logo
Going Nuclear by Tim Gregory review – a boosterish case for atomic energy

Going Nuclear by Tim Gregory review – a boosterish case for atomic energy

The Guardian2 days ago

There is something biblical about the fraternal relationship between the atomic bomb and the nuclear reactor. Both involve bombarding uranium-235 atoms with neutrons to produce a chain reaction via nuclear fission. Both were made possible in the same instant, at 3.25pm on 2 December 1942, when the Manhattan Project's Enrico Fermi orchestrated the first human-made chain reaction in the squash court of the University of Chicago. 'The flame of nuclear fission brought us to the forked road of promise and peril,' writes Tim Gregory.
The bomb came first, of course, but atomic dread coexisted with tremendous optimism about what President Eisenhower dubbed 'atoms for peace': the potential of controlled fission to generate limitless energy. As David Lilienthal of the US Atomic Energy Commission observed, atom-splitting thus inspired a pseudo-religious binary: 'It would either destroy us all or it would bring about the millennium.'
Nuclear optimism was shattered by the 1986 Chornobyl disaster but, as the subtitle of his book advertises, Gregory is determined to bring it back. A nuclear chemist at Sellafield, where the Queen opened the world's first commercial nuclear reactor in 1956, he's a cheerleader for Team Millennium. Writing in a Promethean spirit of 'rational and daring optimism', this self-proclaimed 'nuclear environmentalist' believes nuclear energy is the only viable route to net zero by 2050. 'The nucleus could power the world securely, reliably, affordably, and – crucially – sustainably,' he declares.
Gregory is an excellent popular science writer: clear as a bell and gently humorous. If you want to understand the workings of fission or radioactivity, he's your man. But he is also an evangelical pitchman whose chapters on the atom's myriad wonders can read rather like high-end sales brochures. Radiation? Not a problem! Less dangerous, in fact, than radiophobia, 'the irrational fear of radiation'. High-level nuclear waste? It can be buried in impregnable catacombs like Finland's state-of-the-art Onkalo or, better yet, recycled through breeder reactors. Gregory wants the reader to learn to stop worrying and love the reactor.
Of course, there is a radioactive elephant in the room, which Gregory eventually confronts in the chapter We Need to Talk About Chernobyl. Like Three Mile Island (1979) and Fukushima (2011), the Soviet disaster caused reactor construction to crash. Europe built more reactors in the five years before Chornobyl than it has in the four decades since. The Fukushima meltdown spooked Germany into dismantling its entire nuclear programme. Whereas France, which has one-eighth of the planet's 441 active reactors, currently generates two-thirds of its electricity from nuclear, Germany produces none, cancelling out its gains from renewables and making it painfully reliant on Russian gas. Gregory argues that the construction of reactors like Hinkley Point C in Somerset runs behind schedule and over budget because we've lost the habit, even as China and South Korea streak ahead.
To Gregory, all this is a tragic case of radiophobia. Only around 50 fatalities have been directly attributed to radiation from Chornobyl, while the official death tolls for Fukushima and Three Mile Island are one and zero respectively. Roll them all together and the same number of people are lost roughly every three minutes to air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.
No doubt, the kneejerk rejection of nuclear energy can be ignorant bordering on superstitious, but safety concerns demand more space and consideration. Oddly, Gregory doesn't mention Serhii Plokhy's 2022 book Atoms and Ashes, which explains how the Fukushima disaster could have been much worse if not for the courage and judgment of a few key officials. More offputtingly, he attacks renewable energy with roughly the same arguments used by rightwing critics of net zero, warning of 'energy scarcity, industrial wind-down, and food insecurity' if we choose wind and sun over good old uranium-235. But surely it is not a zero-sum game?
After a while, Gregory's relentless boosterism begins to lose its persuasive power and he sounds rather like the blithely confident scientist in the first act of a disaster movie. Even though I'm personally convinced that anybody focused on the climate emergency would be foolish to dismiss nuclear out of hand, I suspect that sceptics may require an argument that sounds a little less like 'Calm down, dear.'
Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World by Tim Gregory is published by Bodley Head (£25). To support the Guardian order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oregon high school star reveals shocking message from officials after protesting trans athletes
Oregon high school star reveals shocking message from officials after protesting trans athletes

Daily Mail​

time36 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Oregon high school star reveals shocking message from officials after protesting trans athletes

Oregon track star Alexa Anderson has revealed she was ordered away from the high jump podium by angry officials after she protested the inclusion of a trans athlete. Anderson and fellow competitor Reese Eckard were filmed refusing to step onto the podium during the medal ceremony, in an apparent protest of a fifth-place finisher who is reportedly transgender. Rather than taking their spots on the podium, footage obtained by Fox News showed the girls turning their backs to the crowd before being ushered away from the ceremony by an official. Now, Anderson has revealed that the official was apparently deeply unimpressed by the gesture. She told Fox: 'We stepped off the podium in protest and, as you can see, the official kind of told us "hey, go over there, if you're not going to participate, get out of the photos". 'They asked us to move away from the medal stand, so when they took the photos, we weren't even in it at all.' Anderson had finished third in the competition while fellow protestor Eckard had just clinched fourth place. Anderson continued: 'It's unfair because biological males and biological females compete at such different levels that letting a biological male into our competition is taking up space and opportunities from all these hardworking women. 'The girl in ninth who should have came in eighth and had that podium spot taken away from her, as well as many others.' She added: 'This was my first time competing against a transgender individual and the first public stand I have taken in this issue. 'But I have privately supported all the other girls who have done the same.' Anderson insisted at the time, in a separate interview with Fox, that she was not trying to stir hatred towards the trans community. 'We didn't refuse to stand on the podium out of hate,' she said. 'We did it because someone has to say this isn't right. 'In order to protect the integrity and fairness of girls sports we must stand up for what is right.' Daily Mail has reached out to the Oregon School Activities Association for comment on the controversy. Oregon is one of several states challenging President Donald Trump's 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' executive order, which threatens to deny federal funding to rogue governments. The American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association have both stated that gender is a spectrum and not a binary structure, as the White House argued in its January 20 executive order 'defending women from gender ideology.'

Wind opponents sue Trump administration to block New York wind project
Wind opponents sue Trump administration to block New York wind project

Reuters

time36 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Wind opponents sue Trump administration to block New York wind project

June 3 (Reuters) - Fishing companies and offshore wind opponents filed a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging the Trump administration's decision to reverse course and allow construction to resume on Empire Wind, a $5 billion wind farm project off New York's coast. Protect Our Coast New Jersey, Clean Ocean Action, ACK for Whales and 12 fishing industry participants in a lawsuit, opens new tab filed in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey, sought to reinstate a stop work order Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued in April halting construction of Equinor's ( opens new tab wind project. Burgum issued that order after Republican President Donald Trump on his first day back in office on January 20 directed his administration to halt offshore wind lease sales and stop the issuance of permits, leases and loans for both onshore and offshore wind projects. He did so while also moving to ramp up the federal government's support for the fossil fuel industry and maximize output in the United States. Trump as a candidate last year promised to end the offshore wind industry. But weeks after Burgum signed the stop-work order, the administration in a turnabout on May 19 allowed work to resume on Empire Wind, which is being developed by Norway's Equinor and is expected to provide power for half a million homes from 2027 onward. The administration did so in a compromise with New York that could also see canceled plans for a gas pipeline revived. Burgum said he was encouraged that New York Governor Kathy Hochul will now allow new gas pipeline capacity to move forward. Tuesday's lawsuit argued that the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management did not adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a basis for restoring the work permits. Bruce Afran, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said the administration had properly recognized the lack of investigation about serious environmental harm from Equinor's project. "The administration correctly pulled the Empire Wind work permit because of these concerns and had no basis to reinstate the work orders a month later," he said in a statement. "This lawsuit seeks to restore the stop work order." Equinor declined to comment on the lawsuit itself but in a statement said the project "has undergone years of rigorous permitting and studies, and secured all necessary federal, state and local approvals to begin construction in 2024." The agency did not respond to a request for comment.

UK appears to have been spared immediate hit of Trump's 50% steel tariffs
UK appears to have been spared immediate hit of Trump's 50% steel tariffs

The Independent

time38 minutes ago

  • The Independent

UK appears to have been spared immediate hit of Trump's 50% steel tariffs

The UK appears to have been spared from the immediate hit of Donald Trump's 50% steel and aluminium tariffs. The US President has decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK after a deal that was struck between Washington and London last month. Levies will remain at 25% for imports from the UK, however Britain could still be subject to the higher 50% rate from July, according to a version of the order confirming the tariff increase posted by a White House X account on Tuesday. According to the text of the order, Mr Trump has 'further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of May 8, 2025 (EPD), and to accordingly provide different treatment, as described below, for imports of steel and aluminum articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom'. The order later says that rates will for now stay at 25% and adds: 'On or after July 9, 2025, the Secretary may adjust the applicable rates of duty and construct import quotas for steel and aluminum consistent with the terms of the EPD, or he may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 percent if he determines that the United Kingdom has not complied with relevant aspects of the EPD'. The 50% tariff rate more widely is due to come into force from 12.01am Washington DC time on Wednesday, which is shortly after 5am in the UK. A Government spokesperson said: 'The UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US earlier this month and we remain committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our plan for change. 'We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs. 'We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25% US tariffs on steel removed.' Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's trade deal with the US, struck last month, included relief on the steel and aluminium tariffs, but the implementation has not yet been finalised. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds met White House trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday. According to the Department for Business and Trade, Mr Reynolds and Mr Greer discussed a desire to implement the deal struck between London and Washington as soon as possible, and committed to working closely to make it happen. The general terms for the agreement between the UK and US were published in May when the deal was announced, and outline the intended plans. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if there was a text of the full deal ready to be released, and told reporters on Tuesday: 'There 's most definitely text with this deal, there is language that this side has seen. 'You'll have to ask the UK Parliament why they haven't seen it from their own Government, I obviously can't answer that question.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store