What do you think?
Rate this book
Rad Future: The Untold Story of Nuclear Electricity and How It Will Save the World
We’re running out of time. Fossil fuels are choking the planet and renewable energy isn’t cutting it. The solution has been hiding in plain sight all along.
Nuclear.
When most people hear that word, they go to a very bad bombs, Chernobyl, hazmat suits, radioactive fallout… the stuff of nightmares. But what if everything you think you know about nuclear is wrong?
In Rad Future, science influencer Isabelle Boemeke shatters the fear and misinformation surrounding this technology and shows how the actual science tells a different story. It turns out that nuclear-generated electricity—nuclear electricity—is our best option for ensuring the future of the planet. Nuclear can power cities, desalinate water, create carbon-free fertilizer, and heat homes, all with the smallest environmental footprint of any energy source.
Boemeke exposes how decades of fearmongering, a few dramatic (but preventable) disasters, and relentless bad PR have convinced the world that nuclear is dangerous when it’s actually the key to an affordable, sustainable future. We’ve fumbled the bag on the cleanest, most powerful energy source we have, and it’s time to fix that.
This isn’t your typical science book. Boemeke’s signature mix of humor, sass, and deep research makes Rad Future a wild ride through the science, history, and future of nuclear electricity. From Cold War politics to Hollywood-fueled paranoia to cutting-edge reactor designs, she details exactly how nuclear works and why it’s our best shot at ending the climate crisis and creating a future of radical abundance. Rad Future is the first truly accessible breakdown of nuclear electricity, and it will leave you feeling stoked about what’s possible.
Nuclear.
When most people hear that word, they go to a very bad bombs, Chernobyl, hazmat suits, radioactive fallout… the stuff of nightmares. But what if everything you think you know about nuclear is wrong?
In Rad Future, science influencer Isabelle Boemeke shatters the fear and misinformation surrounding this technology and shows how the actual science tells a different story. It turns out that nuclear-generated electricity—nuclear electricity—is our best option for ensuring the future of the planet. Nuclear can power cities, desalinate water, create carbon-free fertilizer, and heat homes, all with the smallest environmental footprint of any energy source.
Boemeke exposes how decades of fearmongering, a few dramatic (but preventable) disasters, and relentless bad PR have convinced the world that nuclear is dangerous when it’s actually the key to an affordable, sustainable future. We’ve fumbled the bag on the cleanest, most powerful energy source we have, and it’s time to fix that.
This isn’t your typical science book. Boemeke’s signature mix of humor, sass, and deep research makes Rad Future a wild ride through the science, history, and future of nuclear electricity. From Cold War politics to Hollywood-fueled paranoia to cutting-edge reactor designs, she details exactly how nuclear works and why it’s our best shot at ending the climate crisis and creating a future of radical abundance. Rad Future is the first truly accessible breakdown of nuclear electricity, and it will leave you feeling stoked about what’s possible.
261 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 12, 2025
42 people are currently reading
280 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 - 24 of 24 reviews
November 9, 2025
I really enjoyed reading this! I think it’s really important to keep audience in mind when reading this, Boemeke is writing from a general population/activist perspective and never gets too technical, which to me is perfectly fine. There’s plenty of stuffy books out there that go into way more detail but clearly trying something different and trying to engage a broader audience who might not be interested in nuclear otherwise. I think the use of slang is fine, it makes the book read as more conversational, but is also pretty jarring to have something like “bye-bye” in the middle of an genuinely coherent argument. Either way worth a read, you’ll either learn a lot about nuclear or learn more about how to communicate about nuclear to non experts.
November 29, 2025
Having spent my entire career in nuclear power, first as a US Navy submarine reactor operator then an engineer in the commercial nuclear field (I worked at both Three Mile Island and Diablo Canyon, among others), I was a bit - not much, really - skeptical that this book would achieve its promise. But it does. While some parts are maybe too simplified for industry folks, it presents a comprehensive, accessible narrative of the history and possible future of nuclear energy ... er, electricity. Nuclear electricity. And it's an easy, fun read that at the same time relies on facts. Well done.
