What do you think?
Rate this book
Nuclear 2.0: Why A Green Future Needs Nuclear Power
Everything you thought you knew about nuclear power is wrong. This is just as well, according to Mark Lynas in Nuclear 2.0, because nuclear energy is essential to avoid catastrophic global warming. Using the latest world energy statistics Lynas shows that with wind and solar still at only about 1 percent of global primary energy, asking renewables to deliver all the world’s power is “dangerously delusional”. Moreover, there is no possibility of using less energy, he reminds us, when the developing world is fast extricating itself from poverty and adding the equivalent of a new Brazil to global electricity consumption each year. The anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s and 80s succeeded only in making the world more dependent on fossil fuels, he shows: its history is “not lit by sunshine, but shrouded in coal smoke”. Instead of making the same mistake again, all those who want to see a low-carbon future need to join forces, he insists, concluding the book with an ambitious proposal for an Apollo Program-style combined investment in wind, solar and nuclear power. Mark Lynas is an environmental writer and campaigner. His previous books have drawn attention to the perils of global warming, and he was Climate Advisor to the President of the Maldives from 2009-2011. He is a Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment, and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies. He recently featured in the movie documentary Pandora’s Promise, which inspired the writing of this book.
71 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
36 people are currently reading
288 people want to read
About the author
Mark Lynas
20 books77 followersMark Lynas is a British author, journalist and environmental activist who focuses on climate change.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
April 14, 2014
Oh boy....they say you should never talk politics or religion in company if you want to avoid a fight. Well, if you add global warming and the environment to that list then the fight can go nuclear.
And that's why Mark Lynas has written this book. As a former anti-nuclear campaigner he tries to defuse the issue and allow a relatively calm debate about the contribution nuclear power generation can make to protecting the future of the globe. By now, 99.9% of people reading this will have come down on one side or other of the nuclear debate and the "antis" won't want to read another word.
How wrong they might be.
I don't know of any issue which excites so much debate with so little hard fact, than nuclear power.
But take the time to read this short and clear book. And then take another few minutes to test your own prejudices against the pro-nuclear argument.
Here's my prediction - when mankind has run out of things to dig up from the Earth and set fire to, nuclear will become the everyday, controllable and limitless fuel which will save the world, comparatively safely. Ok, OK! Let's talk about something else...
And that's why Mark Lynas has written this book. As a former anti-nuclear campaigner he tries to defuse the issue and allow a relatively calm debate about the contribution nuclear power generation can make to protecting the future of the globe. By now, 99.9% of people reading this will have come down on one side or other of the nuclear debate and the "antis" won't want to read another word.
How wrong they might be.
I don't know of any issue which excites so much debate with so little hard fact, than nuclear power.
But take the time to read this short and clear book. And then take another few minutes to test your own prejudices against the pro-nuclear argument.
Here's my prediction - when mankind has run out of things to dig up from the Earth and set fire to, nuclear will become the everyday, controllable and limitless fuel which will save the world, comparatively safely. Ok, OK! Let's talk about something else...
June 7, 2014
Mark Lynas, in "Nuclear 2.0", commits the same errors he ascribes to the anti-nuclear movement, except that where anti-nuclear activists allegedly exaggerate, Mark Lynas relentlessly minimises.
Lynas quotes UNSCEAR and others in an effort at scientific respectability, but the quotes are often selective and misleading. For example, re Chernobyl, UNSCEAR is correctly quoted as offering reassurance to individuals that the personal risks are low, but there is no mention whatever that UNSCEAR also clearly states "Although the numbers of cancers projected to be induced by radiation exposure from the accident are very small relative to the baseline cancer risk, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE SUBSTANTIAL IN ABSOLUTE TERMS" (my emphasis - even a "very small" increase of say, 0.5%, in baseline risk would cause, say, 10,000 extra cancers in a 10 million population, assuming normal cancer mortality of 20% of all deaths). There is no mention that earlier UNSCEAR reports put the eventual excess cancer death toll among the cleanup workers at 4,000, and in the most affected areas of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus alone at a further 5,000. And the harm is unlikely to stop there. A possible body count of 9,000 (from the most affected areas alone), cited by the very agency - UNSCEAR - that Lynas is using to establish credibility, is surely worth at least a mention, especially from someone claiming scientific objectivity.
(Correction 8th June 2014. The 4,000 and 5,000 figures above are actually from a WHO/Chernobyl Forum report. UNSCEAR was a member of the Chernobyl Forum. The quote re the numbers of cancers being "potentially substantial in absolute terms" is directly from an UNSCEAR report.)
Similarly, Lynas mentions UNSCEAR's recent warning that collective dose should not be used to estimate future cancer deaths at Fukushima, without mentioning that the ICRP, and UNSCEAR itself, and many other scientifically reputable government agencies, have previously all used collective dose to estimate cancer deaths, or that ICRP and UNSCEAR are not saying NO deaths, they are warning of uncertainty at very low doses. Re hormesis or a low dose threshold, both UNSCEAR and the ICRP have carefully examined the evidence, and have firmly rejected them in favour of LNT. The LNT "debate" is bogus. At every turn of the debate, Lynas presents the view that makes nuclear look best. This may be a suitable approach for a propagandist, but one can hardly simultaneously wrap oneself in the science flag.
Re a mythical 100mSV limit, Lynas, in the teeth of the growing evidence, fights a rearguard action to cast doubt everywhere except on the pro-nuclear position. However, as far back as 2001, the ICRP, in "Radiation and Your Patient: A Guide for Medical Practitioners" advised doctors that "The higher dose diagnostic medical procedures (such a CT scan of the abdomen or pelvis) yield an effective dose of about 10 mSv. If there were a large population in which every person had 1 such scan, the theoretical lifetime risk of radiation induced fatal cancer would be about 1 in 2,000 (0.05%)."
So why is the evidence sufficient for patients exposed to 10 mSV (NB 10 mSV, not the 100 mSv claimed by Mark Lynas as some kind of threshold) to be warned of a 1 in 2,000 risk of fatal cancer, but not sufficient to clearly warn "a large population", exposed to similar radiation levels from a nuclear disaster, of similar risks, instead of burying such risks in specious technobabble about "insignificant" increases in the baseline cancer rate/"no health effects will be detected" (while admitting quietly that thousands or tens of thousands may actually die)? Why are the risks from 10mSv enough to warn doctors and patients, but, according - sometimes - to UNSCEAR and the ICRP, not enough to even estimate, not even roughly estimate, overall cancer deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima? Could it be that such clear, direct estimates give embarrassingly large - to the nuclear industry - estimates of 30,000 fatal Chernobyl cancers and 1,000 - 3,000 fatal cancers from Fukushima? Could this just possibly have some bearing?
Lastly, Lynas gets his sums badly wrong. In a bungled attempt to discredit LNT, he quotes figures from Preston et al (2004) "Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates", Table 3. He claims "......those receiving doses below 100 mSv had no observable increase in risk at all. Out of the 68,467 people in the below 100 mSv category, 7,657 died of cancer before 2000, out of an expected number of cancer deaths totalling 7,655. The difference* is too tiny to have any statistical meaning. This latter conclusion is critically important. No convincing evidence has ever been obtained, despite many hundreds of studies, showing a statistically significant correlation between cancer incidence and radiation exposures of less than 100 mSv. " (* Difference is 2).
There are actually other widely accepted studies showing excess cancer risk at doses well below 100mSv, from Alice Stewart's work, from studies of radiation workers, from CT scans, even from background radiation studies, but forget about them. Just look up Table 3 yourself. (You'll have to register - free - at http://www.jstor.org/ ). It shows cancer deaths roughly as predicted by LNT in various dose bands from 2,000 mSv down.
It does show only 2* fitted excess cancer deaths in a lower category, but it's in the below 5 mSv (FIVE mSv, not 100 mSv) category, and it shows fitted excess cancer deaths in the 5-100 mSv category to be 44. These 44 sub-100mSv deaths have simply disappeared in Lynas's account. It's easy to draw "critically important" conclusions when you lose statistics that don't suit. But don't get caught.
Dr. Ian Fairlie - who, unlike Lynas, is a scientist (radiation biology) - has an excellent site at http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent...
Lynas quotes UNSCEAR and others in an effort at scientific respectability, but the quotes are often selective and misleading. For example, re Chernobyl, UNSCEAR is correctly quoted as offering reassurance to individuals that the personal risks are low, but there is no mention whatever that UNSCEAR also clearly states "Although the numbers of cancers projected to be induced by radiation exposure from the accident are very small relative to the baseline cancer risk, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE SUBSTANTIAL IN ABSOLUTE TERMS" (my emphasis - even a "very small" increase of say, 0.5%, in baseline risk would cause, say, 10,000 extra cancers in a 10 million population, assuming normal cancer mortality of 20% of all deaths). There is no mention that earlier UNSCEAR reports put the eventual excess cancer death toll among the cleanup workers at 4,000, and in the most affected areas of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus alone at a further 5,000. And the harm is unlikely to stop there. A possible body count of 9,000 (from the most affected areas alone), cited by the very agency - UNSCEAR - that Lynas is using to establish credibility, is surely worth at least a mention, especially from someone claiming scientific objectivity.
(Correction 8th June 2014. The 4,000 and 5,000 figures above are actually from a WHO/Chernobyl Forum report. UNSCEAR was a member of the Chernobyl Forum. The quote re the numbers of cancers being "potentially substantial in absolute terms" is directly from an UNSCEAR report.)
Similarly, Lynas mentions UNSCEAR's recent warning that collective dose should not be used to estimate future cancer deaths at Fukushima, without mentioning that the ICRP, and UNSCEAR itself, and many other scientifically reputable government agencies, have previously all used collective dose to estimate cancer deaths, or that ICRP and UNSCEAR are not saying NO deaths, they are warning of uncertainty at very low doses. Re hormesis or a low dose threshold, both UNSCEAR and the ICRP have carefully examined the evidence, and have firmly rejected them in favour of LNT. The LNT "debate" is bogus. At every turn of the debate, Lynas presents the view that makes nuclear look best. This may be a suitable approach for a propagandist, but one can hardly simultaneously wrap oneself in the science flag.
Re a mythical 100mSV limit, Lynas, in the teeth of the growing evidence, fights a rearguard action to cast doubt everywhere except on the pro-nuclear position. However, as far back as 2001, the ICRP, in "Radiation and Your Patient: A Guide for Medical Practitioners" advised doctors that "The higher dose diagnostic medical procedures (such a CT scan of the abdomen or pelvis) yield an effective dose of about 10 mSv. If there were a large population in which every person had 1 such scan, the theoretical lifetime risk of radiation induced fatal cancer would be about 1 in 2,000 (0.05%)."
So why is the evidence sufficient for patients exposed to 10 mSV (NB 10 mSV, not the 100 mSv claimed by Mark Lynas as some kind of threshold) to be warned of a 1 in 2,000 risk of fatal cancer, but not sufficient to clearly warn "a large population", exposed to similar radiation levels from a nuclear disaster, of similar risks, instead of burying such risks in specious technobabble about "insignificant" increases in the baseline cancer rate/"no health effects will be detected" (while admitting quietly that thousands or tens of thousands may actually die)? Why are the risks from 10mSv enough to warn doctors and patients, but, according - sometimes - to UNSCEAR and the ICRP, not enough to even estimate, not even roughly estimate, overall cancer deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima? Could it be that such clear, direct estimates give embarrassingly large - to the nuclear industry - estimates of 30,000 fatal Chernobyl cancers and 1,000 - 3,000 fatal cancers from Fukushima? Could this just possibly have some bearing?
Lastly, Lynas gets his sums badly wrong. In a bungled attempt to discredit LNT, he quotes figures from Preston et al (2004) "Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates", Table 3. He claims "......those receiving doses below 100 mSv had no observable increase in risk at all. Out of the 68,467 people in the below 100 mSv category, 7,657 died of cancer before 2000, out of an expected number of cancer deaths totalling 7,655. The difference* is too tiny to have any statistical meaning. This latter conclusion is critically important. No convincing evidence has ever been obtained, despite many hundreds of studies, showing a statistically significant correlation between cancer incidence and radiation exposures of less than 100 mSv. " (* Difference is 2).
There are actually other widely accepted studies showing excess cancer risk at doses well below 100mSv, from Alice Stewart's work, from studies of radiation workers, from CT scans, even from background radiation studies, but forget about them. Just look up Table 3 yourself. (You'll have to register - free - at http://www.jstor.org/ ). It shows cancer deaths roughly as predicted by LNT in various dose bands from 2,000 mSv down.
It does show only 2* fitted excess cancer deaths in a lower category, but it's in the below 5 mSv (FIVE mSv, not 100 mSv) category, and it shows fitted excess cancer deaths in the 5-100 mSv category to be 44. These 44 sub-100mSv deaths have simply disappeared in Lynas's account. It's easy to draw "critically important" conclusions when you lose statistics that don't suit. But don't get caught.
