This Week’s Book Review - Atomic Dreams


Looking for a good read? Here is a recommendation. I have an unusual approach to reviewing books. I review books I feel merit a review. Each review is an opportunity to recommend a book. If I do not think a book is worth reading, I find another book to review. You do not have to agree with everything every author has written (I do not), but the fiction I review is entertaining (and often thought-provoking) and the non-fiction contain ideas worth reading.

Book Review

A Glowing Future for Nuclear

Reviewed by Mark Lardas
May 4, 2025

“Atomic Dreams: The New Nuclear Evangelists and the Fight for the Future of Energy,” by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, Algonquin Books, April 2025, 288 pages, $30.00 (Hardcover), $13.99 (E-book), $21.60 (Audiobook)

In 2016 Pacific Gas & Electricity announced it was closing Diablo Canyon, California’s last nuclear power plant, in 2024. California’s state government wanted nuclear phased out, replaced by “green” energy, solar and wind. In 2022, PG&E reversed its decision, with the blessing of California’s government.

“Atomic Dreams: The New Nuclear Evangelists and the Fight for the Future of Energy,” by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow explains what happened to create the reversal. It explores the emergence of a 21st century nuclear power renaissance.

Tuhus-Dubrow seems an unlikely apostle of nuclear energy advocacy. She is a lifelong environmentalist. Yet in “Atomic Dreams” she shows how nuclear is tied to a new wave in environmentalism. Its adherents believe nuclear offers a path to decarbonization more reliable than renewables, and considerably safer than fossil fuels.

The book combines the history of the environmental movement and nuclear power industry. As Tuhus-Dubrow shows, the conservation movement, which grew into environmentalism, initially supported nuclear. Nuclear was viewed as an alternative to hydro-electric. Through the 1960s conservationists were focused on preserving untouched wilderness, intent on blocking any development altering unspoiled terrain.

She shows how that changed as pollution concerns, especially fears of radiation poisoning grew. Nuclear power became entangled with nuclear weapons and fallout fears in the eyes of the public. Three-Mile Island led many to believe nuclear power was dangerous.

Diablo Canyon was built in the dying days of conservationist support for nuclear. PG&E sited the plant at Diablo Canyon at the Sierra Club’s recommendation. She charts its construction, following the plant as environmental opposition to it grew,

Anti-nuclear advocates seemly won by the 1990s. No nuclear plants were planned, and those in service were scheduled for shutdown. Yet as decarbonization efforts grew, a split developed in the environmental movement, starting after the turn of the century.

Environmentalists like Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger concluded the green movement was too apocalyptic, offering a negative view of any future that did not eschew modern technology. They advocated for a positive future. They saw nuclear had a smaller environmental footprint than renewables and was safe.

Tuhus-Dubrow shows how these environmentalists joined forces with traditional nuclear advocates to create a reappraisal of nuclear. She takes readers through the nuclear plants, research facilities, and think tanks to show how nuclear energy’s renaissance emerged.

A fascinating book, “Atomic Dreams” shows why nuclear ended up eclipsed and how it reemerged as a green energy resource.

Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, historian, and model-maker, lives in League City. His website is marklardas.com.

6 Likes

I wonder if the unsurprising failure of the brand new “net zero” grid in Spain & Portugal will be permitted to inform ongoing discussions regarding the changing mix of power generation methods? The history of Soviet -style assignment of blame for ideologically-required projects which failed is not encouraging that lessons will be rational. Ideologues are astoundingly resistant to amending their views based upon actual experience. Glad there are no such types around here…

4 Likes

Good question. Based on what this books says, the US appears to be ahead of the rest of the world on the nuclear revival. I suppose it helps that the tech giants like Google are now pushing nuclear.

5 Likes

Doesn’t China have a number of nuclear plants planned or under construction?

3 Likes

Possibly. I suspect the Chinese goal is less to generate electricity from nuclear power than to get feedstock for their nuclear weapons. (China has plenty of coal. China does not buy into AGW, even if they are financing enviroweenies advocating a return to 16th Century technology to save Gaia. China views the green movement as a great opportunity to cripple their geopolitical rivals.)

6 Likes

As of May 25, 2025, according to:
World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements - World Nuclear Association

The US leads the world with 94 operating nuclear power reactors, versus 58 in China and 36 in Russia. Honorable mentions – France has 57 and Japan has 33.