(Note: I read the hardcover edition. Goodreads doesn't have that edition added yet.)
(Note: I read the hardcover edition. Goodreads doesn't have that edition added yet.)
December 4, 2025
Given my recent reviews stating my distaste of armchair experts vs. Professionals it’s ironic I’m giving this book 5 stars but it leans into stats, facts and knowing what you don’t.
My only knock against it is the handful of times it uses Gen Z slang which was horribly uncomfortable.
My only knock against it is the handful of times it uses Gen Z slang which was horribly uncomfortable.
November 7, 2025
I learned a lot!
October 6, 2025
So I’m a bit conflicted on reviewing this.
As another reviewer stated: this book is not technical. It is riddled with slang and undermines quite of a lot of.. well.. everything— from calling Nazi Germany just “humanity in one of her villain eras” to referring to the scientists behind nuclear fission as “delulu”.
However, and it truly pains me to admit this, there’s a good message behind it all. I think that in the age of modern American’s with reading comprehension of fourth graders this book may do good. It’s accessible knowledge to nuclear energy. It lists historical and scientific events, be it in strange zellennial speak, in a way that is clear and digestible to anyone. If the message can be received in a wide spread way.. I’m not sure how upset I can truly be about it.
The two stars of my review exist solely for the way this book was written. I enjoy science and history writing— i find that I’m critical in rating them when they’re written by experts or professional journalists for one reason or another.
To the model turned “nuclear energy influencer”, I am unsure of how to demonstrate both a supportive tone to your cause while also denouncing this as a pillar in elevating the argument for clean energy.
As another reviewer stated: this book is not technical. It is riddled with slang and undermines quite of a lot of.. well.. everything— from calling Nazi Germany just “humanity in one of her villain eras” to referring to the scientists behind nuclear fission as “delulu”.
However, and it truly pains me to admit this, there’s a good message behind it all. I think that in the age of modern American’s with reading comprehension of fourth graders this book may do good. It’s accessible knowledge to nuclear energy. It lists historical and scientific events, be it in strange zellennial speak, in a way that is clear and digestible to anyone. If the message can be received in a wide spread way.. I’m not sure how upset I can truly be about it.
The two stars of my review exist solely for the way this book was written. I enjoy science and history writing— i find that I’m critical in rating them when they’re written by experts or professional journalists for one reason or another.
To the model turned “nuclear energy influencer”, I am unsure of how to demonstrate both a supportive tone to your cause while also denouncing this as a pillar in elevating the argument for clean energy.
December 11, 2025
The book is short, easy to read and has a perky, very modern style. The author gets some details from the history of nuclear fission correct I think, but she overlooks or just doesn't know details about the full story of converting uranium from ore in the ground into electricity. I give her one star for her commitment to controlling climate change and to reducing air pollution, and to bringing electric energy to all people, especially in poor countries. The second star is for her energetic and accessible presentation which also including notes, illustrations (not credited, except for the information source) and an index. But any more stars are withheld because of inconsistencies and shortcomings. And, because her breezy and enthusiastic style conveys certainty about nuclear energy when it’s a big, complicated subject with lots of uncertainties.
Her arguments for electricity generated by nuclear reactors are like inviting friends for a nutritious dinner and not sharing with them the messy (and potentially dangerous) details of the food sources, nor a description of the food preparation, nor the plans for scraping the plates, taking out the garbage, washing the dishes, and storing the leftovers. But she loves the main course, and so will a lot of under-informed readers.
To her credit, she admits that Navajo miners in Arizona worked without proper protection from dust, and were not compensated for later health problems, but she proposes that such careless management could not happen now due to stricter regulations. That’s not reassuring because we know that regulations change as political winds change. And she doesn’t explore the path starting from removing uranium ore from the ground, to purifying the ore to the element uranium, and the much more difficult and dangerous process of separating the three isotopes of U in order to concentrate the fissionable isotope U-235. The waste from that isotope separation (some of it for military purposes) involves a toxic, corrosive and radioactive compound which is currently stored in more than 50,000 steel storage cylinders in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The production of nuclear fuel for use in reactors is important and complex -- why was it ignored by the author?
The US has no currently operating nuclear fuel processing or re-processing sites. A US Nuclear Regulatory Council site on the fuel cycle shows the stages of preparing and decommissioning nuclear fuel should the US want to start up new reactors or reprocess the "spent" nuclear fuel in aging and less efficient reactors. Those transportation arrows and loops are not addressed by the author. Nor is the problem of where to store any additional waste from preparing or reprocessing fuel rods for reactors. Her campaign to save the Diablo Canyon reactor in California focused on an existing reactor which has been operating since 1985, and did not deal with the factors in getting new reactors licensed, built, and operating.
Her model of a good nuclear nation is France (“the ultimate nuclear queen”) which has been running nuclear reactors for electrical energy since the 1970’s. But that country has one electrical utility company and it is wholly government-owned. France’s 50+ reactors share similar plans and construction, and operating systems. The US nuclear energy system couldn’t be farther from the model she idealizes in France, or others she admires such as South Korea which also uses centralized control over design, construction and operation. Recent efforts to build a new (2024) nuclear plant in Georgia (U.S.), the Vogtle Electrical Generating Plant, resulted in years of delays and huge cost overruns. In the author’s words, the work was “plagued by a lack of experts, frequent design changes, and some serious project mismanagement.”
Other reasons to reduce the stars in a rating are her too-long and too-detailed digression into the story of the Sierra Club and David Brower, and environmentalists’ opposition to keeping the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant open. Also, her information about a “natural” nuclear reactor in Gabon, Africa is cool but the nuclear reactions in the rocks containing U-235 happened over the course of a million years around 2 billion years ago. The story is a nifty detail in the history of the earth’s crust, and the fact that the reactions were “natural” doesn’t support modern nuclear technology and the business of running reactors to make electricity.
Finally, the author admits the reason for a nuclear renaissance is not US residents’ demand for clean, reliable electricity for heating, cooling, lights, food refrigeration. It’s AI that’s driving the demand for more electricity and from new sources. This is not how she started her argument for nuclear energy, but by page 195 she is singing the praises of companies independently seeking to build small reactors, companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta. Her principal argument is that we could have a Rad(iant) Future with nuclear energy, but the details in the second half of the book suggest that a Rad(ioactive) Future is just as likely unless the US organizes something besides a capitalist scramble for fast profits for private investors .
Her arguments for electricity generated by nuclear reactors are like inviting friends for a nutritious dinner and not sharing with them the messy (and potentially dangerous) details of the food sources, nor a description of the food preparation, nor the plans for scraping the plates, taking out the garbage, washing the dishes, and storing the leftovers. But she loves the main course, and so will a lot of under-informed readers.
To her credit, she admits that Navajo miners in Arizona worked without proper protection from dust, and were not compensated for later health problems, but she proposes that such careless management could not happen now due to stricter regulations. That’s not reassuring because we know that regulations change as political winds change. And she doesn’t explore the path starting from removing uranium ore from the ground, to purifying the ore to the element uranium, and the much more difficult and dangerous process of separating the three isotopes of U in order to concentrate the fissionable isotope U-235. The waste from that isotope separation (some of it for military purposes) involves a toxic, corrosive and radioactive compound which is currently stored in more than 50,000 steel storage cylinders in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The production of nuclear fuel for use in reactors is important and complex -- why was it ignored by the author?
The US has no currently operating nuclear fuel processing or re-processing sites. A US Nuclear Regulatory Council site on the fuel cycle shows the stages of preparing and decommissioning nuclear fuel should the US want to start up new reactors or reprocess the "spent" nuclear fuel in aging and less efficient reactors. Those transportation arrows and loops are not addressed by the author. Nor is the problem of where to store any additional waste from preparing or reprocessing fuel rods for reactors. Her campaign to save the Diablo Canyon reactor in California focused on an existing reactor which has been operating since 1985, and did not deal with the factors in getting new reactors licensed, built, and operating.
Her model of a good nuclear nation is France (“the ultimate nuclear queen”) which has been running nuclear reactors for electrical energy since the 1970’s. But that country has one electrical utility company and it is wholly government-owned. France’s 50+ reactors share similar plans and construction, and operating systems. The US nuclear energy system couldn’t be farther from the model she idealizes in France, or others she admires such as South Korea which also uses centralized control over design, construction and operation. Recent efforts to build a new (2024) nuclear plant in Georgia (U.S.), the Vogtle Electrical Generating Plant, resulted in years of delays and huge cost overruns. In the author’s words, the work was “plagued by a lack of experts, frequent design changes, and some serious project mismanagement.”
Other reasons to reduce the stars in a rating are her too-long and too-detailed digression into the story of the Sierra Club and David Brower, and environmentalists’ opposition to keeping the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant open. Also, her information about a “natural” nuclear reactor in Gabon, Africa is cool but the nuclear reactions in the rocks containing U-235 happened over the course of a million years around 2 billion years ago. The story is a nifty detail in the history of the earth’s crust, and the fact that the reactions were “natural” doesn’t support modern nuclear technology and the business of running reactors to make electricity.
Finally, the author admits the reason for a nuclear renaissance is not US residents’ demand for clean, reliable electricity for heating, cooling, lights, food refrigeration. It’s AI that’s driving the demand for more electricity and from new sources. This is not how she started her argument for nuclear energy, but by page 195 she is singing the praises of companies independently seeking to build small reactors, companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta. Her principal argument is that we could have a Rad(iant) Future with nuclear energy, but the details in the second half of the book suggest that a Rad(ioactive) Future is just as likely unless the US organizes something besides a capitalist scramble for fast profits for private investors .
September 20, 2025
I recently received a free copy of this book at work. It was a part of an event where Isabelle spoke to employees and answered questions about the book over webcast. I couldn't stay for the webcast but read the book after.
It's well written. The book covers the history of nuclear energy, of energy and environmental policy across the 20th century, and more current events surrounding nuclear electricity and the politics surrounding it. Throughout, the author presents a factual and interesting advocacy for use of nuclear electricity now and into the future.
It's probably not enough to say "it's well written". It's written in a manner that makes nuclear energy and science easy to understand. It would be a good first read for someone interested in the topic of nuclear electricity generation. Between the simple (but not overly simplified) approach to the subject and the fun hand drawn illustrations, I got through the book fairly quickly and enjoyed the read.
The only detractor for me was the occasional use of contemporary slang. I don't entirely get why the author decides to use terms like "the Ick" or "obvi" or any other number of others. Is it an effort to connect to a younger audience? Is it to make nuclear sound "cool"? In my humblest of opinions, this slang accomplishes neither of these things and just cheapens the overall attempt at outreach and advocacy. With this language removed, the book would have been an undistractingly clear piece of nuclear advocacy.
I'd recommend it as both a first read to those new to nuclear energy and those of us familiar with the subject matter.
It's well written. The book covers the history of nuclear energy, of energy and environmental policy across the 20th century, and more current events surrounding nuclear electricity and the politics surrounding it. Throughout, the author presents a factual and interesting advocacy for use of nuclear electricity now and into the future.
It's probably not enough to say "it's well written". It's written in a manner that makes nuclear energy and science easy to understand. It would be a good first read for someone interested in the topic of nuclear electricity generation. Between the simple (but not overly simplified) approach to the subject and the fun hand drawn illustrations, I got through the book fairly quickly and enjoyed the read.
The only detractor for me was the occasional use of contemporary slang. I don't entirely get why the author decides to use terms like "the Ick" or "obvi" or any other number of others. Is it an effort to connect to a younger audience? Is it to make nuclear sound "cool"? In my humblest of opinions, this slang accomplishes neither of these things and just cheapens the overall attempt at outreach and advocacy. With this language removed, the book would have been an undistractingly clear piece of nuclear advocacy.
I'd recommend it as both a first read to those new to nuclear energy and those of us familiar with the subject matter.
September 12, 2025
The author is not a technical person per se. On the other hand, she's not an idiot either, and she presents her case very well.
She takes the premise that people are dying from the pollution that is expelled when burning coal to create electricity. She looks logically for alternatives. She dumps all over the idea of "renewable resources" because wood falls into that category and burning wood to create electricity would create the same problem as coal. She talks about wind power and hydroelectricity while she points out the limitations of each. She finally settles on nuclear electricity... that is... using a nuclear reaction to produce energy and then (usually) steam to run a generator.
She also points out that a nuclear reaction is a natural process. It happens spontaneously in nature (which I know is true). As I recall there was an active, natural nuclear reactor in Africa many thousands of years ago.
I caught no mistakes in her logic. I was already convinced before she started, and I knew the arguments, but she laid them out beautifully and as simply as is possible to do. I think her arguments will appeal to young people. (To me, just about everyone is a "young person". Yes. I'm that old.)
I'd love to listen to this audiobook again. It is read by the author and she has a good voice for it. Lots of energy.
She takes the premise that people are dying from the pollution that is expelled when burning coal to create electricity. She looks logically for alternatives. She dumps all over the idea of "renewable resources" because wood falls into that category and burning wood to create electricity would create the same problem as coal. She talks about wind power and hydroelectricity while she points out the limitations of each. She finally settles on nuclear electricity... that is... using a nuclear reaction to produce energy and then (usually) steam to run a generator.
She also points out that a nuclear reaction is a natural process. It happens spontaneously in nature (which I know is true). As I recall there was an active, natural nuclear reactor in Africa many thousands of years ago.
I caught no mistakes in her logic. I was already convinced before she started, and I knew the arguments, but she laid them out beautifully and as simply as is possible to do. I think her arguments will appeal to young people. (To me, just about everyone is a "young person". Yes. I'm that old.)
I'd love to listen to this audiobook again. It is read by the author and she has a good voice for it. Lots of energy.
August 31, 2025
What struck me most acutely reading this book are the parallelisms between synthetic biology and nuclear electricity. Both technologies have great potential to help fight climate change, both are technologies that are a threat to petroleum (for electricity with nuclear and petrochemical manufacturing vs biobased biomanufacturing with metabolic engineering and bioreactors) and both are technologies strangely demonised by conservation organisations like Greenpeace. I’m reminded of a Substack article I read recently discussing the difference between conservatism as a fundamentally degrowth, conservative oriented mentality, contrasting environmentalism as an abundance pilled progressive philosophy where nuclear power frees up land for biosphere reclamation and synbio potentially enables us to terraform and reclaim the Sahara desert in a manner that would probably horrify the average “conservationist” and oil baron in equal measure. Strange stuff but this was a good read that I think is nicely balanced on the important jargon.
November 22, 2025
As someone who works in nuclear, I’ve always found it difficult to express the pros of nuclear with friends and family in a way that breaks through their preconceived ideas about the industry and the risks it may or may not entail. This book was superbly written, easy to digest, and presents the pro nuclear argument in a way that doesn’t put the other side on the defensive but also doesn’t give them space to fall back on stereotypical tropes about nuclear. I thought I had the right talking points to advocate for nuclear power but Isabelle took those ideas, made them better, and created a narrative that is easy to follow and easier to believe in. I would absolutely recommend this book for those already supportive of nuclear power and to those who may want to understand why the anti-nuclear arguments are missing. 10/10!
October 26, 2025
This book completely changed my view on nuclear energy (which the book rebrands as nuclear electricity). I learned that anti-nuclear organizations and campaigns have been funded by the fossil fuel (oil/gas) industry, and the author cites sources (though I haven’t fact checked them) that detail how nuclear uses less land, less natural resources, requires less mining, how technology advancements have made it safer, and offers high-paying jobs that coal industry workers can transition into. I’ll admit that the writing style is “hip” as it uses slang, profanity, and Gen-Z lingo— which ages the book but was not distracting and made it more entertaining and digestible. I would definitely recommend this book to (especially younger) people that care about addressing climate change.
December 18, 2025
Rad future is written by Isabelle Boemeke, a beautiful Brazilian model. Because who best to write a book about nuclear energy and how it can save the world than a model. Lol actually she’s exactly what we needed to write this book. She makes really complex ideas very digestible and lays out the information in a very clear manner. actually got to see her speak and I remember getting nervous for her when a lot of the questions got very detailed oriented, but this woman knows what she is talking about inside and out. And I will admit the book did change my opinion about nuclear energy. If anyone is interested, I think it is a very good read. It’s very informative and insightful.
August 19, 2025
This book is one of the most refreshing and timely explanations of nuclear power that there ever was. It touches on the technical aspects, just enough to explain to the readers what’s going on, but doesn’t get wrapped around the axle of technical geeks that the experts frequently write about.
I speak as a radiation protection professional, who has 42 years of experience and I couldn’t have explained it better and in more modern terminology that is understandable by today’s youth.
I even learned a couple of new Internet, slang terms!
I speak as a radiation protection professional, who has 42 years of experience and I couldn’t have explained it better and in more modern terminology that is understandable by today’s youth.
I even learned a couple of new Internet, slang terms!
October 19, 2025
Book based on sources who spread climate disinformation, based on vibes and not actual science.
Book does more harm to the climate movement than good, dogs on the degrowth movement despite an integral aspect of the climate crisis is our overconsumption and exploitation of resources.
Stinks of grifting and funding from the fossil fuel industry, do better :/
https://drilled.media/news/rad-future
Book does more harm to the climate movement than good, dogs on the degrowth movement despite an integral aspect of the climate crisis is our overconsumption and exploitation of resources.
Stinks of grifting and funding from the fossil fuel industry, do better :/
https://drilled.media/news/rad-future
November 13, 2025
I get why this was written the way it was: accessibility is pretty paramount for reach. The book does a fine job of making both complex geopolitical history and complicated science bite-sized and easy on the stomach. With that said, I really couldn’t get past the prose, which was at best a shining example of millennial cringe and at worst explicitly anti-intellectual. I wanted it to want more from me as a reader.
November 12, 2025
It does what it advertises to do - educate the general public who knows nothing about nuclear about nuclear. Although I didn’t quite learn anything I didn’t know about nuclear history, etc. I would love to gift or buy this book for friends who don’t know much about nuclear!
One thing I did learn and enjoyed learning about was the history of the environmentalist movement. :)
One thing I did learn and enjoyed learning about was the history of the environmentalist movement. :)
August 26, 2025
This is not very good. The author is a model turned "nuclear power influencer" on social media due to her self-professed climate anxiety. My entire review can be summed up by quoting the book as follows: "Nuclear power is a great energy vibe."
October 5, 2025
Highly recommend this book! Isabelle explains how nuclear energy isn’t scary or dangerous and is actually what will cure climate change. Really inspiring and gives me hope for a world powered by clean energy. 🌎
August 18, 2025
get in looser, we're going nuclear
August 29, 2025
a good, quick read if you are wondering about nuclear energy
October 10, 2025
All my stocking stuffers for the year for every person I know? Sorted.
July 28, 2025
Thanks to NetGalley and Portfolio for the eARC!
Boemeke is a fantastic writer. She's able to take complicated topics and make them understandable and interesting. I recently read a book about the dangers of nuclear when used for weapons making, so it was both refreshing and balancing to be reminded that while it CAN be used for evil (and we should work against that), it can also be used for good (and we should work for that).
Boemeke did a great job of describing the history of nuclear electricity, how it got a bad wrap, and debunking myths. I would absolutely recommend this book for anyone interested in nuclear electricity, clean energy, climate change, or science in general.
Boemeke is a fantastic writer. She's able to take complicated topics and make them understandable and interesting. I recently read a book about the dangers of nuclear when used for weapons making, so it was both refreshing and balancing to be reminded that while it CAN be used for evil (and we should work against that), it can also be used for good (and we should work for that).
Boemeke did a great job of describing the history of nuclear electricity, how it got a bad wrap, and debunking myths. I would absolutely recommend this book for anyone interested in nuclear electricity, clean energy, climate change, or science in general.
November 19, 2025
Cool audiobook challenging conventional narratives around a revolutionary technology that could solve our most critical problem if we would only let it.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews