What do you think?
Rate this book
Atomic Dreams: The New Nuclear Evangelists and the Fight for the Future of Energy
The inside story of how nuclear energy—long considered scary, controversial, and even apocalyptic—has become the hot topic of the climate debate, and perhaps a vital power source of the future
On June 21, 2016 Pacific Gas & Electric Company announced a plan to shutter California’s last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025. Environmental groups and politicians around the country hailed the plan. Then in 2022 the state’s Democratic establishment suddenly reversed the decision, and in 2024 the Biden-Harris administration awarded the plant $1.1 billion in credits to extend its life. What happened in between?
In Atomic Dreams, journalist and lifelong environmentalist Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow unearths the surprising answers—and the deep-seated conflicts behind them. She follows the fascinating and lively cast of characters immersed in the fight over Diablo Canyon and nuclear energy, among them a world-renowned climate scientist, a fashion model turned “nuclear influencer,” and two radically opposed groups of mothers, both fiercely advocating for the kind of planet they want their children to inherit. And she chronicles how nuclear power has morphed from the stuff of cinematic nightmares—associated with world-ending weapons and terrifying meltdowns—to a rare issue with strong bipartisan support.
Tuhus-Dubrow takes readers to nuclear plants and research facilities, to the halls of Congress and into the streets with activists as she explores the big questions wrapped up in the nuclear debate: questions about risk and responsibility, about nature and technology, about whether humans should be humble caretakers of the Earth or audacious innovators. She explores how these issues affect real people’s lives and personally grapples with the viability of this controversial energy source.
Can the power of the atom be freed from its historical baggage and reinvented? Could something that once threatened to doom us now hold the potential to save us?
On June 21, 2016 Pacific Gas & Electric Company announced a plan to shutter California’s last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025. Environmental groups and politicians around the country hailed the plan. Then in 2022 the state’s Democratic establishment suddenly reversed the decision, and in 2024 the Biden-Harris administration awarded the plant $1.1 billion in credits to extend its life. What happened in between?
In Atomic Dreams, journalist and lifelong environmentalist Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow unearths the surprising answers—and the deep-seated conflicts behind them. She follows the fascinating and lively cast of characters immersed in the fight over Diablo Canyon and nuclear energy, among them a world-renowned climate scientist, a fashion model turned “nuclear influencer,” and two radically opposed groups of mothers, both fiercely advocating for the kind of planet they want their children to inherit. And she chronicles how nuclear power has morphed from the stuff of cinematic nightmares—associated with world-ending weapons and terrifying meltdowns—to a rare issue with strong bipartisan support.
Tuhus-Dubrow takes readers to nuclear plants and research facilities, to the halls of Congress and into the streets with activists as she explores the big questions wrapped up in the nuclear debate: questions about risk and responsibility, about nature and technology, about whether humans should be humble caretakers of the Earth or audacious innovators. She explores how these issues affect real people’s lives and personally grapples with the viability of this controversial energy source.
Can the power of the atom be freed from its historical baggage and reinvented? Could something that once threatened to doom us now hold the potential to save us?
288 pages, Hardcover
Published April 8, 2025
28 people are currently reading
1880 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 - 29 of 29 reviews
April 14, 2025
In her 2025 book Atomic Dreams, and despite the broad-sounding title and subtitle, journalist Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow reports on the story of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's last remaining nuclear facility. The Diablo Canyon plant has been controversial for many years, as it's near several fault lines, and many continue to grapple with the ethics and safety of nuclear power as a clean(er) energy source compared to burning fossil fuels (generating carbon emissions and exacerbating climate change) and even renewable energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels (the materials for which aren't necessarily clean to manufacture or to dispose of). Tuhus-Dubrow researched and interviewed many key figures in the Diablo Canyon debate, including politicians supporting or opposing legislation to keep the plant open, social organizations both pro- and anti-nuclear power, many of whom with vested interests in this plant in particular (and increasingly wielding social media and influencers to sway the discussion), scientists and engineers who work and research in the nuclear energy space, and indigenous peoples who claim right to the land on which the plant is built. Tuhus-Dubrow makes an insightful point that historically, progressives have opposed nuclear energy on emotional grounds, but as climate change worsens, many are now softening their stance, recognizing nuance in the issue, or even switching stances entirely (the author herself admits she started her research in the anti category and, while she's not a "nuclearist" (the somewhat demeaning nickname she coined for pro-nuclear power folks) after finishing this book, she now understands the issue is more complex than she initially realized).
This is an interesting read, though I can't comment on the strength of the research (as footnotes, per usual, are not included on audiobooks). I'd recommend it with the caveat that it's focused on one specific nuclear plant, and not a more expansive discussion of the state of nuclear energy in the US or globally in general.
Further reading: energy, climate change, and the global supply chain
The Crazies: The Cattleman, the Wind Prospector, and a War Out West by Amy Gamerman | my review - a similar case study about the battle for wind turbines
Power Metal: The Race for the Resources That Will Shape the Future by Vince Beiser | my review
Material World: The Six Raw Materials That Shape Modern Civilization by Ed Conway | my review
My statistics:
Book 117 for 2025
Book 2043 cumulatively
This is an interesting read, though I can't comment on the strength of the research (as footnotes, per usual, are not included on audiobooks). I'd recommend it with the caveat that it's focused on one specific nuclear plant, and not a more expansive discussion of the state of nuclear energy in the US or globally in general.
Further reading: energy, climate change, and the global supply chain
The Crazies: The Cattleman, the Wind Prospector, and a War Out West by Amy Gamerman | my review - a similar case study about the battle for wind turbines
Power Metal: The Race for the Resources That Will Shape the Future by Vince Beiser | my review
Material World: The Six Raw Materials That Shape Modern Civilization by Ed Conway | my review
My statistics:
Book 117 for 2025
Book 2043 cumulatively
March 22, 2025
One of the true miseries in life is trying to convince people something is not THAT bad. In the age of "hot takes" and general hyperbole, everything must either be the worst thing that has ever happened or the best. This hatred of nuance is the bane of my existence as arguing that something isn't THAT bad means I must love it and arguing that something isn't THAT good means that I must hate it.
Such is the tale of nuclear energy on a much grander and higher stakes scale. Unfortunately, while I can empathize with this plight, I wonder if this book isn't massively hurt by its title. For what the author is trying to communicate, I understand why it was helpful for her to focus on a specific case study: the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, but given the title of the book, I was wanting a more comprehensive and wide-ranging overview of the subject. We get that in some limited fashion, but those forays into bigger picture subjects merely made my desire for greater scope all the more insistent. Atomic Dreams: Confronting Our Nuclear Legacy in the Diablo Canyon or some other such title might have primed me as the reader for what was to come and I might have felt more satisfied by the narrative.
Unfortunately, there were several other such stylistic things that just did NOT work for me over the course of the book. The narrative choice of detailing her investigation into the issue is one that we've seen in many other such nonfiction works, and to her credit, the book is not about the author at all, but these insights rarely serve to further my appreciation for the subject matter whereas in Lost City of Z they serve to contrast the difficulties of the original explorers with the banality of visiting the Amazon today or in Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs such a style serves to show the relevancy of work being done today that furthers our knowledge of ancient prehistory.
Despite a general sense that the approaches taken to this subject were to put too fine a point on it and only in my personal opinion - wrong - I have enormous respect for what Tuhus-Dubrow sets out to do. The thesis here isn't necessarily that nuclear is good or bad, but taking that loathsome (but warranted) middle ground in which the anti community will label you a sycophant and the pro community will label you a heretic; that the answer is complicated with pros and cons on either side. Far from hedging in indecision, Tuhus-Dubrow shows plainly that whatever part nuclear energy will play in humanity's future will largely depend on what our shifting priorities are as a society (and perhaps what the most monied individuals decide).
If you take all that into consideration, despite the relatively low star review, I can generally recommend this book to those with an interest in the subject. Having read my review, you will have a better understanding of what to expect than I did, and will therefore likely have a more favorable perspective on it.
Thank you to NetGalley, Hachette Audio and Algonquin Books for the advanced reading copy. This book is set to be published April 8, 2025 at time of writing.
Such is the tale of nuclear energy on a much grander and higher stakes scale. Unfortunately, while I can empathize with this plight, I wonder if this book isn't massively hurt by its title. For what the author is trying to communicate, I understand why it was helpful for her to focus on a specific case study: the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, but given the title of the book, I was wanting a more comprehensive and wide-ranging overview of the subject. We get that in some limited fashion, but those forays into bigger picture subjects merely made my desire for greater scope all the more insistent. Atomic Dreams: Confronting Our Nuclear Legacy in the Diablo Canyon or some other such title might have primed me as the reader for what was to come and I might have felt more satisfied by the narrative.
Unfortunately, there were several other such stylistic things that just did NOT work for me over the course of the book. The narrative choice of detailing her investigation into the issue is one that we've seen in many other such nonfiction works, and to her credit, the book is not about the author at all, but these insights rarely serve to further my appreciation for the subject matter whereas in Lost City of Z they serve to contrast the difficulties of the original explorers with the banality of visiting the Amazon today or in Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs such a style serves to show the relevancy of work being done today that furthers our knowledge of ancient prehistory.
Despite a general sense that the approaches taken to this subject were to put too fine a point on it and only in my personal opinion - wrong - I have enormous respect for what Tuhus-Dubrow sets out to do. The thesis here isn't necessarily that nuclear is good or bad, but taking that loathsome (but warranted) middle ground in which the anti community will label you a sycophant and the pro community will label you a heretic; that the answer is complicated with pros and cons on either side. Far from hedging in indecision, Tuhus-Dubrow shows plainly that whatever part nuclear energy will play in humanity's future will largely depend on what our shifting priorities are as a society (and perhaps what the most monied individuals decide).
If you take all that into consideration, despite the relatively low star review, I can generally recommend this book to those with an interest in the subject. Having read my review, you will have a better understanding of what to expect than I did, and will therefore likely have a more favorable perspective on it.
Thank you to NetGalley, Hachette Audio and Algonquin Books for the advanced reading copy. This book is set to be published April 8, 2025 at time of writing.
June 25, 2025
A nuanced and engaging exploration of nuclear power's surprising resurgence in the climate debate. Moving beyond simplistic pro- or anti-nuclear stances, Tuhus-Dubrow delves into the complex history, emotional baggage, and evolving perspectives surrounding this controversial energy source, often through the lens of fascinating personal narratives. Her central argument is that nuclear energy, once the environmental movement's bête noire, is increasingly viewed by a diverse group of advocates as an indispensable tool for confronting the planetary polycrisis, particularly climate change.
A for me amusing thread running through "Atomic Dreams" (since I know these bad boys personally) is the melodrama and intellectual evolution of the cofounders of the Breakthrough Institute, one of the leading non-industry advocates ’of nuclear power. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger Initially rose to prominence by co-authoring the provocative 2004 essay "The Death of Environmentalism." The piece argued that environmentalism that emerged in the 1960s largely in romantic if not hostile reaction to modernist hubris was by the early 21st century a defunct political force, incapable of addressing modern ecological challenges. Coining the concept of “ecomodernism,” they advocated for a new politics centered on technological innovation and human prosperity. In their dynamic partnership, Nordhaus often serving as the strategic and skeptical counterbalance to Shellenberger's more unguided, ambitious drive.
However, their shared path diverged dramatically over time, as Shellenberger sought the possibility of fame and celebrity and realized that an easier glide way to that goal lay in trolling lefties as an end in itself rather than as a pathway to a particular form of policy. Tuhus-Dubrow basically depicts Shellenberger's increasingly unbounded narcissism as a key factor in his shift towards the hard right. His early embrace of "post-environmentalism" and a technology-first approach to climate issues laid the groundwork, but his later trajectory saw him become a vocal critic not just of environmental policy but of broader progressive movements, often embracing highly contrarian and divisive positions. His public persona evolved into that of an uncompromising, often aggressive, polemicist who seemingly relished his role as an outsider challenging established narratives, even when it meant aligning with politically conservative, and at times, far-right, viewpoints. This shift is portrayed as less about a consistent philosophical evolution and more about a desire for singular recognition and influence, positioning himself as the sole bearer of inconvenient truths, regardless of the company he kept or the evidence he selectively presented. His pronouncements, often delivered with an air of absolute certainty, became increasingly tailored to provoke and dominate discourse rather than foster nuanced discussion.
Another compelling narrative woven into the book is the remarkable transformation of Stewart Brand. Once revered as the "pied piper" of 1960s counterculture and environmentalism, best known for creating the iconic Whole Earth Catalog—a bible for self-sufficiency, ecological awareness, and access to tools for living off the grid—Brand was firmly rooted in an era that championed decentralization and often viewed large-scale technology with suspicion. However, as Tuhus-Dubrow details, Brand's pragmatic and deeply curious mind led him on a profound intellectual journey. Confronted with the escalating realities of climate change, his focus shifted from small-scale, localized solutions to a more expansive, technological pragmatism. He famously declared his support for nuclear power, alongside other once anathema ideas like genetic engineering and geoengineering, arguing that humanity needed "all the tools" available to combat the planetary crisis. This turn was rooted in his consistent desire for human survival and his belief in the power of technology to address systemic problems. Brand's evolution represents a broader, often uncomfortable, reckoning within a segment of the environmental movement — the acknowledgment that ideology must sometimes yield to pragmatic solutions in the face of existential threats.
Ultimately, Tuhus-Dubrow’s "Atomic Dreams" makes the case for the critical importance of nuclear power in overcoming the planetary polycrisis. She carefully weighs the historical anxieties associated with nuclear energy — the specter of meltdowns, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation — against its undeniable advantages. She highlights that nuclear plants produce carbon-free electricity, require minimal land compared to renewables for equivalent output, and offer a stable, dispatchable power source immune to weather intermittency. While acknowledging the high upfront costs and long construction times, she points out the far greater, diffuse dangers of fossil fuels, which contribute to millions of premature deaths annually from air pollution — a fact that rarely generates the same public outcry as a nuclear accident.
Tuhus-Dubrow engages with various advocates, from concerned mothers to climate scientists, who now champion nuclear power as an essential component of a decarbonized future. She personally grapples with her own environmentalist upbringing and inherent skepticism, inviting the reader to join her in a rigorous re-evaluation. The book suggests that the "dreams" of the title are twofold: both the historical nightmares associated with the atom and the emerging vision of nuclear energy as a clean, powerful solution to a warming world. In the face of the complex, interconnected challenges of the polycrisis—where climate change interacts with energy security, economic stability, and geopolitical tensions—Tuhus-Dubrow concludes that dismissing nuclear power outright is a luxury humanity can no longer afford. It is presented not as a panacea, but as an indispensable tool in a comprehensive strategy to secure a viable future for humanity on a rapidly changing planet.
A for me amusing thread running through "Atomic Dreams" (since I know these bad boys personally) is the melodrama and intellectual evolution of the cofounders of the Breakthrough Institute, one of the leading non-industry advocates ’of nuclear power. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger Initially rose to prominence by co-authoring the provocative 2004 essay "The Death of Environmentalism." The piece argued that environmentalism that emerged in the 1960s largely in romantic if not hostile reaction to modernist hubris was by the early 21st century a defunct political force, incapable of addressing modern ecological challenges. Coining the concept of “ecomodernism,” they advocated for a new politics centered on technological innovation and human prosperity. In their dynamic partnership, Nordhaus often serving as the strategic and skeptical counterbalance to Shellenberger's more unguided, ambitious drive.
However, their shared path diverged dramatically over time, as Shellenberger sought the possibility of fame and celebrity and realized that an easier glide way to that goal lay in trolling lefties as an end in itself rather than as a pathway to a particular form of policy. Tuhus-Dubrow basically depicts Shellenberger's increasingly unbounded narcissism as a key factor in his shift towards the hard right. His early embrace of "post-environmentalism" and a technology-first approach to climate issues laid the groundwork, but his later trajectory saw him become a vocal critic not just of environmental policy but of broader progressive movements, often embracing highly contrarian and divisive positions. His public persona evolved into that of an uncompromising, often aggressive, polemicist who seemingly relished his role as an outsider challenging established narratives, even when it meant aligning with politically conservative, and at times, far-right, viewpoints. This shift is portrayed as less about a consistent philosophical evolution and more about a desire for singular recognition and influence, positioning himself as the sole bearer of inconvenient truths, regardless of the company he kept or the evidence he selectively presented. His pronouncements, often delivered with an air of absolute certainty, became increasingly tailored to provoke and dominate discourse rather than foster nuanced discussion.
Another compelling narrative woven into the book is the remarkable transformation of Stewart Brand. Once revered as the "pied piper" of 1960s counterculture and environmentalism, best known for creating the iconic Whole Earth Catalog—a bible for self-sufficiency, ecological awareness, and access to tools for living off the grid—Brand was firmly rooted in an era that championed decentralization and often viewed large-scale technology with suspicion. However, as Tuhus-Dubrow details, Brand's pragmatic and deeply curious mind led him on a profound intellectual journey. Confronted with the escalating realities of climate change, his focus shifted from small-scale, localized solutions to a more expansive, technological pragmatism. He famously declared his support for nuclear power, alongside other once anathema ideas like genetic engineering and geoengineering, arguing that humanity needed "all the tools" available to combat the planetary crisis. This turn was rooted in his consistent desire for human survival and his belief in the power of technology to address systemic problems. Brand's evolution represents a broader, often uncomfortable, reckoning within a segment of the environmental movement — the acknowledgment that ideology must sometimes yield to pragmatic solutions in the face of existential threats.
Ultimately, Tuhus-Dubrow’s "Atomic Dreams" makes the case for the critical importance of nuclear power in overcoming the planetary polycrisis. She carefully weighs the historical anxieties associated with nuclear energy — the specter of meltdowns, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation — against its undeniable advantages. She highlights that nuclear plants produce carbon-free electricity, require minimal land compared to renewables for equivalent output, and offer a stable, dispatchable power source immune to weather intermittency. While acknowledging the high upfront costs and long construction times, she points out the far greater, diffuse dangers of fossil fuels, which contribute to millions of premature deaths annually from air pollution — a fact that rarely generates the same public outcry as a nuclear accident.
Tuhus-Dubrow engages with various advocates, from concerned mothers to climate scientists, who now champion nuclear power as an essential component of a decarbonized future. She personally grapples with her own environmentalist upbringing and inherent skepticism, inviting the reader to join her in a rigorous re-evaluation. The book suggests that the "dreams" of the title are twofold: both the historical nightmares associated with the atom and the emerging vision of nuclear energy as a clean, powerful solution to a warming world. In the face of the complex, interconnected challenges of the polycrisis—where climate change interacts with energy security, economic stability, and geopolitical tensions—Tuhus-Dubrow concludes that dismissing nuclear power outright is a luxury humanity can no longer afford. It is presented not as a panacea, but as an indispensable tool in a comprehensive strategy to secure a viable future for humanity on a rapidly changing planet.
October 26, 2025
So, nuclear power plants are as low-carbon through their entire lifecycle as solar and wind?
Maybe not, if you look at research not done by the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear power advocates, utility companies and nuclear plant manufacturers. Per Counterpunch with extensive links on this and other nuclear power matters, at worst-case scenario, nuclear is as carbon-intense as natural gas.
OK, Counterpunch is ardently anti-nuclear, more so than I am, but with reasons far beyond this, but let’s split this in half. If nuclear is halfway between wind and solar on one hand, and gas on the other, then it’s still somewhat better than gas, and a lot better than coal, but not the panacea advocates claim, even without all its other issues. Tuhus-Dubrow halfway admits that in the epilogue, but only in passing.
This was, halfway through the book, one of multiple issues that had already cost it 2 if not 2.5 stars, meaning the best it could do was 3 stars and more likely was 2.5 rounded up.
If breeders, molten salt reactors and the long-touted thorium ones are such hot stuff, then why isn’t heavily nuclear France, with top-down national not federal government, not pushing them more? Why isn’t command economy China? In reality, there’s only five breeder reactors in the world. There’s no current commercial thorium-cycle reactors, and thorium, other than possible abundance levels, offers no other major advantages over uranium. There’s no commercial large-scale molten salt reactors. If nothing else, the two 1970s oil embargoes, before climate change, would have been enough of a research kick that if something viable was there, it would have taken off. Addendum: Via Counterpunch, which discusses how a company like Holtec, which has never ever built a nuclear reactor before (and elsewhere tells us to follow the capitalist money, folks) read this about the truth on small modular reactors vs what the book's interlocutors, and by extension, the author herself, claims.
As for Trump 1.0 taking the gloves off of regulations theoretically hindering new nuclear plant designs? None of that exists in China. Or Russia. Or, not much so in India.
Next? Cooling a light water reactor. France had to shut down some of its reactors during the last huge European heat wave in 2022 because streams and rivers adjacent to them were too warm to be effective coolers. This will happen in the US Southwest, too, with drought expected to continue through the end of this century. Inland lakes, rivers and streams will be too warm — and possibly too scarce on water — in southern California and Arizona, and nobody will build or be allowed to build another nuke plant in coastal California. Ditto on water supply in Texas west of I-35. None of this is in the book. The water issue is among the additional items at that Counterpunch link.
Long-term waste? Perhaps Fukushima did say we shouldn’t be alarmist, but that’s not long-term. Citing Sweden’s community model for long-term waste storage? Nice. Omitting France’s top-down national government solution of telling an economically depressed area in Lorraine that “you WILL take it” and here’s some money? Not mentioned. Nor is Russia, China, etc.
Why aren’t pro-nuclear people, whether climate scientists like James Hansen or Michael Schellenberger’s groupies, focused more on getting states outside of California and Aridzona changing state laws on things like “feed-in tariffs” to bolster rooftop solar? (My Texas is horrible compared to California on this.) Apparently the author never asked?
And, beyond all this? What gets an additional ding is the old missing index. I mean, this book isn't that long, but it mentions a lot of people and issues.
And beyond this? Not telling the full truth about Shellenberger, who is, say, at least halfway to being Jordan Peterson, and supports fracking among other anti-environmental things. He has written for Bari Weiss’ genocidal Free Press, as well as his own Substack, dived deep into the Twitter Files, is listed on staff at that wingnut University of Austin and more. Is it any wonder that the likes of Eric Meyer, even if not the two women from Canyon Diablo, are perfectly OK with anti-renewables state energy support laws as long as they support nuclear? This LA Review of Books piece has more beyond Wikipedia. It also notes that his re-conversion back to Christianity appears to be of a conservative, fundagelical type, including Genesis 2 and human dominion over the earth. "Evangelist" indeed.
His own Substack posts and notes, beyond what I already noted about him writing for Bari Weiss, show him as a techdudebro fellow traveler, an anti-immigrationist and more.
Weirder yet, which I did not know before, is that he appears to be a real believer on UFOs visiting earth.
Yes, all of this added together is enough to discredit him as a nuclear evangelist. Tuhus-Dubrow does tell you small parts of the above, in brief, and that’s it.
Safety? Directly or indirectly, a lot more people died or will die from Chernobyl than 31 direct deaths. The real answer is thousands at minimum, tens of thousands to approaching 100,000, at upper estimates.
As for waste disposal? Tuhus-Dubrow doesn’t mention that WIPP, near Carlsbad, NM, the main depository for low-level waste, has had problems.
Further discrediting the author? Not mentioning that the Democratic Party stole its Green New Deal, lite version, from the Green Party’s original.
To summarize a review of this book and the larger situation both?
To pun on nuclear reactors? Shellenberger is nuclear poison. Hansen, Bill McKibben, etc., should fully dissociate from him.
Second? The author didn’t do a lot of research, or else she started out with the mindset of ignoring contradictory research to some of her information.
Third, to riff on Michael Grunwald’s new book, energy investment, like land, is not free. Believing in nuclear power silver bullets may undercut research into further improvements in solar, tidal power or other options. M.V. Ramana, among others, has more on that.
Call it 2-2.25 stars. It's not pablum, and because I didn't know what to think, it's not disappointment, and you do learn things about all of Shellenberger's groupies, and how even non-groupie pro-nuclear people will sell out renewables. But it's no better than that.
Maybe not, if you look at research not done by the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear power advocates, utility companies and nuclear plant manufacturers. Per Counterpunch with extensive links on this and other nuclear power matters, at worst-case scenario, nuclear is as carbon-intense as natural gas.
OK, Counterpunch is ardently anti-nuclear, more so than I am, but with reasons far beyond this, but let’s split this in half. If nuclear is halfway between wind and solar on one hand, and gas on the other, then it’s still somewhat better than gas, and a lot better than coal, but not the panacea advocates claim, even without all its other issues. Tuhus-Dubrow halfway admits that in the epilogue, but only in passing.
This was, halfway through the book, one of multiple issues that had already cost it 2 if not 2.5 stars, meaning the best it could do was 3 stars and more likely was 2.5 rounded up.
If breeders, molten salt reactors and the long-touted thorium ones are such hot stuff, then why isn’t heavily nuclear France, with top-down national not federal government, not pushing them more? Why isn’t command economy China? In reality, there’s only five breeder reactors in the world. There’s no current commercial thorium-cycle reactors, and thorium, other than possible abundance levels, offers no other major advantages over uranium. There’s no commercial large-scale molten salt reactors. If nothing else, the two 1970s oil embargoes, before climate change, would have been enough of a research kick that if something viable was there, it would have taken off. Addendum: Via Counterpunch, which discusses how a company like Holtec, which has never ever built a nuclear reactor before (and elsewhere tells us to follow the capitalist money, folks) read this about the truth on small modular reactors vs what the book's interlocutors, and by extension, the author herself, claims.
As for Trump 1.0 taking the gloves off of regulations theoretically hindering new nuclear plant designs? None of that exists in China. Or Russia. Or, not much so in India.
Next? Cooling a light water reactor. France had to shut down some of its reactors during the last huge European heat wave in 2022 because streams and rivers adjacent to them were too warm to be effective coolers. This will happen in the US Southwest, too, with drought expected to continue through the end of this century. Inland lakes, rivers and streams will be too warm — and possibly too scarce on water — in southern California and Arizona, and nobody will build or be allowed to build another nuke plant in coastal California. Ditto on water supply in Texas west of I-35. None of this is in the book. The water issue is among the additional items at that Counterpunch link.
Long-term waste? Perhaps Fukushima did say we shouldn’t be alarmist, but that’s not long-term. Citing Sweden’s community model for long-term waste storage? Nice. Omitting France’s top-down national government solution of telling an economically depressed area in Lorraine that “you WILL take it” and here’s some money? Not mentioned. Nor is Russia, China, etc.
Why aren’t pro-nuclear people, whether climate scientists like James Hansen or Michael Schellenberger’s groupies, focused more on getting states outside of California and Aridzona changing state laws on things like “feed-in tariffs” to bolster rooftop solar? (My Texas is horrible compared to California on this.) Apparently the author never asked?
And, beyond all this? What gets an additional ding is the old missing index. I mean, this book isn't that long, but it mentions a lot of people and issues.
And beyond this? Not telling the full truth about Shellenberger, who is, say, at least halfway to being Jordan Peterson, and supports fracking among other anti-environmental things. He has written for Bari Weiss’ genocidal Free Press, as well as his own Substack, dived deep into the Twitter Files, is listed on staff at that wingnut University of Austin and more. Is it any wonder that the likes of Eric Meyer, even if not the two women from Canyon Diablo, are perfectly OK with anti-renewables state energy support laws as long as they support nuclear? This LA Review of Books piece has more beyond Wikipedia. It also notes that his re-conversion back to Christianity appears to be of a conservative, fundagelical type, including Genesis 2 and human dominion over the earth. "Evangelist" indeed.
His own Substack posts and notes, beyond what I already noted about him writing for Bari Weiss, show him as a techdudebro fellow traveler, an anti-immigrationist and more.
Weirder yet, which I did not know before, is that he appears to be a real believer on UFOs visiting earth.
Yes, all of this added together is enough to discredit him as a nuclear evangelist. Tuhus-Dubrow does tell you small parts of the above, in brief, and that’s it.
Safety? Directly or indirectly, a lot more people died or will die from Chernobyl than 31 direct deaths. The real answer is thousands at minimum, tens of thousands to approaching 100,000, at upper estimates.
As for waste disposal? Tuhus-Dubrow doesn’t mention that WIPP, near Carlsbad, NM, the main depository for low-level waste, has had problems.
Further discrediting the author? Not mentioning that the Democratic Party stole its Green New Deal, lite version, from the Green Party’s original.
To summarize a review of this book and the larger situation both?
To pun on nuclear reactors? Shellenberger is nuclear poison. Hansen, Bill McKibben, etc., should fully dissociate from him.
Second? The author didn’t do a lot of research, or else she started out with the mindset of ignoring contradictory research to some of her information.
Third, to riff on Michael Grunwald’s new book, energy investment, like land, is not free. Believing in nuclear power silver bullets may undercut research into further improvements in solar, tidal power or other options. M.V. Ramana, among others, has more on that.
Call it 2-2.25 stars. It's not pablum, and because I didn't know what to think, it's not disappointment, and you do learn things about all of Shellenberger's groupies, and how even non-groupie pro-nuclear people will sell out renewables. But it's no better than that.
April 27, 2025
I will start off by saying I am an expert in this field. Here’s a bit of my story: I started off as a chemical engineer that moved into energy with hands on experience in sustainable solutions. I went around installing solar panels in rural communities that doubled with water purification and energy. I also investigated alternate biofuels as a viable solution and how tidal and wind could be utilized in growing economies. A combination of experience and critical examination lead me to the conclusion that nuclear was the only viable solution to our growing energy needs while also addressing a serious climate change concern on any large scale.
It also could have the ability to supply stable power in countries that have intermittent or no supply, which as I saw first hand could change lives. If one solar panel could power a two room school and a few computers, allowing both adults and children required to work to also attend school after sunset, imagine what would happen if every house, every school and library had access to electricity, if it could be used to purify or desalinate water, if no one was forced to use a coal powered stove. Access to energy can change lives, plain and simple, and having a reliable source that doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gas emissions seems like an obvious choice. So naturally, I then went on to do a Masters and PhD in nuclear energy and have been an advocate ever since. So that is my story and a basis for my so called expertise.
My opinions on the matter are solely based off of science and math. I am a highly analytical person and I believe in evidence based decision making that is free of emotion. That being said, I understand why the nuclear issue has so many hurdles and the fear surrounding its use. I am aware of why and how accidents have occurred in the past, and know that the largest error was human in each case and could largely have been avoided, I also know that that revelation does not negate the wide scale and lasting harm those events inflicted. I know that nuclear reactors have so many built in redundancies now that design is verging on illogical, but I also know there will be groups of people who still think it is unsafe. I know that the number of deaths caused by coal or natural gas far exceeds those by nuclear, but I also know death is death and in vitro mutations are the stuff of nightmares. This can be very frustrating while working in the field, and I must approach every conversation with a nuclear neophyte in a compassionate tone. I believe education and asking questions with an open mind can provide a pathway to reforming the public opinion on nuclear.
This is a very long way of giving all the reasons I was excited to see this book. It approaches the topic from an environmental perspective and is very accessible. There was no real new information for me, but I thought the perspective was thoughtful and inquiring. The author and narrators document their inherent biases from their environments, and they gradually approach nuclear with curiosity. It was well researched and they present information in a way to lead readers to their own conclusions. I think it also helps that she is a hippie from California, not your typical proponent. In fact, there are many personal stories within from unlikely advocates. It suggests that anyone can approach this topic and make up their minds with enough information. If you have ever had mixed feelings about nuclear power, or are interested in viable ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our growing energy crisis this will be a great read, as will the others here. This is really centred on California, but it can open the door to a wider context and it talks about a lot of general issues.
I will never say nuclear is a perfect solution, nor that it is a risk-free solution. I will say that under the parameters of our current tech and resources, it must be part of an energy solution to mitigate the anthropocenic impact of climate change. I also believe it is PART of a solution, that will also include renewables, but that it can’t be beat in term of energy density for stable bade load power. There has been decades of research, which is still ongoing in how to make it as safe as possible, as well as design new types of reactors that use different fuels, even waste. There is also a lot of research on why sustainable energy alone cannot meet our needs. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the biggest problem with nuclear isn’t tech or safety, it’s social perception and how political agendas influence the public of this solution. Actual risk is disproportion to fear, to which I say educated yourself and make your own decisions. Propaganda only works on those who wilfully choose to be ignorant, and that goes both ways. So don’t just take my word, ask your own questions, read and listen and then make up your own mind. This book is a great place to start.
It also could have the ability to supply stable power in countries that have intermittent or no supply, which as I saw first hand could change lives. If one solar panel could power a two room school and a few computers, allowing both adults and children required to work to also attend school after sunset, imagine what would happen if every house, every school and library had access to electricity, if it could be used to purify or desalinate water, if no one was forced to use a coal powered stove. Access to energy can change lives, plain and simple, and having a reliable source that doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gas emissions seems like an obvious choice. So naturally, I then went on to do a Masters and PhD in nuclear energy and have been an advocate ever since. So that is my story and a basis for my so called expertise.
My opinions on the matter are solely based off of science and math. I am a highly analytical person and I believe in evidence based decision making that is free of emotion. That being said, I understand why the nuclear issue has so many hurdles and the fear surrounding its use. I am aware of why and how accidents have occurred in the past, and know that the largest error was human in each case and could largely have been avoided, I also know that that revelation does not negate the wide scale and lasting harm those events inflicted. I know that nuclear reactors have so many built in redundancies now that design is verging on illogical, but I also know there will be groups of people who still think it is unsafe. I know that the number of deaths caused by coal or natural gas far exceeds those by nuclear, but I also know death is death and in vitro mutations are the stuff of nightmares. This can be very frustrating while working in the field, and I must approach every conversation with a nuclear neophyte in a compassionate tone. I believe education and asking questions with an open mind can provide a pathway to reforming the public opinion on nuclear.
This is a very long way of giving all the reasons I was excited to see this book. It approaches the topic from an environmental perspective and is very accessible. There was no real new information for me, but I thought the perspective was thoughtful and inquiring. The author and narrators document their inherent biases from their environments, and they gradually approach nuclear with curiosity. It was well researched and they present information in a way to lead readers to their own conclusions. I think it also helps that she is a hippie from California, not your typical proponent. In fact, there are many personal stories within from unlikely advocates. It suggests that anyone can approach this topic and make up their minds with enough information. If you have ever had mixed feelings about nuclear power, or are interested in viable ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our growing energy crisis this will be a great read, as will the others here. This is really centred on California, but it can open the door to a wider context and it talks about a lot of general issues.
I will never say nuclear is a perfect solution, nor that it is a risk-free solution. I will say that under the parameters of our current tech and resources, it must be part of an energy solution to mitigate the anthropocenic impact of climate change. I also believe it is PART of a solution, that will also include renewables, but that it can’t be beat in term of energy density for stable bade load power. There has been decades of research, which is still ongoing in how to make it as safe as possible, as well as design new types of reactors that use different fuels, even waste. There is also a lot of research on why sustainable energy alone cannot meet our needs. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the biggest problem with nuclear isn’t tech or safety, it’s social perception and how political agendas influence the public of this solution. Actual risk is disproportion to fear, to which I say educated yourself and make your own decisions. Propaganda only works on those who wilfully choose to be ignorant, and that goes both ways. So don’t just take my word, ask your own questions, read and listen and then make up your own mind. This book is a great place to start.
December 13, 2025
XXXXX
IS NUCLEAR ENERGY GOOD? THE SCIENCE ILLITERATE SEEM TO THINK SO
XXXXX
"This book focuses on the pro-nuclear movement, which has been ascendant in recent years and, unlike its anti-nuclear counterpart, has hardly been covered.
But it's impossible to understand the newer movement--or the history of nuclear power itself--without knowing something about the anti-nuclear movement and the context that gave rise to it. So that, too, is part of the story."
The above (in italics) comes from this book by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow. She is a freelance journalist and author. Her writings has appeared in numerous publications.
This book seems to be aimed at people who have dismissed nuclear energy (that is, energy produced by nuclear fission) and attempts to convince these people to reconsider.
It does this through reminding us that nuclear power plants (such as the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, the last operational nuclear facility in California) generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) like fossil fuels do. (Actually, this is not quite true.) This book further implies that the many obvious problems with nuclear power (the biggest one being perhaps nuclear waste creation) are secondary to this advantage of not emitting greenhouse gases.
We are introduced to many people who hold passionate opinions about nuclear energy. We are even introduced to a person who defends plastic use, who verbally attacked Greta Thunberg, and who even endorsed an anti-science climate change book. (Tuhus-Dubrow actually states, for some unknown reason, the title and sub-title of this book written by a climate change denier. This is like endorsing this book.)
Nuclear fusion (one of the holy grails of science) is mentioned exactly twice in this book and then only in passing. We are told in one of the notes that nuclear fusion "is beyond the scope of this book." (No it's not.)
We are introduced to the idea of the small modular (nuclear) reactor (SMR) that, in the view of Tuhus-Dubrow, is virtually problem-free. The fact is SMRs do have a number of problems.
As I was reading this book, I felt like I was being manipulated into accepting nuclear fission as an energy source (even though the author states that she is neutral). I found the people we are introduced too to be uninteresting and unscientific. Why Tuhus-Dubrow introduces the reader to climate change deniers and climate change skeptics is beyond me. (Perhaps she wants to emulate what they say.)
The most disturbing aspect of this book is that the author downplays the dangers of things nuclear (such as radiaion and nuclear waste.) Perhaps she should do some real research and read the books of Helen Caldicott (a physician and author). Dr Caldicott has been awarded 21 honourary doctoral degrees.
Finally, this book has no index. Why? In my opinion, this was a major oversight.
In conclusion, this book may be of use to those unaware that there is a debate regarding nuclear energy and may be of use to science illiterate people. All others will see its many problems.
XXXXX
(2025; introduction; 20 chapters; epilogue; main narrative 250 pages; acknowledgments; notes)
XXXXX
IS NUCLEAR ENERGY GOOD? THE SCIENCE ILLITERATE SEEM TO THINK SO
XXXXX
"This book focuses on the pro-nuclear movement, which has been ascendant in recent years and, unlike its anti-nuclear counterpart, has hardly been covered.
But it's impossible to understand the newer movement--or the history of nuclear power itself--without knowing something about the anti-nuclear movement and the context that gave rise to it. So that, too, is part of the story."
The above (in italics) comes from this book by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow. She is a freelance journalist and author. Her writings has appeared in numerous publications.
This book seems to be aimed at people who have dismissed nuclear energy (that is, energy produced by nuclear fission) and attempts to convince these people to reconsider.
It does this through reminding us that nuclear power plants (such as the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, the last operational nuclear facility in California) generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) like fossil fuels do. (Actually, this is not quite true.) This book further implies that the many obvious problems with nuclear power (the biggest one being perhaps nuclear waste creation) are secondary to this advantage of not emitting greenhouse gases.
We are introduced to many people who hold passionate opinions about nuclear energy. We are even introduced to a person who defends plastic use, who verbally attacked Greta Thunberg, and who even endorsed an anti-science climate change book. (Tuhus-Dubrow actually states, for some unknown reason, the title and sub-title of this book written by a climate change denier. This is like endorsing this book.)
Nuclear fusion (one of the holy grails of science) is mentioned exactly twice in this book and then only in passing. We are told in one of the notes that nuclear fusion "is beyond the scope of this book." (No it's not.)
We are introduced to the idea of the small modular (nuclear) reactor (SMR) that, in the view of Tuhus-Dubrow, is virtually problem-free. The fact is SMRs do have a number of problems.
