Is nuclear energy good? A new book explores this complex question

Atomic Dreams
Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
Algonquin Books, $30

Toxic sludge. A glowing radioactive rat. A three-eyed fish named “Blinky.” These are scenes from a 1990 episode of the long-running television show The Simpsons, in which protagonist and oaf Homer is a safety inspector at the fictional Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. The imagined horrors of the plant reflect concerns many real people have had about nuclear energy over the course of its young history, which began with the first sustained nuclear reaction in 1942. That includes the Simpson-esque concern of a corporate plant owner who prioritizes profit over safety.

Despite those concerns, U.S. nuclear power plants seem to foster a strong safety culture, observes journalist Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, author of Atomic Dreams. During her tour of Diablo Canyon Power Plant — California’s last operational source of nuclear energy — she is checked for traces of explosive compounds on the way in and scanned for radiation on her way out. A sign at the plant unironically reads “Safety Is No Accident.”

Diablo Canyon, whose story serves as the foundation of Tuhus-Dubrow’s narrative, has been the center of controversy since the site was selected in the 1960s. The book recounts the plant’s history, from arguments among nearby residents and experts over where to build it to ongoing efforts to shut it down. But the pleasure of reading is in the path Tuhus-Dubrow takes and the people she talks to as she asks a simple question with a complicated answer: Is nuclear power good or not?

The advantages of nuclear energy, Tuhus-Dubrow writes, “cannot be lightly dismissed.” Nuclear plants generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. They require less raw material and land than renewables to produce the same amount of energy. Plus, they provide a stable source of electricity immune to the weather’s whims, unlike solar and wind energy.

If the pros make a strong argument for nuclear energy, the cons seem obvious. Nuclear power plants have high upfront costs and take time — sometimes a decade or more — to construct. And the highly radioactive enriched uranium that goes into reactor cores could be weaponized by bad actors, Tuhus-Dubrow writes.

Then, there’s the risk of accidents from human mistakes or poor oversight. Consider disasters like the meltdowns in Chernobyl in 1986 and in Fukushima in 2011. Both events required massive evacuations because of the release of radioactive material into the surrounding environment. The Chernobyl meltdown resulted from design flaws and operator error. The Fukushima meltdown happened because an unexpectedly massive tsunami damaged the plant’s cooling systems.

And perhaps the knottiest problem of all: What about the waste?

Nuclear waste, the spent fuel from the reactor core, is still radioactive — just not enough to continue producing energy in most operational plants around the world. This radioactive waste could be reprocessed for weapons. What’s more, there is no permanent repository for nuclear waste in the U.S., so it’s stored onsite — even at plants that no longer provide power. That means nuclear waste sites pepper the country. Though some believe the waste is safely stored and best left where it is, others are terrified by the risk of radiation release, especially as a result of hazards like earthquakes or tsunamis.

Still, advocates argue that the fossil fuel industry poses much higher risks than nuclear energy. “Pollution from coal, oil, and natural gas is estimated to cut short millions of lives per year, while annual deaths attributed to normal operations of nuclear plants hover around zero,” Tuhus-Dubrow writes.

The book introduces us to so many people “who hold passionate opinions about this peculiar energy source.” A surfing grandmother in Laguna Beach fights to move nuclear waste stored near her home. Two “tree hugger moms” who work at Diablo Canyon run an organization called Mothers for Nuclear that advocates for nuclear as a clean energy source. A Brazil-born model and “nuclear influencer” who grew up with energy insecurity describes how, as a child, her grandparents would place buckets filled with flaming alcohol in the bathroom to warm it up because electricity was too expensive.

In the end, Tuhus-Dubrow’s question morphs from “Is nuclear good?” to “Is energy use good?” Although visions of untouched nature are appealing, she acknowledges that electricity usage is expected to soar. One of her sources who previously worked in nuclear and now works in renewables agrees. When she asked if he thought nuclear power was still needed, he said, “I don’t see anybody getting a smaller phone, a smaller TV.”

---

Buy Atomic Dreams from Bookshop.org. Science News is a Bookshop.org affiliate and will earn a commission on purchases made from links in this article.