I will start off by saying I am an expert in this field. Here’s a bit of my story: I started off as a chemical engineer that moved into energy with hands on experience in sustainable solutions. I went around installing solar panels in rural communities that doubled with water purification and energy. I also investigated alternate biofuels as a viable solution and how tidal and wind could be utilized in growing economies. A combination of experience and critical examination lead me to the conclusion that nuclear was the only viable solution to our growing energy needs while also addressing a serious climate change concern on any large scale.

It also could have the ability to supply stable power in countries that have intermittent or no supply, which as I saw first hand could change lives. If one solar panel could power a two room school and a few computers, allowing both adults and children required to work to also attend school after sunset, imagine what would happen if every house, every school and library had access to electricity, if it could be used to purify or desalinate water, if no one was forced to use a coal powered stove. Access to energy can change lives, plain and simple, and having a reliable source that doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gas emissions seems like an obvious choice. So naturally, I then went on to do a Masters and PhD in nuclear energy and have been an advocate ever since. So that is my story and a basis for my so called expertise.

My opinions on the matter are solely based off of science and math. I am a highly analytical person and I believe in evidence based decision making that is free of emotion. That being said, I understand why the nuclear issue has so many hurdles and the fear surrounding its use. I am aware of why and how accidents have occurred in the past, and know that the largest error was human in each case and could largely have been avoided, I also know that that revelation does not negate the wide scale and lasting harm those events inflicted. I know that nuclear reactors have so many built in redundancies now that design is verging on illogical, but I also know there will be groups of people who still think it is unsafe. I know that the number of deaths caused by coal or natural gas far exceeds those by nuclear, but I also know death is death and in vitro mutations are the stuff of nightmares. This can be very frustrating while working in the field, and I must approach every conversation with a nuclear neophyte in a compassionate tone. I believe education and asking questions with an open mind can provide a pathway to reforming the public opinion on nuclear.

This is a very long way of giving all the reasons I was excited to see this book. It approaches the topic from an environmental perspective and is very accessible. There was no real new information for me, but I thought the perspective was thoughtful and inquiring. The author and narrators document their inherent biases from their environments, and they gradually approach nuclear with curiosity. It was well researched and they present information in a way to lead readers to their own conclusions. I think it also helps that she is a hippie from California, not your typical proponent. In fact, there are many personal stories within from unlikely advocates. It suggests that anyone can approach this topic and make up their minds with enough information. If you have ever had mixed feelings about nuclear power, or are interested in viable ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our growing energy crisis this will be a great read, as will the others here. This is really centred on California, but it can open the door to a wider context and it talks about a lot of general issues.

I will never say nuclear is a perfect solution, nor that it is a risk-free solution. I will say that under the parameters of our current tech and resources, it must be part of an energy solution to mitigate the anthropocenic impact of climate change. I also believe it is PART of a solution, that will also include renewables, but that it can’t be beat in term of energy density for stable bade load power. There has been decades of research, which is still ongoing in how to make it as safe as possible, as well as design new types of reactors that use different fuels, even waste. There is also a lot of research on why sustainable energy alone cannot meet our needs. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the biggest problem with nuclear isn’t tech or safety, it’s social perception and how political agendas influence the public of this solution. Actual risk is disproportion to fear, to which I say educated yourself and make your own decisions. Propaganda only works on those who wilfully choose to be ignorant, and that goes both ways. So don’t just take my word, ask your own questions, read and listen and then make up your own mind. And this book is a great place to start.

Perhaps I had a misconceived notion in regards to what this book would be about. It focused on one nuclear power plant in California, instead of nuclear energy pertaining to the entire country or world.

Overall, I found this extremely difficult to be interested in. Not sure if it is the narrator or content but it could not hold my interest.

Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow does cover interesting topics, such as the idea of an energy influencer, and how it is difficult to change people's perceptions on energy.

If you are interesting in energy and nuclear energy, this is a good read.

Atomic Dreams by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow is a stunning deep dive into the complex world of nuclear ambition, environmental legacy, and the human stories interwoven through it all. With sharp insight and lyrical precision, Tuhus-Dubrow delivers a narrative that is both intellectually rich and emotionally resonant. The audiobook is especially compelling—narrated with clarity and nuance that brings the story to life while letting the weight of the subject matter shine through. It's equal parts historical investigation, personal journey, and philosophical reflection. Whether you're familiar with the topic or approaching it fresh, this audiobook will leave you with a lot to ponder. Highly recommended for anyone interested in history, science, ethics, or simply beautifully crafted nonfiction. This is storytelling at its most urgent and eloquent.

**.5

I found the book to be a bit of a letdown, but perhaps that's my fault for having preconceived ideas about what it should say. I was hoping for a clear analysis of the pros and cons of nuclear energy, one that was sober about past missteps as well as the promise of current and future opportunities and challenges. Instead, I got a deep dive into the personalities arguing over whether a particular plant in California should be shut down or run for a few more years.

I appreciate the journalistic effort that went into the research and conducting interviews, but organizing the book around personalities rather than issues made it feel disorganized and made it harder to understand the trade-offs and evaluate the risks. Of course it's impossible to write a book about nuclear power without mentioning the high profile disasters of Fukushima or Chernobyl, but the link between mismanaged shoddy 1950's Soviet technology and modern Gen III reactors is tenuous at best. Let alone the potential of Gen IV reactors, which barely get a mention.

By focusing almost solely on the political and legal battles of the aging Diablo plant, it's hard to assess the overall state of how nuclear power stacks up against traditional fossil fuel burning coal and natural gas power plants, or renewable solar and wind farms. She does provide a few scattered statistics, but I didn't get a clear sense of important factors such as the relative security, safety, cost, environmental impact, capacity, etc. Instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, she instead questions the motives of the pro-nuclear crowd. Are they self-serving employees/investors, quirky rebellious types, right-wing fanatics, or otherwise not to be trusted?

Ultimately, despite all of the evidence she provides in favour of nuclear power, she seems unable to get beyond her initial biased impression that it's inherently scary and hence only to be used sparingly as a last resort. Which is a rather weak conclusion after previously demonstrating the myriad hazards of burning fossil fuels, the inability of renewables to meet demand any time soon, and the relative cost effectiveness of safe and clean nuclear power.

Atomic Dreams: The New Nuclear Evangelists and the Fight for the Future of Energy by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, serves as a great introduction to the history of Nuclear Power in the United States, its evolution in adoption and acceptance and an understanding of major players past and present. Making the case that the adoption of Nuclear Power, at least presently, is required in order to support a cleaner environment in the near future, since green technologies does not reduce the consumption of coal energy resources enough to make a significant impact.

I had the opportunity to read the book and listen to the audio side by side. The narration by Maria Marquis and Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow provides the layperson, like me, with an understanding of the current state of nuclear power, without overburdening the reader with the science behind it.

Thank you to Hachette Audio | Algonquin Books for the opportunity to listen to this ALC and read the eARC. All opinions are my own.

Rating: 4 stars
Audio Release Date: Apr 08 2025
Pub Date: Apr 08 2025

Tags:
#HachetteAudio
#AtomicDreams
# RebeccaTuhusDubrow
# MariaMarquis
#YarisBookNook
#netgalley

One of the true miseries in life is trying to convince people something is not THAT bad. In the age of "hot takes" and general hyperbole, everything must either be the worst thing that has ever happened or the best. This hatred of nuance is the bane of my existence as arguing that something isn't THAT bad means I must love it and arguing that something isn't THAT good means that I must hate it.

Such is the tale of nuclear energy on a much grander and higher stakes scale. Unfortunately, while I can empathize with this plight, I wonder if this book isn't massively hurt by its title. For what the author is trying to communicate, I understand why it was helpful for her to focus on a specific case study: the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, but given the title of the book, I was wanting a more comprehensive and wide-ranging overview of the subject. We get that in some limited fashion, but those forays into bigger picture subjects merely made my desire for greater scope all the more insistent. Atomic Dreams: Confronting Our Nuclear Legacy in the Diablo Canyon or some other such title might have primed me as the reader for what was to come and I might have felt more satisfied by the narrative.

Unfortunately, there were several other such stylistic things that just did NOT work for me over the course of the book. The narrative choice of detailing her investigation into the issue is one that we've seen in many other such nonfiction works, and to her credit, the book is not about the author at all, but these insights rarely serve to further my appreciation for the subject matter whereas in Lost City of Z they serve to contrast the difficulties of the original explorers with the banality of visiting the Amazon today or in Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs such a style serves to show the relevancy of work being done today that furthers our knowledge of ancient prehistory.

Despite a general sense that the approaches taken to this subject were to put too fine a point on it and only in my personal opinion - wrong - I have enormous respect for what Tuhus-Dubrow sets out to do. The thesis here isn't necessarily that nuclear is good or bad, but taking that loathsome (but warranted) middle ground in which the anti community will label you a sycophant and the pro community will label you a heretic; that the answer is complicated with pros and cons on either side. Far from hedging in indecision, Tuhus-Dubrow shows plainly that whatever part nuclear energy will play in humanity's future will largely depend on what our shifting priorities are as a society (and perhaps what the most monied individuals decide).

If you take all that into consideration, despite the relatively low star review, I can generally recommend this book to those with an interest in the subject. Having read my review, you will have a better understanding of what to expect than I did, and will therefore likely have a more favorable perspective on it.

Thank you to NetGalley, Hachette Audio and Algonquin Books for the advanced reading copy. This book is set to be published April 8, 2025 at time of writing.