Dr. Ian Fairlie - who, unlike Lynas, is a scientist (radiation biology) - has an excellent site at http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent...
November 16, 2014
The only downside to this book is the fact that it is only 80 pages - short. But even for someone like me who knows a lot about nuclear power it was a great read. Mark Lynas is such a great and informative writer that I am going to read all of his books. I like writers who stick to facts and statistics, and Mark Lynas does just that.
June 25, 2014
An important message: we need nuclear power to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Nuclear and renewables should not compete with each other, but collaborate to drive out coal. Nuclear is safe, clean, and possible.
This book is a good, well argued, reminder for those who already agree and hopefully an eye opener for those who don't (yet).
This book is a good, well argued, reminder for those who already agree and hopefully an eye opener for those who don't (yet).
May 13, 2022
I am ten years into retirement from a career in mechanical engineering. In the time period from 1975 until 1985 I worked in the nuclear industry helping thousands of technologists like me to build CANDU reactors in Canada and Romania. Then our work stopped. Nobody else wanted to buy our product. Filled with self doubt, many of us left the nuclear industry to put food on the table for our children by using our skills in other industries. It was Mark Lynas and dozens like him who used fear evoked from their distortions as to what a nuclear power plant 'might' do to our society and our future on this planet if just one nuclear reactor melted down. Today I find myself sitting on my back porch and observing the tiny differences that are incrementally changing the world around me. My grand children will never see the world that I enjoyed, the world I wanted to help build by way of all of our skills in designing and building power plants that history now shows Mark and his environmentalist provocateurs could have been our present. Except they used their communication skills to end my life's work. I didn't have the skills to play on the emotional fears of an entire planet. I had the skills to build and those skills were disparaged by Mark Lynas.
Too little too late, Mark. We missed our chances to build that world.
Too little too late, Mark. We missed our chances to build that world.
August 16, 2020
Nuclear 2.0 : Why A Green Future Needs Nuclear Power (2013) by Mark Lynas is a short bool where Lynas describes his conversion to supporting nuclear power and describes the strengths of nuclear. Lynas is an environmental activist and journalist who has written for New Statesman, The Guardian and The Observer among others.
In Nuclear 2.0 Lynas describes how there is no plausible route to reducing global C02 emissions that doesn’t use nuclear. He points out that renewables are unreliable and that providing reliable electricity at scale with low C02 emissions can be done with nuclear power as France as demonstrated.
He also describes how more modern reactors could be safer and more convenient than older reactors. Truly safe by default and scalable reactors are possible and have been demonstrated.
The book was written in 2013 and Lynas talks about the hope that nuclear power would come on stream with more renewables. This largely hasn’t happened since he wrote the book.
Nuclear 2.0 is a very good short book on why an environmental activist has become pro-nuclear. For anyone wanting to understand where this point of view comes from this is an excellent read.
In Nuclear 2.0 Lynas describes how there is no plausible route to reducing global C02 emissions that doesn’t use nuclear. He points out that renewables are unreliable and that providing reliable electricity at scale with low C02 emissions can be done with nuclear power as France as demonstrated.
He also describes how more modern reactors could be safer and more convenient than older reactors. Truly safe by default and scalable reactors are possible and have been demonstrated.
The book was written in 2013 and Lynas talks about the hope that nuclear power would come on stream with more renewables. This largely hasn’t happened since he wrote the book.
Nuclear 2.0 is a very good short book on why an environmental activist has become pro-nuclear. For anyone wanting to understand where this point of view comes from this is an excellent read.
August 1, 2017
Well written and concise tale of the author's mindset at he made a pivot on the issue of nuclear energy. To be clear he is still against the use of nuclear weapons, but what better way to dispose of warheads than down blending them into fuel for civilian electrical grids?
This might not be considered an in depth book, but it covers a variety of issues and has 15 pages of notes which allows the reader to thoroughly follow-up on any chapter which might pique their interest. There are a very few items which have changed since publication, but these are trivial. Nuclear is here to stay, and by 2040 will be a wholly different industry to what we've had in the 50 years prior to this book's publication.
This might not be considered an in depth book, but it covers a variety of issues and has 15 pages of notes which allows the reader to thoroughly follow-up on any chapter which might pique their interest. There are a very few items which have changed since publication, but these are trivial. Nuclear is here to stay, and by 2040 will be a wholly different industry to what we've had in the 50 years prior to this book's publication.
April 16, 2025
solid book. meant for people who are coming into the topic without a lot of background knowledge. if you have some annoying anti-nuclear brat in your life, this might be a good gift.
i'm far from deeply knowledgeable myself, but i've done enough listening & reading to know almost everything that was laid out here, but it never hurts to have a little refresher.
& kudos on keeping it short. this is the exact length something like this should be. most books are far too long. keep it short!
i'm far from deeply knowledgeable myself, but i've done enough listening & reading to know almost everything that was laid out here, but it never hurts to have a little refresher.
& kudos on keeping it short. this is the exact length something like this should be. most books are far too long. keep it short!
April 30, 2021
Brief and concise analysis of nuclear. Why it is feared, and why that fear is irrational, and why nuclear is necessary in a green and non fossil future.
Sometimes I felt a bit of anger in the writing. It is a bit unfortunate, because it weakens the reasoning a bit - but I get where the anger is coming from.
Sometimes I felt a bit of anger in the writing. It is a bit unfortunate, because it weakens the reasoning a bit - but I get where the anger is coming from.
September 4, 2018
Short and simple. Good info and makes a strong nuclear case, but not much of a book.
March 20, 2023
A great short read - dispelled some myths and put into context how nuclear power could meaningfully contribute to the zero-emissions energy future.
June 15, 2025
It's a good explainer for those who have some knowledge but don't know enough about a potential nuclear transition.
December 30, 2020
New perspective for those, like me, who doesn't know a thing ir two about nuclear. It changed my mind about it and I'm eager to learn more about it
August 15, 2013
Nuclear 2.0: Why a Green Future Needs Nuclear Power by Mark Lynas
“Nuclear 2.0" makes the compelling case that in order to resolve the global warming crisis; nuclear power must complement other low-carbon power sources. Environmentalist, Mark Lynas provides the readers with a succinct, accessible book that makes the strong case for nuclear power. Time and scientific evidence has converted the author from the anti-nuclear camp to a pro-renewable and pro-nuclear outlook. This stimulating 71-page includes the following unnumbered chapters: The Carbon Bomb, The Rise of the Rest, Coal reality, Fossil fantasies, The carbon challenge, Renewables revolution, Energetic denialism, Breaking the nuclear taboo, Nuclear and the environment, The anti-nuclear movement, A world safe for coal, Nuclear accidents, Fukushima health impacts, Radiation and reality, Chernobyl, Deaths per Terawatt-hour, The German Experiment, Next-generation: Nuclear 2.0, Too expensive? Solving climate change, and All of the Above.
Positives:
1. Well-researched, accessible and succinct book.
2. A very important topic handled with utmost care and deference. Lynas does a good job of avoiding falling into the proverbial alarmist well.
3. The book is full of facts, “In total, 1.4 billion people still do not have access to electricity today.”
4. Makes the compelling case that maintaining an anti-nuclear ideology is both ill-conceived and fundamentally incompatible with resolving the climate change crisis.
5. While a lot of books of this ilk spend a lot of time on demonstrating the reality of global warming this one focuses more on how to address it through the use of nuclear power.
6. Makes it perfectly clear that there is a price to pay to improve global economic development and that requires more energy. “The world will burn around 1.3 billion more tons of coal per year by 2017 compared with today.”
7. Debunks many misconceptions. “It is worth mentioning at this stage that there is no prospect whatsoever of us running out of coal – or indeed any other fossil fuel – in time to save the climate.”
8. Complementing nuclear power with other sources of renewable energy (solar and wind).
9. Making clear what he does not support and why.
10. Does a wonderful job of educating the public on nuclear power. “Despite all the high emotion that nuclear power seems to cause, few people remember the rather prosaic fact that all a nuclear reactor does is generate heat.”
11. Putting two of the most significant nuclear accidents in perspective (Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011). The health impacts.
12. Radiation and reality. “Coal-fired power stations in fact release far more radiation into the environment than nuclear power stations, due to trace radionuclides being concentrated into coal ash and blown away in dust and smoke.”
13. The evolution of nuclear reactors. Improved standards of safety.
14. Solving climate change…the reality. “The conclusion is clear: if nuclear is removed from the picture, even the greatest imaginable investment in renewables reduces eventual global warming by at best a couple of tenths of a degree Celsius as compared to business as usual.”
15. Provides footnotes.
Negatives:
1. Charts and graphs would have added value.
2. The author makes a compelling case for nuclear power but doesn’t really delve into the question of whether or not we have the will as a planet to properly address it.
3. Footnotes are not properly linked.
4. The author mentions several books but there is no formal bibliography.
In summary, the author makes a succinct compelling case for nuclear power. Mark Lynas makes it perfectly clear that he is not against renewables; his main point is that it will require much more than solar and wind to supply enough power to a rapidly-growing globe and address climate change simultaneously. The case is irrefutable; it’s a matter of whether or not we humans can address the issue of global warming in a timely and effective manner. Will we build enough nuclear power plants to properly address our increasing global demand in the best interest of our planet? A great Kindle value, I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: “Energy for Future Presidents” by Richard A. Muller, “Crash Course” by Chris Martenson, “Fool Me Twice” by Shawn Lawrence Otto, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” by Michael E. Mann, “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, “Lies, Damned Lies and Science” by Sherry Seethaler, “Clean Break” by Osha Gray Davidson, “Storms of my Grandchildren” by James Hansen, “Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather“ by Mike Smith, and “The Weather of the Future” by Heidi Cullen.
“Nuclear 2.0" makes the compelling case that in order to resolve the global warming crisis; nuclear power must complement other low-carbon power sources. Environmentalist, Mark Lynas provides the readers with a succinct, accessible book that makes the strong case for nuclear power. Time and scientific evidence has converted the author from the anti-nuclear camp to a pro-renewable and pro-nuclear outlook. This stimulating 71-page includes the following unnumbered chapters: The Carbon Bomb, The Rise of the Rest, Coal reality, Fossil fantasies, The carbon challenge, Renewables revolution, Energetic denialism, Breaking the nuclear taboo, Nuclear and the environment, The anti-nuclear movement, A world safe for coal, Nuclear accidents, Fukushima health impacts, Radiation and reality, Chernobyl, Deaths per Terawatt-hour, The German Experiment, Next-generation: Nuclear 2.0, Too expensive? Solving climate change, and All of the Above.
Positives:
1. Well-researched, accessible and succinct book.
2. A very important topic handled with utmost care and deference. Lynas does a good job of avoiding falling into the proverbial alarmist well.
3. The book is full of facts, “In total, 1.4 billion people still do not have access to electricity today.”
4. Makes the compelling case that maintaining an anti-nuclear ideology is both ill-conceived and fundamentally incompatible with resolving the climate change crisis.
5. While a lot of books of this ilk spend a lot of time on demonstrating the reality of global warming this one focuses more on how to address it through the use of nuclear power.
6. Makes it perfectly clear that there is a price to pay to improve global economic development and that requires more energy. “The world will burn around 1.3 billion more tons of coal per year by 2017 compared with today.”
7. Debunks many misconceptions. “It is worth mentioning at this stage that there is no prospect whatsoever of us running out of coal – or indeed any other fossil fuel – in time to save the climate.”
8. Complementing nuclear power with other sources of renewable energy (solar and wind).
9. Making clear what he does not support and why.
10. Does a wonderful job of educating the public on nuclear power. “Despite all the high emotion that nuclear power seems to cause, few people remember the rather prosaic fact that all a nuclear reactor does is generate heat.”
11. Putting two of the most significant nuclear accidents in perspective (Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011). The health impacts.
12. Radiation and reality. “Coal-fired power stations in fact release far more radiation into the environment than nuclear power stations, due to trace radionuclides being concentrated into coal ash and blown away in dust and smoke.”
13. The evolution of nuclear reactors. Improved standards of safety.
14. Solving climate change…the reality. “The conclusion is clear: if nuclear is removed from the picture, even the greatest imaginable investment in renewables reduces eventual global warming by at best a couple of tenths of a degree Celsius as compared to business as usual.”
15. Provides footnotes.
Negatives:
1. Charts and graphs would have added value.
2. The author makes a compelling case for nuclear power but doesn’t really delve into the question of whether or not we have the will as a planet to properly address it.
3. Footnotes are not properly linked.
4. The author mentions several books but there is no formal bibliography.
In summary, the author makes a succinct compelling case for nuclear power. Mark Lynas makes it perfectly clear that he is not against renewables; his main point is that it will require much more than solar and wind to supply enough power to a rapidly-growing globe and address climate change simultaneously. The case is irrefutable; it’s a matter of whether or not we humans can address the issue of global warming in a timely and effective manner. Will we build enough nuclear power plants to properly address our increasing global demand in the best interest of our planet? A great Kindle value, I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: “Energy for Future Presidents” by Richard A. Muller, “Crash Course” by Chris Martenson, “Fool Me Twice” by Shawn Lawrence Otto, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” by Michael E. Mann, “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, “Lies, Damned Lies and Science” by Sherry Seethaler, “Clean Break” by Osha Gray Davidson, “Storms of my Grandchildren” by James Hansen, “Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather“ by Mike Smith, and “The Weather of the Future” by Heidi Cullen.
August 22, 2015
Formerly an anti-nuclear campaigner and writer, Lynas lays out the reasons for his conversion to the (very sensible) view that nuclear power is absolutely vital, along with a massive increase in use of renewables, to what looks like an increasingly hopeless aim of saving the planet from being cooked by carbon.
Making his case in short, fully referenced chapters, this little book is fascinating. On finishing it, I was more certain than ever that the world's media-fed fear of nuclear energy is disastrous for the future of the planet. Lynas' words are extremely convincing.
However, the man himself is less so. As a non-specialist, seeing reviews that rubbish his sums and accuse him of leaving out important information is a little troubling. But even more damagingly, Lynas' own past raises more than a few questions.
Yes, obviously people can and should change their minds when faced with evidence but consider Lynas' own words on his belated conversion to a more grown-up and sensible position on GMOs. In 2013 he apologised for vandalising field trials and admitted "... in 2008, I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science..."
That he was so utterly, stridently wrong, yet so arrogant that he apparently didn't feel the need to even know what he was lecturing others about makes everything he's written in this otherwise (seemingly) excellent extended essay deeply and sadly suspect.
Making his case in short, fully referenced chapters, this little book is fascinating. On finishing it, I was more certain than ever that the world's media-fed fear of nuclear energy is disastrous for the future of the planet. Lynas' words are extremely convincing.
However, the man himself is less so. As a non-specialist, seeing reviews that rubbish his sums and accuse him of leaving out important information is a little troubling. But even more damagingly, Lynas' own past raises more than a few questions.
Yes, obviously people can and should change their minds when faced with evidence but consider Lynas' own words on his belated conversion to a more grown-up and sensible position on GMOs. In 2013 he apologised for vandalising field trials and admitted "... in 2008, I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science..."
That he was so utterly, stridently wrong, yet so arrogant that he apparently didn't feel the need to even know what he was lecturing others about makes everything he's written in this otherwise (seemingly) excellent extended essay deeply and sadly suspect.
August 22, 2013
While this book is a thought provoking and compelling argument for the use of nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions, I feel that the author damages his case somewhat by minimising the risks of past nuclear accidents. Particularly with the recent revelations about leaks from the Fukushima plant I feel this damages the book's credibility. The argument is surely not that nuclear power is risk free, but that it causes significantly less environmental damage than burning fossil fuel does and therefore poses considerably less risk to human health in the long run. While media scaremongering has undoubtedly overstated the dangers, to say that a lower percentage of cancers than expected proved fatal does come across as rather dismissive of the suffering caused by the cancers themselves.
I would also have appreciated more discussion of the safety of new generation nuclear - while I have no doubt that we could build safer power stations, I am not sure whether regulation and oversight is sufficient to ensure that we do.
Overall though, an important contribution to the debate.
I would also have appreciated more discussion of the safety of new generation nuclear - while I have no doubt that we could build safer power stations, I am not sure whether regulation and oversight is sufficient to ensure that we do.
Overall though, an important contribution to the debate.
September 2, 2016
قرأت نصف الكتاب في رحلة و بعدين نسيتو و بعدها بشهرين تقريبا رجعت كملتو.فا معلومات بداية الكتاب ما استحضرها كويس.
كتاب صغير تقدر تخلصو في كم ساعة.
يستعرض قد ايش الخوف من الطاقة النووية غير منطقي او ما يستاهل الخوف الهائل دا ولا الحملات المكثفة ضدها. يجيب عدد الوفيات و عدد الناس الي اتعرضو للإشعاعات النووية و قد ايش تأثيرها و كم عدد الي اتاثرو و جاهم سرطان او فقر دم. في اكبر حادثتين في عالم الطاقة النووية. تشيرنوبيل في الاتحاد السوفيتي و فوكوشيما في اليابان. حتتفاجاء بالبروباقاندا الي مساويها الاعلام ضد الطاقة النووية.
و يتكلم شويا عن التحديات الي تواجه الطاقة النووية من ناحية المخاطر مثل الفضلات النووية و كيفية حفظها و التكنولوجيا الجديدة الي تقريبا تمنع المفاعات النووية من ارتفاع حرارتها و ذوبانها (مثل تشرنوبيل و فوكوشيما) حتى في حالة توقف الكهرباء و التبريد. و يتكلم من ناحية التكلفة ايضا.
يستعرض ايضا كيف مستحيل الطاقة الخضراء (الشمسية و الرياح) تغطي استهلاك الشعب و تبطئ الاحتباس الحراري. مرة صعب من غير استعمال الطاقة النووية.
و يوريك بالارقام و الإحصائيات و التوقعات كيف لو اتحدت الطاقة النووية و الخضراء مع بعض كيف ممكن يقضو تقريبا على الاعتماد على الوقود الإحفوري و الفحم.
كتاب صغير تقدر تخلصو في كم ساعة.
يستعرض قد ايش الخوف من الطاقة النووية غير منطقي او ما يستاهل الخوف الهائل دا ولا الحملات المكثفة ضدها. يجيب عدد الوفيات و عدد الناس الي اتعرضو للإشعاعات النووية و قد ايش تأثيرها و كم عدد الي اتاثرو و جاهم سرطان او فقر دم. في اكبر حادثتين في عالم الطاقة النووية. تشيرنوبيل في الاتحاد السوفيتي و فوكوشيما في اليابان. حتتفاجاء بالبروباقاندا الي مساويها الاعلام ضد الطاقة النووية.
و يتكلم شويا عن التحديات الي تواجه الطاقة النووية من ناحية المخاطر مثل الفضلات النووية و كيفية حفظها و التكنولوجيا الجديدة الي تقريبا تمنع المفاعات النووية من ارتفاع حرارتها و ذوبانها (مثل تشرنوبيل و فوكوشيما) حتى في حالة توقف الكهرباء و التبريد. و يتكلم من ناحية التكلفة ايضا.
يستعرض ايضا كيف مستحيل الطاقة الخضراء (الشمسية و الرياح) تغطي استهلاك الشعب و تبطئ الاحتباس الحراري. مرة صعب من غير استعمال الطاقة النووية.
و يوريك بالارقام و الإحصائيات و التوقعات كيف لو اتحدت الطاقة النووية و الخضراء مع بعض كيف ممكن يقضو تقريبا على الاعتماد على الوقود الإحفوري و الفحم.
August 12, 2013
Here are your choices, world: (1) the extreme effects of global warming, (2) crushing third world poverty, or (3) a renewable+nuclear future. Every alternative has its plusses and minuses, but the minuses of (1) and (2) are so large and destabilizing, it is scary to contemplate.
People in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are not "noble savages." People in the developed world are going to want more and more power. What choice is left? The main drawback to (3) is not the potential for terrorism or the waste storage problem as Lynas points out, but the potential proliferation of weapons grade materials—which he only obliquely references. But, as Lynas does point out, all that means is that nations must comply with the NNPT.
I wish I could give a copy to everyone I know.
People in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are not "noble savages." People in the developed world are going to want more and more power. What choice is left? The main drawback to (3) is not the potential for terrorism or the waste storage problem as Lynas points out, but the potential proliferation of weapons grade materials—which he only obliquely references. But, as Lynas does point out, all that means is that nations must comply with the NNPT.
I wish I could give a copy to everyone I know.
July 31, 2013
A concise and unemotional explanation of how nuclear power should play a bigger role in fighting global warming. The writer uses data to back up nearly all of his arguments (most of that data I plan to cross-reference, as there are some surprising conclusions.) But this is a great examination about an oft-overlooked aspect of the climate change equation.
October 4, 2016
An interesting read. Short but informative. The chapter on nuclear waste was particularly useful as was the information on the two recent disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima). A useful antidote to much misinformation.
November 1, 2013
This book sums up everything I've been telling people for years, it doesn't tackle natural pollutants but that's fine
April 13, 2014
Really liked this book, although very short.
Compelling case for nuclear energy
Compelling case for nuclear energy
April 14, 2016
I find this book a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. It does contain some solid arguments, but flounders as a cohesive piece.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews