World Famous Comics: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy
Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy
By: Gwyneth Cravens Publisher: Knopf Average Rating: Binding: Hardcover Label: Knopf Number of Items: 1 Number of Pages: 464 Publication Date: October 30, 2007 Release Date: October 30, 2007
In this timely book, Gwyneth Cravens takes an informed and clarifying look at the myths, the fears, and the truth about nuclear energy.
With concerns about catastrophic global warming mounting, it is vital that we examine all our energy options. Power to Save the World describes the efforts of one determined woman, Gwyneth Cravens, initially a skeptic about nuclear power, as she spends nearly a decade immersing herself in the subject. She teams up with a leading expert in risk assessment and nuclear safety who is also a committed environmentalist to trace the path of uranium—the source of nuclear fuel—from start to finish. As we accompany them on visits to mines as well as to experimental reactor laboratories, fortress-like power plants, and remote waste sites normally off-limits to the public, we come to see that we already have a feasible way to address the causes of global warming on a large scale.
On the nuclear tour, Cravens converses with scientists from many disciplines, public health and counterterrorism experts, engineers, and researchers who study both the harmful and benign effects of radiation; she watches remote-controlled robotic manipulators unbolt a canister of spent uranium fuel inside a “hot cell” bathed in eerie orange light; observes the dark haze from fossil-fuel combustion obscuring once-pristine New Mexico skies and the leaky, rusted pipes and sooty puddles in a coal-fired plant; glimpses rainbows made by salt dust in the deep subterranean corridors of a working nuclear waste repository.
She refutes the major arguments against nuclear power one by one, making clear, for example, that a stroll through Grand Central Terminal exposes a person to more radiation than a walk of equal length through a uranium mine; that average background radiation around Chernobyl and in Hiroshima is lower than in Denver; that there are no “cancer clusters” near nuclear facilities; that terrorists could neither penetrate the security at an American nuclear plant nor make an atomic bomb from its fuel; that nuclear waste can be—and already is—safely stored; that wind and solar power, while important, can meet only a fraction of the demand for electricity; that a coal-fired plant releases more radiation than a nuclear plant and also emits deadly toxic waste that kills thousands of Americans a month; that in its fifty-year history American nuclear power has not caused a single death. And she demonstrates how, time and again, political fearmongering and misperceptions about risk have trumped science in the dialogue about the feasibility of nuclear energy.
In the end, we see how nuclear power has been successfully and economically harnessed here and around the globe to become the single largest displacer of greenhouse gases, and how its overall risks and benefits compare with those of other energy sources.
Power to Save the World is an eloquent, convincing argument for nuclear power as a safe energy source and an essential deterrent to global warming.
Amazon.com: Gwyneth Cravens on Why Going Green Means Going Nuclear "Most of us were taught that the goal of science is power over nature, as if science and power were one thing and nature quite another. Niels Bohr observed to the contrary that the more modest but relentless goal of science is, in his words, 'the gradual removal of prejudice.' By 'prejudice,' Bohr meant belief unsupported by evidence." --Pulitzer Prize-winner Richard Rhodes, author of the introduction to Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less." --Marie Curie
My book is fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information. I used to oppose nuclear power, even though the Sierra Club supported it. By the mid-1970s the Sierra Club turned against nuclear power too. However, as we witness the catastrophic consequences of accelerated global temperature increase, prominent environmentalists as well as skeptics like me have started taking a fresh look at nuclear energy. A large percentage of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, that thaw Arctic ice and glaciers comes from making electricity, and we rely upon it every second of our lives. There are three ways to provide large-scale electricity—the kind that reliably meets the demands of our civilization around the clock. In the United States:
75% of that baseload electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels, mainly coal, and emit carbon dioxide. Toxic waste from coal-fired plants kills 24,000 Americans annually.
5% comes from hydroelectric plants.
Less than 1% comes from wind and solar power.
20% comes from nuclear plants that use low-enriched uranium as fuel, burn nothing, and emit virtually no CO2. In 50 years of operation, they have caused no deaths to the public.
When I began my research eight years ago, I'd assumed that we had many choices in the way we made electricity. But we don't. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, environmentally-benign, time-tested technology currently available to provide clean electricity. Wind and solar power have a role to play, but since they’re diffuse and intermittent, they can't provide baseload, and they always require some form of backup--usually from burning fossil fuels, which have a huge impact on public health. My tour of the nuclear world began with a chance question I asked of Dr. D. Richard ("Rip") Anderson. He and his wife Marcia Fernández work tirelessly to preserve open land, clean air, and the aquifer in the Rio Grande Valley. Rip, a skeptically-minded chemist, oceanographer, and expert on nuclear environmental health and safety, told me that the historical record shows that nuclear power is cleaner, safer, and more environmentally friendly than any other form of large-scale electricity production. I was surprised to learn that:
Nuclear power emits no gases because it does not burn anything; it provides 73% of America's clean-air electricity generation, using fuel that is tiny in volume but steadily provides an immense amount of energy.
Uranium is more energy-dense than any other fuel. If you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, your share would come to 146 tons: 69 tons of solid waste that would fit into six rail cars and 77 tons of carbon dioxide that would contribute to accelerated global warming.
A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana. Someone working in the U.S. Capitol Building is exposed to more radioactivity than a uranium miner.
Spent nuclear fuel is always shielded and isolated from the public. Annual waste from one typical reactor could fit in the bed of a standard pickup. The retired fuel from 50 years of U.S. reactor operation could fit in a single football field; it amounts to 77,000 tons. A large coal-fired plant produces ten times as much solid waste in one day, much of it hazardous to health. We discard 179,000 tons of batteries annually--they contain toxic heavy metals.
Nuclear power's carbon dioxide emissions throughout its life-cycle and while producing electricity are about the same as those of wind power.
Nuclear plants offer a clean alternative to fossil-fuel plants. In the U.S. 104 nuclear reactors annually prevent emissions of 682 million tons of CO2. Worldwide, over 400 power reactors reduce CO2 emissions by 2 billion metric tons a year.
I wanted to know if what Rip was telling me was true. He took me on a tour of the nuclear world so that I could learn firsthand its risks and benefits. I visited many facilities, talked to many scientists in different disciplines, and researched the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences and various international scientific bodies. As I learned more, I became persuaded that the safety culture that prevails at U.S. nuclear plants and the laws of physics make them a safe and important tool for addressing global warming. Clearly many of my beliefs had originated in misinformation and fear-mongering. I've now met many people dedicated to saving the environment while supporting nuclear power as well as other green resources. This path is only logical. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, non-greenhouse-gas emitting electricity source that can be considerably expanded while maintaining only a small environmental footprint. If as a society we're going to reduce those emissions, we'll need every resource to do so, and we'll have to set aside our ideological blinkers, look at the facts, and unite to meet the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. The power to change our world does not lie in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunlight. It lies within each of us. --Gwyneth Cravens
Truth About Nuclear Energy I have read through half of the book and find it fascinating. I am confident that based upon what I have read that I can provide an honest assessment of the book.
Before continuing, let me explain my rating logic. I give the book five stars on the information presented as it relates to the nuclear industry. I give it three stars for the endless Global Warming propaganda (IMHO) carried through out the book. Therefore, the average rating ends up as four stars.
The negative. From the tone of the book it is very obvious that the author wrote the book for her fellow leftists and environmentalists. For example, throughout the book you will hear the author make snide comments and sneeringly mention President Bush and the Iraqi war. Additionally, you will hear the oft repeated worries of the "proven" man-made Global Warming. But if you ignore these you will find a book worth its weight in gold.
The positive. The author does an excellent job in walking the reader through the science, history and future of nuclear engineering as applied to humanity's desire for a clean unlimited fuel source. Some of the things you will learn when you finish the books are:
- What different levels of radiation mean and their impact on the environment? - The expended in the design and testing of reactors to ensure safety and security. - Comparisons of the relative efficiencies as well as the environmental impact of wind, solar, fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear power generation. - What happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and the impact on the environment? - I cannot forget to mention the detailed explanation of risk analysis and how it applies to the nuclear industry and in everyday life.
Did you know that the background radiation given off by the natural environment is higher in Finland than in the contaminated zone of Chernobyl? See page 103 of the book. Or did you know that there is radiation emitted by coal fired plants? Or in smoking cigarettes?
If you want to know the science behind nuclear energy without all the fluff and propaganda of the anti-nuclear fanatics then this is the book for you.
Another pamphlet from the Nuclear Lobby Another book from a writer who says "I was anti-nuclear but I think different now". What sort of message can we expect from somebody who says "In 50 years of operation, they have caused no deaths to the public"? Obviously she has never heard about Chernobyl, or the cancer clusters near Sellafield and La Hague. And still she does not answer the questions that environmentalists raise about nuclear power: What are we going to use when we run out of uranium? what do we do about people living near nuclear power stations who get sick and die? What are we going to do with nuclear waste? Not to mention all the "what-if's" about accidents and possible terrorist attacks. This book shows you one side of the story, and hides the other one.
Should be requried reading for any nuclear debate Ms. Cravens has written a very good book discussing the complete nuclear power cycle from a lay person's perspective. Her discussions concerning power baseloading and comparing nuclear sources to coal sources for powering the national power grid are narratives that are rarely, if ever, discussed outside of the power industry due to the emotional issues that nuclear power brings forth in people.
As a non-technical author and former protester against nuclear power, Ms. Cravens tackles the subject material of nuclear power, the security issues, health issues and comparisons to other major power sources with a thoroughness not usually seen at this level. Her approach to "tag along" with noted retired DOE scientist, Rip Anderson and his openness and patience towards teaching a non-technically trained person the ins and outs of the nuclear power cycle add to the narrative. The unique approach she takes to treat her investigation of nuclear power as a personal journey leads to Ms. Cravens' ultimate understanding that nuclear power must be one of the power sources we rely on for our power needs as we go into the 21st century.
The book provides an excellent overview partly due to the length of time it takes for Ms. Craven's accounts of her travels and interviews to be written. Ms. Cravens does not try to write this book in 3 or 6 months just to ride the coattails of the latest nuclear headlines. Instead she took the time she needed to fully understand nuclear power, other sources of electrical power and the subject of baseloading before finalizing her book. The time was well spent as she is able to competently write about the use of nuclear power in today's world of shrinking inventory of carbon based fuels, greenhouse effects and increasing international tensions.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who is truly interested in the discussion and future of nuclear power. It does not answer every technical question but that was never the goal of the book. What Ms. Cravens' book does is address the necessary critical technical and nontechnical questions about the nuclear power cycle and the power needs of the United States from a layperson's level. This book should be used as reference material for any critical discussions or debates concerning the pros and cons of nuclear power.
A Comprehensive, Thoughtful Case for Nuclear Power It's thorough and thought provoking -- enough to motivate me to look up parallel information as I read through the book.
I really like how the author balances risk and benefit throughout, and gets her readers to think in those terms. There seemed to be little glossing over hard facts. Overall, the book takes away my concerns about the risks of nuclear, especially as compared to other sources - like the filthy coal industry. I love the idea of solar, but her perspective on the toxic manufacturing and disposal process for solar cells helps answers questions I've long wondered about. She isn't against other forms of energy generation - just puts them in perspective. Nothing is free, easy, or perfect.
It was amazing to learn about the incredible advances in reactor technology and how it can be done with a tiny fraction of the waste now generated.
Her dissection of the disposal issue takes away the scare factor.
The book informs a highly emotional discussion in a rational, reasonable way and demolishes a lot of mythology. There are parts I had to re-read to digest, but it's written about as easy to understand as it could be to cover the subject with the depth it does for a layperson.
Very good read, but a bit simple. The good sides of this book are manifold. First of all, probably due to the fact that the author is a professional novelist, one has to say that "it reads like a book": it is difficult to put it down, and the fourhundred something pages are read with ease and fun. The second good side of this book is that it is full of very interesting, and not always well-known information, even to people in the field. It is a mixture of technical issues and human relationships.
However, there were two points that irritated me somewhat. First of all is the somewhat naive attempt at "showing that we are environmental activists too". The arguments put forward should stand by themselves, and not because the authority in the book (Rip Anderson) and his wife are also local concerned activists for one or other ecological cause. The other point I found disappointing was the somewhat simplistic technical treatment of several key aspects in the nuclear power happening. The main point I found disappointing was the missing of a clear discussion of fuel reprocessing, fast breeders, thermal reactors and so on. These subjects are touched upon, but they are very vaguely treated ; nevertheless, this is an essential part in the future of nuclear power if it is to have a future. In other words, at the end of the day, you have to take some expert's word for it, as the book doesn't give you the means to verify some aspects yourself in a logical derivation, even though most of the information in the book is factually correct.
That said, this book is a very good read for people who have been fed on the vocal absurdities spread around by anti-nuclear activists such as Helen Caldicott. A read of both is probably a good thing, but one should start with "Power to save the world", as it gets most of its facts right.
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Tony's Online Tips
Trevor
