Product Description

How much will nuclear energy cost relative to other means of getting rid of carbon dioxide emissions? What will be the risks of catastrophic accidents if we build reactors at the rate of one a week or more, cookie-cutter style, around the world? What about the risks of proliferation and terrorist attacks and nuclear waste? This book provides a meticulously researched analysis of the risks of using nuclear energy to combat global warming. Were there no alternative, the severity of the threat facing humankind and other species from global climate change might warrant serious consideration of the risks of nuclear energy. But as Insurmountable Risks convincingly shows, there are far safer economical alternatives.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #879488 in Books
• Published on: 2006-08
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 429 pages

From the Publisher
This book answers an important question posed by Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth: Is nuclear power one of the answers to global warming? This book explains why atomic energy is a poor choice for replacing energy currently supplied by fossil fuel plants. A thorough review of the nuclear power industry's history provides all the answers to advocates of atomic energy such as Dick Cheney.

From the Inside Flap
Before buying into the idea that nuclear energy is going to save us from global climate change because of its theoretical potential for low carbon dioxide emissions, read this book—and then work for the alternatives. —Arjun Makhijani, President Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

About the Author
BRICE SMITH is a Senior Scientist at the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland. He has authored or coauthored works on nuclear weapons policy, nuclear waste management, uranium enrichment technologies, and the economics of wind power in the western United States. He received a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2003.

Customer Reviews

What holds nuclear power back? As documented in this book:
1. It is more expensive today than renewables when decommissioning costs and waste disposal are included.
2. In the intermediate time frame, it is more expensive than LNG or (projected) coal gasification + CO2 sequestration.
3. Yucca Mt is a flawed repository. For example, it is an oxidizing not reducing environment, which will speed corrosion. Waste encapsulating materials are "exotic" man-made alloys that have existed for less than 100 years. These are supposed to operate normally for 100,000+ years. The site is riddled with cracks and clear evidence of past volcanism.
4. All reactor designs that could be deployed soon enough to even slightly mitigate climate change (Gen III+) generate copious amounts of waste that can be reprocessed to isolate and expedite to bomb-grade. "Just 1% of the enrichment capacity required by the global growth scenario's reference case would be enough to make between 175 and 310 nuclear weapons each year." (p. 114). If you think that the standoff with Iran over its NPT-rights are tricky, note that new reprocessing techniques are much less energy intensive and much more covert than centrifuges, heightening difficulties in detecting a parallel weapons program.
5. The industry has a history of "normalizing deviance", only to be surprised when e.g. corroded reactor vessels are found. Reactors are being relicensed for 40 years, and there are discussions of going to 60 years or more without evidence of a skeptical and cautious mindset.

This book is very impressive in its documentation and attempt at balance, and is remarkably cheap but well made with relatively few typos. It is a detailed and comprehensive summary, and should be read by anyone trying to assess our energy options and who cares about the world we are leaving for our children. With oil supplies set to decline from their current peak within the next 5 years, Mexican oil production crashing, natural gas supplies in North America no longer growing, all without official recognition of clear trends, we have few routes forward. Can wind and solar fill the gap as nuclear plants reach the point where they become recurring maintenance nightmares?

This book is best read with Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and (see my review), which examines some Gen IV concepts. Perhaps we can return to nuclear power in a few decades after more work on those designs, which rethink the problems while keeping sustainability and stewardship at the forefront. Perhaps a thorium based approach, with transmutation and other tricks? But this book made clear to this physicist that Gen III+ plants should not go forward in any number that would have a significant effect on net power generation or global climate change.

Nuclear disinformation
If you are inclined to oppose the development of nuclear power, this is the book for you. On the other hand, if you are open minded and want some facts, don't bother buying the book. You can read all the rehashed arguments on the IEER website.

When I read all the anti-nuclear arguments contained in the book, I am inclined to rebut everyone, but my time is precious. I'll chose only one.

The development of nuclear power has nothing to do with the development of nuclear weapons. I repeat, it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

Plutonium produced in commercial nuclear reactors is not suitable for producing a nuclear weapons. Commercial reactors leave the fuel in the reactors for years. The plutonium they thus produce gets contaminated with other isotopes of plutonium which makes it not suitable for a weapon. If nations want to produce weapons grade plutonium, which is of course possible, they will not chose to build a commercial nuclear reactor. So building more commercial reactors does not increase the risk of having more weapons grade plutonium.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue. The only peaceful solution that exists is negotiations. If we eliminated all commercial nuclear reactor, we would still have the same proliferation risk. Conversly, building more nuclear reactors does not increase the proliferation risk. Countries that have obtained nuclear weapons have not obtained them from commercial nuclear reactors. These two topics are simply not connected. Do do so is misinformation.

The whole premise of the book is wrong. Nuclear power today generate 20% of the electricity in the United States. As it does this, it eliminates 20% of the carbon that would otherwise be generated by fossil fuels.

I could go on, but I'll let it end here. I would not recommend buying this book.