However, China leads the world in terms of reactors under construction with 30 being built today, versus 7 for Russia and 0 (none) in the US.

Similarly, China leads in the number of new power reactors in the planning stage, with 40 – versus 23 in Russia and 0 (none) in the US.

It is worth noting that 42 countries have operating nuclear power reactors. (Quick! Name 42 countries! Any 42!). The nuclear cat is well and truly out of the bag. And it looks like the number of nuclear reactors is only destined to keep growing, at least outside the West. The number of reactors world-wide in the pre-detailed-planning proposal stage is estimate at 314, with half of those in China. it is unfortunately clear who is on track to win the future.

6 Likes

You may have a point there, Gavin. I personally do not buy into the concept that China can defeat us militarily. Only perhaps. So far they have shown that:

  • They are ruthless - towards unarmed so unable to resist opponents.
  • Have built a large “modern” Navy, but have simultaneously demonstrated a singular ineptitude at running said Navy.
  • Have the capacity to build a lot of stuff, BUT most of it appears to be. junk. Even the stolen copies aren’t very good. I attribute that to the communist system, which is inherently both corrupt and inefficient.
  • One might legitimately wonder just how well the vaunted Chinese military would perform against foreign, well-trained and equipped opponents. To paraphrase Dr. Lorenz, numbers may have a strength of their own, but US soldiers have often proven that all it means is a more target-rich environment in which to apply their basic tenacity and skills.

But nuclear would change the game, if in no other way than inducing fear in our current more or less spineless society. No one rational wants war, but we’ve demonstrated that we’re good at it, tthat we have skills and equipment to outdo our opponents (If only we could get the Chinese to copy our F-35 dog!!!), so mostly it would be fear of the base - the people - that would matter.

2 Likes

China has a very big military, but due to demographics it also has a very fragile military. Three generations of the one-child policy has led to a shortage of military-aged men. They cannot afford to take losses.

I think China is more willing to threaten to go to war and use its huge military to threaten and bluster than it is to acctually go to war and see a possible bluff get called. Now is the best time to fight as after six months Hegseth will be on the road to undoing the damage done to US warfighting capability by the Biden Administration.

3 Likes

Why all this talk about war between the US and China? What benefit could it possibly bring to the US? Where would that war be fought? Why would that war not almost instantly go to a nuclear Lose-Lose conflict? (Although I have to admit that I would be able to see the silver lining in dark Chinese mushroom clouds rising over the DC Swamp).

China has no need to get into a military confrontation with the US. All China needs to do is to impose a trade embargo on the US to bring the Swamp Creatures to their knees. The US has offshored the industry that made it the Arsenal of Democracy 80 years ago. Today, the US cannot manufacture any significant item of military equipment without Chinese components – which would rapidly make any non-nuclear conflict with China a disaster for the US.

Anyway, let’s be practical. China has no need to declare war on the US since, as Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated, China already owns the US Congress. Democracy!

3 Likes

Clock back to 1941. “Why all this talk about war between the US and Japan? What benefit could it possibly bring to the US? Where would that war be fought?”

The US does not want a war with China. China is the neighborhood bully and threatening several of our allies in the Far East. So only a fool would not plan for a war with China. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

I don’t think China wants a war, either, but they will grab as much as they can through bullying. That said, they could start a war for one of two reasons. 1. They could push their bullying too far and ignite a war that way. (See Japan, 1941 or Russia 1904). 2. Faced with internal collapse at home they could start an external war to rally their people behind them (Argentina, 1982).

Note in case 2, Chinese leadership would be willing to have a lose-lose war, because their leaders would be willing to lose due to a lose-lose external war rather than lose to internal userpation.

4 Likes

Arguably, that is not a good analogy. Back then, it is now clear that FDR was moving mountains to get the US involved in war, so that he could support the USSR and make the world safe for Communism. Hence his open support for belligerent England and his embargoes on Japan.

FDR’s aims were at odds with the desires of US citizens to stay out of Europe’s wars. Manipulating war with Germany’s ally Japan was his chosen method to overcome that democratic resistance.

This time around, who wants war with a China that stocks the shelves in US stores and provides the MIC with the components in their profitable weapons? Yes, there is a dispute between China and Taiwan – but every serious analyst recognizes that Taiwan is indefensible. There is no rational basis for the US getting involved in a war with China, even if that war could somehow be guaranteed not to go nuclear.

2 Likes