As I was reading this book, I felt like I was being manipulated into accepting nuclear fission as an energy source (even though the author states that she is neutral). I found the people we are introduced too to be uninteresting and unscientific. Why Tuhus-Dubrow introduces the reader to climate change deniers and climate change skeptics is beyond me. (Perhaps she wants to emulate what they say.)
The most disturbing aspect of this book is that the author downplays the dangers of things nuclear (such as radiaion and nuclear waste.) Perhaps she should do some real research and read the books of Helen Caldicott (a physician and author). Dr Caldicott has been awarded 21 honourary doctoral degrees.
Finally, this book has no index. Why? In my opinion, this was a major oversight.
In conclusion, this book may be of use to those unaware that there is a debate regarding nuclear energy and may be of use to science illiterate people. All others will see its many problems.
XXXXX
(2025; introduction; 20 chapters; epilogue; main narrative 250 pages; acknowledgments; notes)
XXXXX
December 28, 2024
Not As Much Of A Hit Piece As One Might Expect. If you see that a self-proclaimed "environmentalist" is writing a book about nuclear energy and specifically the Diablo Canyon Power Plant along Central California's coast, many would likely assume this is going to be little more than a thinly veiled hit piece about how evil the plant is and how it should never have been extended.
And one would be WRONG in that assumption... mostly.
Tuhus-Dubrow instead actually does a reasonably balanced-ish (if still clearly tilted slightly (your mileage may vary on how "slightly") towards the anti-nuclear position) approach of looking at the totality of everything about nuclear power in the 21st century, showing its evolutions from its earliest incarnations in the middle of the previous century when many thought nuclear power could usher in a Pre-War version of the world from Fallout (briefly seen in the opening sequence of Fallout 4, for example) into its most modern - and promising yet highly contested - forms, using the Diablo Canyon facility as the basis of much of the overall narrative.
Along the way she makes it a point to talk to many on both sides of the issue and give the requisite brief biographies of each of the key players to the narrative she is constructing, as well as discuss in varying detail the whole of the nuclear power saga - everything from its well known incidents to its lesser known incidents to how *exactly* spent nuclear fuel is stored (mostly, she never details the process involved at facilities such as South Carolina's Savannah River Plant, where I've worked a couple of times in a couple of different software engineering roles) and most everything in between. She discusses the various pro- and anti- groups that have formed over the years and actively interviews several leaders on both sides.
But it is during these interviews in particular that Tuhus-Dubrow develops a new term she clearly means and uses as a pejorative throughout much of the text, specifically to describe many - if not all - on the pro-nuclear energy side: "nuclearists".
Still, even this wasn't truly significant enough to necessitate the star deduction. Instead, that comes from the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at just 11% or so of the Advance Review Copy of the book I read nearly four months before publication.
Ultimately, no matter your position on nuclear energy and even if you, like I, have actively worked in the field for any length of time, you're going to learn something from reading this book. So give it a read, and make sure to write your own review about your own experience with it. And then go read the fictional Viral Apocalypse series by Michael McBride, showing one way Diablo Canyon could actually someday help cause the Apocalypse. ;)
Very much recommended.
And one would be WRONG in that assumption... mostly.
Tuhus-Dubrow instead actually does a reasonably balanced-ish (if still clearly tilted slightly (your mileage may vary on how "slightly") towards the anti-nuclear position) approach of looking at the totality of everything about nuclear power in the 21st century, showing its evolutions from its earliest incarnations in the middle of the previous century when many thought nuclear power could usher in a Pre-War version of the world from Fallout (briefly seen in the opening sequence of Fallout 4, for example) into its most modern - and promising yet highly contested - forms, using the Diablo Canyon facility as the basis of much of the overall narrative.
Along the way she makes it a point to talk to many on both sides of the issue and give the requisite brief biographies of each of the key players to the narrative she is constructing, as well as discuss in varying detail the whole of the nuclear power saga - everything from its well known incidents to its lesser known incidents to how *exactly* spent nuclear fuel is stored (mostly, she never details the process involved at facilities such as South Carolina's Savannah River Plant, where I've worked a couple of times in a couple of different software engineering roles) and most everything in between. She discusses the various pro- and anti- groups that have formed over the years and actively interviews several leaders on both sides.
But it is during these interviews in particular that Tuhus-Dubrow develops a new term she clearly means and uses as a pejorative throughout much of the text, specifically to describe many - if not all - on the pro-nuclear energy side: "nuclearists".
Still, even this wasn't truly significant enough to necessitate the star deduction. Instead, that comes from the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at just 11% or so of the Advance Review Copy of the book I read nearly four months before publication.
Ultimately, no matter your position on nuclear energy and even if you, like I, have actively worked in the field for any length of time, you're going to learn something from reading this book. So give it a read, and make sure to write your own review about your own experience with it. And then go read the fictional Viral Apocalypse series by Michael McBride, showing one way Diablo Canyon could actually someday help cause the Apocalypse. ;)
Very much recommended.
April 13, 2025
**.5
I found the book to be a bit of a letdown, but perhaps that's my fault for having preconceived ideas about what it should say. I was hoping for a clear analysis of the pros and cons of nuclear energy, one that was sober about past missteps as well as the promise of current and future opportunities and challenges. Instead, I got a deep dive into the personalities arguing over whether a particular plant in California should be shut down or run for a few more years.
I appreciate the journalistic effort that went into the research and conducting interviews, but organizing the book around personalities rather than issues made it feel disorganized and made it harder to understand the trade-offs and evaluate the risks. Of course it's impossible to write a book about nuclear power without mentioning the high profile disasters of Fukushima or Chernobyl, but the link between mismanaged shoddy 1950's Soviet technology and modern Gen III reactors is tenuous at best. Let alone the potential of Gen IV reactors, which barely get a mention.
By focusing almost solely on the political and legal battles of the aging Diablo plant, it's hard to assess the overall state of how nuclear power stacks up against traditional fossil fuel burning coal and natural gas power plants, or renewable solar and wind farms. She does provide a few scattered statistics, but I didn't get a clear sense of important factors such as the relative security, safety, cost, environmental impact, capacity, etc. Instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, she instead questions the motives of the pro-nuclear crowd. Are they self-serving employees/investors, quirky rebellious types, right-wing fanatics, or otherwise not to be trusted?
Ultimately, despite all of the evidence she provides in favour of nuclear power, she seems unable to get beyond her initial biased impression that it's inherently scary and hence only to be used sparingly as a last resort. Which is a rather weak conclusion after previously demonstrating the myriad hazards of burning fossil fuels, the inability of renewables to meet demand any time soon, and the relative cost effectiveness of safe and clean nuclear power.
I found the book to be a bit of a letdown, but perhaps that's my fault for having preconceived ideas about what it should say. I was hoping for a clear analysis of the pros and cons of nuclear energy, one that was sober about past missteps as well as the promise of current and future opportunities and challenges. Instead, I got a deep dive into the personalities arguing over whether a particular plant in California should be shut down or run for a few more years.
I appreciate the journalistic effort that went into the research and conducting interviews, but organizing the book around personalities rather than issues made it feel disorganized and made it harder to understand the trade-offs and evaluate the risks. Of course it's impossible to write a book about nuclear power without mentioning the high profile disasters of Fukushima or Chernobyl, but the link between mismanaged shoddy 1950's Soviet technology and modern Gen III reactors is tenuous at best. Let alone the potential of Gen IV reactors, which barely get a mention.
By focusing almost solely on the political and legal battles of the aging Diablo plant, it's hard to assess the overall state of how nuclear power stacks up against traditional fossil fuel burning coal and natural gas power plants, or renewable solar and wind farms. She does provide a few scattered statistics, but I didn't get a clear sense of important factors such as the relative security, safety, cost, environmental impact, capacity, etc. Instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, she instead questions the motives of the pro-nuclear crowd. Are they self-serving employees/investors, quirky rebellious types, right-wing fanatics, or otherwise not to be trusted?
Ultimately, despite all of the evidence she provides in favour of nuclear power, she seems unable to get beyond her initial biased impression that it's inherently scary and hence only to be used sparingly as a last resort. Which is a rather weak conclusion after previously demonstrating the myriad hazards of burning fossil fuels, the inability of renewables to meet demand any time soon, and the relative cost effectiveness of safe and clean nuclear power.
May 31, 2025
Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow has produced a remarkable work of investigative journalism that exemplifies intellectual honesty and open-minded inquiry at their finest. As a freelance journalist raised by environmentalist parents who opposed nuclear power, Tuhus-Dubrow's willingness to challenge her own deeply held beliefs when confronted with new evidence demonstrates the kind of intellectual courage that makes for exceptional nonfiction writing.
What makes this book particularly compelling is Tuhus-Dubrow's transparent documentation of her own evolving perspective. Her discovery that prominent environmentalists were advocating for nuclear power as "the world's best hope for limiting climate change" creates the perfect catalyst for a genuine journey of discovery that readers can follow step by step. This personal approach transforms what could have been a dry policy debate into an engaging narrative of intellectual transformation.
The author's profiles of nuclear advocates like Heather Hoff and Kristin Zaitz, founders of Mothers for Nuclear, provide fascinating insights into how people form and revise their understanding of complex technical issues. Hoff's experience being in the Diablo Canyon control room during the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake—and her subsequent conclusion that "our fears were largely misdirected"—offers compelling firsthand testimony about nuclear safety that challenges common assumptions.
Perhaps most valuably, Tuhus-Dubrow's exploration reveals a crucial distinction between actual risk and perceived risk in public policy debates. Her conclusion that "the problem is not that nuclear plants are prone to catastrophic meltdowns; it's that people are prone to catastrophic thinking" provides essential insight not just about nuclear energy, but about how societies make decisions about complex technologies. This is investigative journalism that serves the public interest by following evidence wherever it leads, offering readers both factual education and a model for how to approach contentious issues with genuine intellectual curiosity.
What makes this book particularly compelling is Tuhus-Dubrow's transparent documentation of her own evolving perspective. Her discovery that prominent environmentalists were advocating for nuclear power as "the world's best hope for limiting climate change" creates the perfect catalyst for a genuine journey of discovery that readers can follow step by step. This personal approach transforms what could have been a dry policy debate into an engaging narrative of intellectual transformation.
The author's profiles of nuclear advocates like Heather Hoff and Kristin Zaitz, founders of Mothers for Nuclear, provide fascinating insights into how people form and revise their understanding of complex technical issues. Hoff's experience being in the Diablo Canyon control room during the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake—and her subsequent conclusion that "our fears were largely misdirected"—offers compelling firsthand testimony about nuclear safety that challenges common assumptions.
Perhaps most valuably, Tuhus-Dubrow's exploration reveals a crucial distinction between actual risk and perceived risk in public policy debates. Her conclusion that "the problem is not that nuclear plants are prone to catastrophic meltdowns; it's that people are prone to catastrophic thinking" provides essential insight not just about nuclear energy, but about how societies make decisions about complex technologies. This is investigative journalism that serves the public interest by following evidence wherever it leads, offering readers both factual education and a model for how to approach contentious issues with genuine intellectual curiosity.
November 13, 2025
I picked up this book because I'm interested in nuclear energy and other kinds of carbon-free energy generation. The book is primarily about the author documenting California's Diablo Canyon power plant closing and the impact that might have on the region.
I didn't feel like the author really provided me with any value. They aren't a nuclear skeptic nor a nuclear proponent. Even by the end of the book they feel too wishy-washy on having any opinion at all but they keep injecting their opinion at various points in the book. They grew up in a place where nuclear energy was not to be trusted, as many hippies believe. Even during the journey of this book, it doesn't seem like the author learns anything or comes up with any novel thoughts of their own.
The book's close focus on Diablo Canyon gives the book little value outside of that area. The author is not trained in science, so couldn't explain new nuclear energy technologies in any interesting detail. They just package a few interviews and news reports along with some personal anecdotes of not having an informed opinion. And perhaps that is representative of the average person and that's fair. But then there really isn't much value in turning that into a book for people to read.
I didn't feel like the author really provided me with any value. They aren't a nuclear skeptic nor a nuclear proponent. Even by the end of the book they feel too wishy-washy on having any opinion at all but they keep injecting their opinion at various points in the book. They grew up in a place where nuclear energy was not to be trusted, as many hippies believe. Even during the journey of this book, it doesn't seem like the author learns anything or comes up with any novel thoughts of their own.
The book's close focus on Diablo Canyon gives the book little value outside of that area. The author is not trained in science, so couldn't explain new nuclear energy technologies in any interesting detail. They just package a few interviews and news reports along with some personal anecdotes of not having an informed opinion. And perhaps that is representative of the average person and that's fair. But then there really isn't much value in turning that into a book for people to read.
April 8, 2025
Atomic Dreams: The New Nuclear Evangelists and the Fight for the Future of Energy by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, serves as a great introduction to the history of Nuclear Power in the United States, its evolution in adoption and acceptance and an understanding of major players past and present. Making the case that the adoption of Nuclear Power, at least presently, is required in order to support a cleaner environment in the near future, since green technologies does not reduce the consumption of coal energy resources enough to make a significant impact.
I had the opportunity to read the book and listen to the audio side by side. The narration by Maria Marquis and Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow provides the layperson, like me, with an understanding of the current state of nuclear power, without overburdening the reader with the science behind it.
Thank you to Hachette Audio | Algonquin Books for the opportunity to listen to this ALC and read the eARC. All opinions are my own.
Rating: 4 stars
Audio Release Date: Apr 08 2025
Pub Date: Apr 08 2025
Tags:
#HachetteAudio
#AtomicDreams
# RebeccaTuhusDubrow
# MariaMarquis
#YarisBookNook
#netgalley
I had the opportunity to read the book and listen to the audio side by side. The narration by Maria Marquis and Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow provides the layperson, like me, with an understanding of the current state of nuclear power, without overburdening the reader with the science behind it.
Thank you to Hachette Audio | Algonquin Books for the opportunity to listen to this ALC and read the eARC. All opinions are my own.
Rating: 4 stars
Audio Release Date: Apr 08 2025
Pub Date: Apr 08 2025
Tags:
#HachetteAudio
#AtomicDreams
# RebeccaTuhusDubrow
# MariaMarquis
#YarisBookNook
#netgalley
March 22, 2025
What a fascinating, well-researched book. I went into it not knowing much about the pro vs. anti-nuclear debate, and I learned so much. I appreciated how Tuhus-Dubrow used the controversy around the Diablo Canyon power plant as a case study to understand larger issues. She took the time to meet and get to know people on both sides of the debate, and she presents a balanced view of the pros and cons of nuclear energy. Yet it's not boringly neutral--she acknowledges her own preconceptions and how her view evolved as she learned more.
I think this book is going to be important in current debates, as the Trump administration has proposed nuclear as a way to generate the energy needed for AI. Many progressives or liberals might have a kneejerk reaction against that idea, but they would do well do read this book to understand the context of why some environmentalist actually support nuclear energy. It's a fun and accessible read on a heavy topic, and it balances wonky details with the big picture.
I think this book is going to be important in current debates, as the Trump administration has proposed nuclear as a way to generate the energy needed for AI. Many progressives or liberals might have a kneejerk reaction against that idea, but they would do well do read this book to understand the context of why some environmentalist actually support nuclear energy. It's a fun and accessible read on a heavy topic, and it balances wonky details with the big picture.
June 18, 2025
Rebecca Dubrow favors the use of using nuclear power for generating energy for valid reasons. I like the fact that nuclear power does not emit any carbon dioxide or other green gases. Nuclear power is also not dependent on the weather like wind and power. A small amount of nuclear fuel is needed to make electricity. The same cannot be said for wind, solar or hydro power that require greater yields to produce electricity. I am surprised that California generates about 20% of power via nuclear means, and that France leads the world in nuclear power generation.
I believe that success of nuclear energy depends on the available resources in a given area. Resources like having enough time, space and money will determine if nuclear energy is a tenable option or not. The risk of radiation and contamination of the environment is another reason that nuclear energy is not pursued widely. I enjoyed Atomic Dreams, even though I don't think it is realistic source of power in Hawaii because of money, space, time and radiation risk.
I believe that success of nuclear energy depends on the available resources in a given area. Resources like having enough time, space and money will determine if nuclear energy is a tenable option or not. The risk of radiation and contamination of the environment is another reason that nuclear energy is not pursued widely. I enjoyed Atomic Dreams, even though I don't think it is realistic source of power in Hawaii because of money, space, time and radiation risk.
November 9, 2025
I received an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Atomic Dreams starts off strong, offering rich insight into the long and complex history of the nuclear power debate. Tuhus-Dubrow does an excellent job presenting perspectives from both advocates and critics, highlighting how even some of the most vocal detractors have since become supporters. The book adds necessary context and nuance to a conversation that remains deeply relevant and divisive.
That said, while the narrative effectively focuses on one central case study to explore the broader themes of nuclear energy, I found myself wanting a deeper dive into the global landscape, the technology, the current challenges, and how nuclear power fits into our wider energy future. I understand that narrowing the scope helps provide depth, but if the goal is to persuade readers of nuclear energy’s potential, a broader look at its role worldwide would have made the argument even more compelling.
Atomic Dreams starts off strong, offering rich insight into the long and complex history of the nuclear power debate. Tuhus-Dubrow does an excellent job presenting perspectives from both advocates and critics, highlighting how even some of the most vocal detractors have since become supporters. The book adds necessary context and nuance to a conversation that remains deeply relevant and divisive.
That said, while the narrative effectively focuses on one central case study to explore the broader themes of nuclear energy, I found myself wanting a deeper dive into the global landscape, the technology, the current challenges, and how nuclear power fits into our wider energy future. I understand that narrowing the scope helps provide depth, but if the goal is to persuade readers of nuclear energy’s potential, a broader look at its role worldwide would have made the argument even more compelling.
July 16, 2025
USELESS - literally nothing about the business or technology of the modern nuclear industry
The only way I could waste more of my time on this book…would be writing a lengthy review of this book. So!
If the reader is looking for sociological history of the pro/anti nuclear movements since WWII, good news - this is your book! Enjoy in-depth analysis of gender equity and DEI consideration. The degree to which this angle is shoehorned into the narrative is truly remarkable, like a SNL skit.
However, if you are looking to learn about the massive business, regulatory and technology advancements in today’s nuclear industry, you have stumbled upon the wrong book. Abort mission immediately. Go for a walk.
The only way I could waste more of my time on this book…would be writing a lengthy review of this book. So!
If the reader is looking for sociological history of the pro/anti nuclear movements since WWII, good news - this is your book! Enjoy in-depth analysis of gender equity and DEI consideration. The degree to which this angle is shoehorned into the narrative is truly remarkable, like a SNL skit.
However, if you are looking to learn about the massive business, regulatory and technology advancements in today’s nuclear industry, you have stumbled upon the wrong book. Abort mission immediately. Go for a walk.
April 22, 2025
Perhaps I had a misconceived notion in regards to what this book would be about. It focused on one nuclear power plant in California, instead of nuclear energy pertaining to the entire country or world.
Overall, I found this extremely difficult to be interested in. Not sure if it is the narrator or content but it could not hold my interest.
Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow does cover interesting topics, such as the idea of an energy influencer, and how it is difficult to change people's perceptions on energy.
If you are interesting in energy and nuclear energy, this is a good read.
Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC of this book. Get your copy today.
Overall, I found this extremely difficult to be interested in. Not sure if it is the narrator or content but it could not hold my interest.
Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow does cover interesting topics, such as the idea of an energy influencer, and how it is difficult to change people's perceptions on energy.
If you are interesting in energy and nuclear energy, this is a good read.
Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC of this book. Get your copy today.
August 26, 2025
3.4
I wrote a few papers on nuclear energy and policy in college. Since writing those I have been disheartened with how narrow minded the US government and people have been in employing a technology which could help combat climate change. The book is an easy and informative read about the debate around closing a nuclear plant in Cali and includes historical context and actors on both the pro and anti-nuclear sides. Not as comprehensive, number heavy, or argument driven as much as Iwould have liked. Felt like a really solid long form article.
I would recommend to anyone who wants to start out and learn more about nuclear.
I wrote a few papers on nuclear energy and policy in college. Since writing those I have been disheartened with how narrow minded the US government and people have been in employing a technology which could help combat climate change. The book is an easy and informative read about the debate around closing a nuclear plant in Cali and includes historical context and actors on both the pro and anti-nuclear sides. Not as comprehensive, number heavy, or argument driven as much as Iwould have liked. Felt like a really solid long form article.
I would recommend to anyone who wants to start out and learn more about nuclear.
September 15, 2025
An impressively researched book that gave me enough information to engage in the conversation about nuclear energy from a place of facts rather than fear and preconceived notions. From other reviews, I had expected this to be a very localized “story” but while the Diablo Canyon plant in California was a major player (given its recent history - to close vs keep operating), the book is much broader in scope, told at a national (and some international) scale. I could see this being used in classrooms that want to set up interesting debates (I thought of this for Ch 8) including about the related social issues (Ch 19). A deep and intriguing dive into an incredibly important and timely issue.
August 16, 2025
Using Diablo Canyon in California as an anchor, Tuhus-Dubrow covers the past and present of nuclear energy. It is a quality read and does a great job exploring many view points, from the environmentalists to the nuclearists to the politicians to the engineers to the indigenous peoples that all have different roles and perspectives. I learned a lot about why nuclear has been shunned and how it has been slow to be re-regulated. It was interesting to learn out about this futuristic yet somehow still nascent technology.
March 24, 2025
Tuhus-Dubrow does an expert and incisive job of sifting through the messy conversation about nuclear energy: cop out? magic bullet? too reckless to contemplate at any scale? Have we really dug ourselves so deep into this climate mess that nuclear is the only responsible alternative? Can we afford not to eat the uncertainty at this point? We will bump up against these questions more and more as we run out of choices in this desperate and imperiled age...
July 22, 2025
I rarely read a non-fiction book that has such a balanced look at a complex subject. The author has written about nuclear but has ensured that all energy sources are represented in a fair manner. Her final chapter should be required reading for anyone interested in carbon-neutral energy. Her in-depth access to all the key people involved in the nuclear debate makes the book feel deeply personal. Great stories about all of their journeys to the views they hold now.
August 24, 2025
I wanted this to be better, but really it’s just the story of the author finally realizing common sense. The truth is fear mongering has historically driven bad policy and perspective surrounding nuclear, and when individuals actually do even a small amount of investigation and research, they realize how good nuclear is.
This book could be summed up in 1 sentence:
I decided to stop being ignorant and letting fear rule my life, others should too.
This book could be summed up in 1 sentence:
I decided to stop being ignorant and letting fear rule my life, others should too.
June 4, 2025
It's an unusual book. The name of the book makes a theme: The "Atomic Dreams" comes out in a way and then there's the themes bring the "New Nuclear Evanbelists."
And there are some words come out in a different. And of the words that come out in a different that we hear. Most of these use of words is interesting.
And there are some words come out in a different. And of the words that come out in a different that we hear. Most of these use of words is interesting.
June 16, 2025
I thought this was great storytelling and really great history of the environmental movement, but the author concludes saying she's not sure she's pro-nuclear and the book is just like.. only pro-nuclear, so i thought that was annoying. It's like the book assumes you already know the reasons not to be pro-nuclear so doesn't talk about them and I found that annoying.
April 30, 2025
Tuhus-Dubrow has given readers a good introduction to the history of nuclear power and movements both for against. Interest in the nuclear landscape but not sure where to start? This would be a good start.
My copy was a gift from Goodreads First Reads.
My copy was a gift from Goodreads First Reads.
September 20, 2025
As a career nuclear industry engineer who long ago worked at Diablo Canyon, I endorse this book. Seems well researched and I could not find fault with any of technical aspects that I am familiar with.
March 24, 2025
A compelling treatment of a hotly debated and poorly understood set of energy choices.
May 20, 2025
An engrossing, entertaining, and balanced treatment of a topic that all of us must wrestle with. You can open this book on any page and find yourself unable to put it down.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews