Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
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 power phased out, to be 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 the nuclear power industry. As Tuhus-Dubrow shows, the conservation movement, which grew into environmentalism, initially supported nuclear power. Nuclear was viewed as an alternative to hydroelectric. 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 seemed to have 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 as a safe alternative to fossil fuels that had a smaller environmental footprint than renewables.
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 was eclipsed and how it reemerged as a green energy resource.
“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)
This review was written by Mark Lardas, who writes at Ricochet as Seawriter. Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, historian, and model-maker, lives in League City, TX. His website is marklardas.com.
Discussion (7)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The government figured out their mistake and it only took six years and how many brownouts?
But at least they're starting down the right path. Given all the hurdles they have to clear and the hoops they have to jump through, they should be ready to rock 'n' roll in about twenty years or so.
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
At least they are not at Spain levels of crazy. yet. A low bar, admittedly, very low, but nevertheless one Crazyfornia managed to clear.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Being conquered by Islam for several centuries will do that to a civilization, I guess. I wonder how much Iberian stupidity is driven by genes vs culture.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I'm a reluctant advocate for nuclear. I'm convinced it can be handled safely, that we in America in 2025 can handle it safely. But I'm reluctant because the reactors have to be managed safely for decades and the waste has to be managed safely for hundreds of millennia. Who knows who will be managing our nuclear reactors and waste a few decades or a few centuries from now? And who will be managing the reactors and waste that are built and produced in Outer Slobovia in centuries to come?
I'll give one cheer for nuclear.
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
One of the thing the book touches on is safety. The next generation of nuclear plants are orders of magnitudes safer than the old plants. Additionally the waste only really has to be managed for several centuries, not millennia. By then the shorts and hots are gone and it's pretty much back to background radiation of the natural ores. Further the waste can be reprocessed into new fuel, meaning it is not really waste. It's new fuel. And it can be processed a lot more safely than mining virgin ores.
You're seeing five of seven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.