readable and would be a good place to start learning both about nuclear energy and about the pro-nuclear stance.
July 25, 2020
The information given in this book is really valuable. I think you can learn a lot even if you already know things about nuclear energy, but the writing style... could be much more compact and the information is repeated (a lot) throughout the book. Also, I do not think the detailed description of the trips made by the author (to gain knowledge about the topic) are meaningful enough to the book.
Overall, I recommend reading it if you do not mind going through a bunch of unnecessary text.
Overall, I recommend reading it if you do not mind going through a bunch of unnecessary text.
May 28, 2019
A realistic solution to global warming or hugging trees with nuclear arms.
Read
March 9, 2020jghb.nxfcv bvjgfcvgmbv ,mb ,jhnb lh hmb ,nm nfc kb,hn ,mgc xgdrsjg,hb ktdcyerhfglh
September 4, 2022
Nonfiction nuclear power book? Having your yellow cake and eating it too.
November 18, 2025
read for class
November 22, 2015
SUMMARY: Power To Save the World is a great read for anyone interested in environmentalism, climate change, energy, and/or nuclear. It challenges assumptions about nuclear energy that you might not even realize you have. Its weaknesses are that Cravens seems to emphasize Dr. Richard "Rip" Anderson's expertise to the point of exaggeration, and that Power to Save the World is a bit outdated now--since it was published in 2007, it doesn't include the 2007-2009 recession or the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi reactor accident.
REVIEW:
On the surface, the book Power to Save the World is about nuclear energy. More fundamentally, however, Power to Save the World is a book about overcoming assumptions and preconceived notions. In the final chapter, Cravens concludes, “The power to save our world does not lie in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunshine. It lies in each of us.” The phrase “does not lie in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunshine” refers to nuclear energy, hydrothermal energy, wind energy, and solar energy respectively—all of which have been variously ballyhooed as “the solution” to climate change. Cravens’ conclusion is that the solution to climate change is not any particular energy source—rather, the solution to climate change, and other challenges that we face today, is having the courage to challenge one’s own assumptions and understanding.
REVIEW:
On the surface, the book Power to Save the World is about nuclear energy. More fundamentally, however, Power to Save the World is a book about overcoming assumptions and preconceived notions. In the final chapter, Cravens concludes, “The power to save our world does not lie in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunshine. It lies in each of us.” The phrase “does not lie in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunshine” refers to nuclear energy, hydrothermal energy, wind energy, and solar energy respectively—all of which have been variously ballyhooed as “the solution” to climate change. Cravens’ conclusion is that the solution to climate change is not any particular energy source—rather, the solution to climate change, and other challenges that we face today, is having the courage to challenge one’s own assumptions and understanding.
Power to Save the World greatly expanded my understanding of nuclear energy. Challenging assumptions, even hidden ones, was my favorite element in Power to Save the World. This is why I wish that Gwyneth Cravens had done more in her discussion to challenge her own assumptions—not regarding nuclear energy itself, but rather regarding the other premises she uses to explain why nuclear energy is practical. Her argument that nuclear energy is needed hinges upon assumptions regarding climate change (assumptions in the sense that she doesn’t attempt to justify her position; she simply states it throughout the book as fact). Climate change is caused by carbon dioxide emissions, climate change is being caused by humans, climate change can be prevented if we act now, and so on—these suppositions are the foundation of the argument that “Nuclear energy is better for the environment than fossil fuels, so we should use fossil fuels”. To be fair, Power to Save the World isn’t a book about climate change, it is a book about nuclear energy, so justifying her position on climate change would be a bit like opening a can of worms; and to be honest, I agree with her anyways for the most part. Nevertheless, this aspect of her logic remains weak and largely unexplored.
Dr. Rip Anderson's quotations and commentary are so ever-present in this text that I’m surprised he wasn’t credited as a co-author. However, Cravens seems to make no end of trying to strengthen Dr. Anderson’s "authority." He is portrayed as essentially the impetus for the deep-ocean nuclear waste disposal, the key player in overcoming barriers to opening the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and the father of probabilistic risk assessment. On top of that, he all but single-handedly created a 10-acre wildlife sanctuary in his community. While I do not doubt that Dr. Anderson was key to all of these things, Cravens’ treatment comes off sounding more like flattery and less like an objective description of why Dr. Anderson is an expert on such-and-such issue.
Power to Save the World presents a strong argument for nuclear energy, but unfortunately, it is already somewhat outdated. Since 2007, when Power to Save the World was published, the world has rapidly changed. The “Great Recession” of 2007 to 2009—beginning mere months after Power to Save the World came out—has heavily impacted today’s economic climate, making the economic disadvantages of nuclear energy more severe, while making the economic advantages of fossil fuels ever-more appealing. Nuclear energy requires large capital costs, which you might call “cash on hand,” and “cash on hand” is exactly what many companies lack because of the recession.
Additionally, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident of 2011 has increased the number of major civilian nuclear disasters in history to 3. Although, like the Three Mile Island accident, no one died as a direct result of the disaster (while about 18,500 people were killed by the tsunami), its ramifications in the nuclear industry are perhaps much larger in scope. Nevertheless, while the “story” of Power to Save the World is dated, the principles that Gwyneth Cravens uses to analyze the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents are still very relevant. Lessons learned from the past two incidents can be used to analyze Fukushima. Then, lessons learned from all three incidents can make future nuclear energy even more safe and reliable.
Apart from these concerns, I enjoyed Power to Save the World immensely. I would consider a must-read for anyone interested in climate change or nuclear energy.
April 30, 2021
A readable pop-sci argument for nuclear power told through a cradle-to-grave tour of nuclear fuel. The book offers many rebuttals of antinuclear criticisms, including reactor accidents, terrorism, waste disposal, and limited fuel supply.
Feels like a pretty comprehensive survey of the topic.
Feels like a pretty comprehensive survey of the topic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews