What do you think?
Rate this book
Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century
Nuclear power is not an option for the future but an absolute necessity. Global threats of climate change and lethal air pollution, killing millions each year, make it clear that nuclear and renewable energy must work together, as non-carbon sources of energy. Fortunately, a new era of growth in this energy source is underway in developing nations, though not yet in the West. Seeing the Light is the first book to clarify these realities and discuss their implications for coming decades. Readers will learn how, why, and where the new nuclear era is happening, what new technologies are involved, and what this means for preventing the proliferation of weapons. This book is the best work available for becoming fully informed about this key subject, for students, the general public, and anyone interested in the future of energy production, and, thus, the future of humanity on planet Earth.
Kindle Edition
Published August 23, 2017
17 people are currently reading
167 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 29, 2018
Caveat: I know one of the authors.
Like him, I was once an anti-nuclear activist - and I was about equally against both nukes and nuclear power, because they were of course strongly linked in my mind. This book has played a large role in changing my mind: I believe now that people who are passionate about the environment, and take the threat of climate change seriously, cannot know the facts and consistently be against civilian nuclear power too. If catastrophe is to be avoided, civilian nuclear power will play a key role in that avoidance, alongside renewables: the numbers just don't add up any other way.
Has civilian nuclear power generally been very dangerous and very expensive? Exactly the reverse is true, relative to all competitors. Has nuclear power been a key element in nuclear proliferation? No. Isn't radioactive waste a special, specially insoluble problem? No - mainly, its been a huge distraction from the greater quantities of worse and less regulated wastes caused by other sources and processes. Didn't Fukushima show how vulnerable we are to accidents at nuclear plants? No: what it showed was how ignorant hysteria about radiation can itself lead to terrible destruction even when the radiation itself has done no detectable harm.
Many other rhetorical questions about nuclear power are answered, with care and full detail, in this book. And though its argument plays out against a threat more dramatic if possible than nuclear war itself, global warming, its facts and figures show that we should have been pro-nuclear even before anyone thought of that problem, back in the 1970s. For the central argument is a simple one: Every new nuclear power station means about four fewer coal-fired stations; and every new coal-fired station is the death warrant of more people than have died during the course of the entire global nuclear industry.
You may not think any of this credible. I sympathize: I would not have done, once. But if you genuinely believe that we are slouching towards climate catastrophe - and we are - I ask you to read it, and consider the possibility of thinking again.
Like him, I was once an anti-nuclear activist - and I was about equally against both nukes and nuclear power, because they were of course strongly linked in my mind. This book has played a large role in changing my mind: I believe now that people who are passionate about the environment, and take the threat of climate change seriously, cannot know the facts and consistently be against civilian nuclear power too. If catastrophe is to be avoided, civilian nuclear power will play a key role in that avoidance, alongside renewables: the numbers just don't add up any other way.
Has civilian nuclear power generally been very dangerous and very expensive? Exactly the reverse is true, relative to all competitors. Has nuclear power been a key element in nuclear proliferation? No. Isn't radioactive waste a special, specially insoluble problem? No - mainly, its been a huge distraction from the greater quantities of worse and less regulated wastes caused by other sources and processes. Didn't Fukushima show how vulnerable we are to accidents at nuclear plants? No: what it showed was how ignorant hysteria about radiation can itself lead to terrible destruction even when the radiation itself has done no detectable harm.
Many other rhetorical questions about nuclear power are answered, with care and full detail, in this book. And though its argument plays out against a threat more dramatic if possible than nuclear war itself, global warming, its facts and figures show that we should have been pro-nuclear even before anyone thought of that problem, back in the 1970s. For the central argument is a simple one: Every new nuclear power station means about four fewer coal-fired stations; and every new coal-fired station is the death warrant of more people than have died during the course of the entire global nuclear industry.
You may not think any of this credible. I sympathize: I would not have done, once. But if you genuinely believe that we are slouching towards climate catastrophe - and we are - I ask you to read it, and consider the possibility of thinking again.
April 21, 2025
Loved reading this book co-authored by my professor from last quarter. His passion for nuclear energy is evident throughout the book as his passion for energy policy was in class. This is a great book to read if you want to understand why a revitalisation of nuclear energy is needed if society wants to be serious about tackling climate change. The authors do an excellent job of dispelling common narratives that surround nuclear, with great evidence from case studies including Chernobyl and Fukushima as well as statistical evidence that shows clearly that nuclear is the best path forward from any perspective - climate, economic or political. It does such a good job of making you annoyed at how vilified nuclear energy has become in comparison to much more harmful sources of energy. I also appreciated the pragmatic approach the authors take, and totally agree that anti-nuclearism by renewable advocates is fanciful and that they really should be working hand in hand with nuclear if they want to reverse climate change. Renewables are great, but are not enough. I'm looking at you, Carla Denyer.
There is a great combination of both technical and social understanding of nuclear energy that this book provides. I feel that it was important to start this book with the fundamentals of how nuclear energy and reactors work, as it makes the political challenges much easier to understand; the repetition of terms or points here was quite helpful.
My only issue was the extensive discussion of non-proliferation. I do think that it had its place in the book - of course, understanding the story of nuclear weapons is central and cannot be separated from its peaceful use - but there was unnecessarily extensive discussion of non-proliferation treaties towards the end which I felt did not serve the focus of the book well. Otherwise, the authors' delicate discussion of nuclear weaponry was interesting and insightful.
Perfect book to gain a grasp of the nuclear energy industry, to better understand current public policy and what the future of the field looks like. Also certainly one of the best professors I've ever had!
There is a great combination of both technical and social understanding of nuclear energy that this book provides. I feel that it was important to start this book with the fundamentals of how nuclear energy and reactors work, as it makes the political challenges much easier to understand; the repetition of terms or points here was quite helpful.
My only issue was the extensive discussion of non-proliferation. I do think that it had its place in the book - of course, understanding the story of nuclear weapons is central and cannot be separated from its peaceful use - but there was unnecessarily extensive discussion of non-proliferation treaties towards the end which I felt did not serve the focus of the book well. Otherwise, the authors' delicate discussion of nuclear weaponry was interesting and insightful.
Perfect book to gain a grasp of the nuclear energy industry, to better understand current public policy and what the future of the field looks like. Also certainly one of the best professors I've ever had!
February 19, 2025
Pros:
-History of nuclear energy, the scientists behind it, how reactors work, etc.
-Overview of the different types of reactors, how they were developed and pros/cons of each.
-Rational discussion of nuclear waste management.
-Thorough summary of the arms race.
-Great chapter on radiation.
-The best (and most balanced) summary of events at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island I've ever encountered. Also shows the consequences of media hysteria, how it shapes public opinion and how that pressure can lead to bad govt responses.
-Great chapter debunking common nuclear fears and other concerns anti-nuclear activists raise. If I had to recommend reading only one chapter it would be this one because it summarizes the entire book in point/counterpoint fashion.
Cons:
-2017 publication means some of the info (especially on power plant innovations) is outdated.
-Several chapters of climate alarmism!
-Repetition of concepts
-Only spends 2 pages on China's nuclear innovations & its plans for renewable energy transition using nuclear, while devoting double that to Ghana (no one cares) and an entire chapter to the UAE.
-As much as the authors state that nuclear energy must be differentiated from the weapons conversation, they still devote 1/3 of the book to detailing the "international community" squabbling over various NPT (non-proliferation) efforts.
Overall, the authors do a great job advocating for nuclear energy, but the book is bogged down with chapters rehashing the nuclear weapons conversation and climate alarmism ad nauseam. But you can easily skip/skim these without losing the main thrust of the book.
Where the book shines is debunking nuclear fears, its chapter on Chernobyl & Fukushima, and its accessible chapters on radiation and nuclear power plants.
-History of nuclear energy, the scientists behind it, how reactors work, etc.
-Overview of the different types of reactors, how they were developed and pros/cons of each.
-Rational discussion of nuclear waste management.
-Thorough summary of the arms race.
-Great chapter on radiation.
-The best (and most balanced) summary of events at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island I've ever encountered. Also shows the consequences of media hysteria, how it shapes public opinion and how that pressure can lead to bad govt responses.
-Great chapter debunking common nuclear fears and other concerns anti-nuclear activists raise. If I had to recommend reading only one chapter it would be this one because it summarizes the entire book in point/counterpoint fashion.
Cons:
-2017 publication means some of the info (especially on power plant innovations) is outdated.
-Several chapters of climate alarmism!
-Repetition of concepts
-Only spends 2 pages on China's nuclear innovations & its plans for renewable energy transition using nuclear, while devoting double that to Ghana (no one cares) and an entire chapter to the UAE.
-As much as the authors state that nuclear energy must be differentiated from the weapons conversation, they still devote 1/3 of the book to detailing the "international community" squabbling over various NPT (non-proliferation) efforts.
Overall, the authors do a great job advocating for nuclear energy, but the book is bogged down with chapters rehashing the nuclear weapons conversation and climate alarmism ad nauseam. But you can easily skip/skim these without losing the main thrust of the book.
Where the book shines is debunking nuclear fears, its chapter on Chernobyl & Fukushima, and its accessible chapters on radiation and nuclear power plants.
December 20, 2022
A great soup-to-nuts course on nuclear energy, encompassing history, science (including basic chemistry and physics) and an excellent historian's accounting of political issues. The one missing detail that seemed minor until a week ago is this: what makes control of nuclear fission reactors possible? Or putting it another way, why is fission easier to control than fusion?
The answer, AFAIK, is that fission grows exponentially from a tiny set of atoms to a possibly immense set, via "chain reactions" that can be controlled using chemistry, physics, and thermodynamic feedbacks, while fusion is an "everything everywhere all at once" sort of thing. This is why thermonuclear bombs use an internal fission bomb to generate the required pressures and temperatures for fusion detonations, while controlled and sustainable fusion reactions remain an unsolved problem.
The missing detail from nuclear fission is "delayed neutrons" (URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...) which enable chain reactions that seem to die out for lack of sufficient fissile fuel or free neutrons to restart when more neutrons are emitted from highly radioactive fission fragments thousands or millions of nanoseconds later. This starting and stopping process slows down fission reactions from subatomic timescales to molecular timescales, enabling thermodynamic feedbacks to work. The irony is that while radioactive decay gives rise to the dreaded but actually solvable "nuclear waste problem", it also makes controlled fission chain reactions and nuclear fission reactors possible in the first place.
The answer, AFAIK, is that fission grows exponentially from a tiny set of atoms to a possibly immense set, via "chain reactions" that can be controlled using chemistry, physics, and thermodynamic feedbacks, while fusion is an "everything everywhere all at once" sort of thing. This is why thermonuclear bombs use an internal fission bomb to generate the required pressures and temperatures for fusion detonations, while controlled and sustainable fusion reactions remain an unsolved problem.
The missing detail from nuclear fission is "delayed neutrons" (URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...) which enable chain reactions that seem to die out for lack of sufficient fissile fuel or free neutrons to restart when more neutrons are emitted from highly radioactive fission fragments thousands or millions of nanoseconds later. This starting and stopping process slows down fission reactions from subatomic timescales to molecular timescales, enabling thermodynamic feedbacks to work. The irony is that while radioactive decay gives rise to the dreaded but actually solvable "nuclear waste problem", it also makes controlled fission chain reactions and nuclear fission reactors possible in the first place.
August 11, 2021
Excellent, accessible overview of nuclear power and why it is viewed as it is, in the U.S.
And, also, that the case is clear for nuclear power reactor production. He makes the case for education/wide dissemination of information, to garner support, but given the strong, current anti-vax sentiment, I wonder if that is sufficient? (Maybe these heat waves and global weirding might do it)
And, also, that the case is clear for nuclear power reactor production. He makes the case for education/wide dissemination of information, to garner support, but given the strong, current anti-vax sentiment, I wonder if that is sufficient? (Maybe these heat waves and global weirding might do it)
January 8, 2020
Great stats to memorize to help people see the light that is nuclear power. Praise the Atom!
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews