Nuclear is Not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change

by M.V. Ramana

NUCLEAR POWER WILL SLOW OUR RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCREASE THE RISK OF WEAPONS PROLIFERATION AND CATASTROPHE

THE CLIMATE CRISIS has propelled nuclear energy back into fashion. Its proponents argue we already have the technology of the future and that it only needs perfection and deployment. Nuclear Is Not the Solution demonstrates why this sort of thinking is not only naïve but dangerous.

Even beyond the horrific implications of meltdown and the intractable problem of waste disposal, nuclear is not practicable on such a large scale. Any appraisal of future energy technology depends on two important cost and time. Nuclear fails on both counts. It is more costly than its renewable competitors wind and solar. And, importantly given the need for rapid transformation, it is slow. A plant takes a decade to come online. If you include permits and fundraising, this adds another decade. And we should not forget the deep roots it has in the defense industry.

M. V. Ramana’s powerful book destroys any illusion that nuclear is our answer to climage change, untangling technical arguments into simple and sensible language. Importantly, Nuclear Is Not the Solution also unmasks the powerful groups with vested interests in the maintenance of the status quo, currently working hard to greenwash a spectacularly dirty industry.

Genres: Nonfiction, Technology, Environment, Science, Ecology, Politics

272 pages, Kindle Edition

Published July 30, 2024

Reviews

[Hind · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started this feeling very skeptical, I always thought nuclear was as good as renewables. I have to say I am successfully convinced otherwise. The strongest argument against nuclear energy I think is that it’s very high price tag takes money away from renewables that are cheaper and faster to build, and considering the imminent climate crisis we are in, the faster the switch to renewables is complete the better. It’s just pointless to be advocating for nuclear in our current situation.

[James Rowe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Upon reading this, I have decided that nuclear is not the solution

[Leif · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ramana has given us quite a book. I came with an open mind and interested, and despite some odd diversions into easy errors (that might also be unfunny and pointed jokes) found the whole informative.

That said, and oddly, despite well-marshalled arguments and plentiful facts, the whole of the book is less than the sum of its parts, and despite Ramana's evident personality his writing lacks personality. Part of the problem could be the well-worn nature of the subject with its familiar dodges and follies. It certainly isn't a uniform truth: there are passages and entire chapters where the material is gripping, such as Ramana's illustration of why it is more lucrative to be always "building" a nuclear power plant than it would be to actually have that plant up and running!

So, mixed feelings, but a good book and worth reading if you want to enrich your understanding of the corporate side of the debate - this is where you'll find it.

[carolyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

i have never wanted someone to have an editor quite this badly

[Tamar Moss · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I found many of Ramana's points quite compelling, this book felt pretty scattered. It's fiery and jumped around a bit too much for me without going into much depth. The economic arguments were newer to me and held ground. Takeaways: nuclear is a distraction from solving climate change with renewables, government and private industry have been pushing nuclear propaganda because it is profitable and ratepayers and tax payers cover the costs, the technology hasn't really broken through even this far into its lifetime. Though I read Mahaffey's book for a pro-nuclear take, I almost found that book to give me more detailed reasons to oppose it.

[Trevor Schmidt · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some interesting aspects of the book, I particularly found their concerns about the costs of nuclear energy to be valid. But the rest of the book is filled with fallacies. I particularly found their argument on nuclear proliferation to be the most egregious. I feel like the author did well on things that were in their wheelhouse, but was more lazy on aspects of nuclear energy that wasn’t.