Product Description
This is quite possibly the most important book about energy in a generation. For over thirty years Americans have been fed a steady diet of half-truths, misinformation, urban legends and outright fabrications about energy. The small amount of accurate information that does reach us is often obscured by scientific terminology or one-sided political posturing.

When faced with a dramatic increase in energy demand, uncertain supplies and the potentially harmful effects of carbon emissions how are we to make informed choices?

Veteran journalist William Tucker has relied on years of research and investigation to help us
make sense of America s energy predicament without the burdens of political pressures or predetermined outcomes.

It seems odd that nuclear energy has to be reintroduced to America. After all, today, thirty years after we began construction of our last new nuclear reactor, it still supplies nearly 20 percent of our electrical energy needs. And surprisingly, all this output is from plants that were once considered relics, but are now being run with an efficiency and safety record that was hard to envision a decade ago.

Perhaps the misgivings have always been with us. Since dawn of the Atomic era, nuclear power has been inextricably associated with nuclear weapons--each reactor a bomb waiting to go off. The accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and its amazing convergence of timing with the film, The China Syndrome reinforced the idea that a nuclear meltdown is a real, terrifying possibility that could kill thousands of people. The later, catastrophic disaster at Chernobyl in the Ukraine heightened these fears.

And so the use of atomic energy became controversial. Yet as Tucker makes absolutely clear, nuclear is the same process that heats the center of the earth to 7,000oF, hotter than the surface of the sun.

The concentration of power
in the nucleus of the atom is incredible. The disintegration of a single uranium atom produces 2 million times more energy than the breaking of a carbon-hydrogen atom in coal, oil, or natural gas, all with zero carbon emissions and zero greenhouse gases.

In Terrestrial Energy, Tucker is not content to merely give an argument about why nuclear is the best choice for our energy future. Instead he meticulously surveys entire the energy scene that has frustrated Americans for the past 30 years. Is there such a thing as clean coal? Can we expect that onservation will ever reduce our energy consumption?

And what about the renewable energy sources (wind, solar energy, hydropower, and biofuels) and their promise of clean, plentiful power? Each has its place in America s energy mix but each of these sources also has serious problems. The limiting factor of all these technologies will not be the amount of energy radiating from the sun but the
amount of land that will be required to capture and store it.

And what are the real dangers of an increase in the use of nuclear power? We have learned to become fearful of radiation at any dose, when in reality, we are regularly exposed to its effects, it is naturally occurring, often benign and in some cases even beneficial. Then there is the waste that supposedly makes nuclear technology unmanageable. It is much less alarming when you consider that the reason America has a nuclear waste problem is because we fail to recycle our spent fuel rods.

At the same time that world energy demand steadily increases, Americans are also being asked to be better stewards of the environment. Now is the perfect moment to renew our commitment to use the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century as the forward-thinking solution. Terrestrial energy is without doubt, the only realistic, practical answer to our energy dilemma.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 5.0 based on 14 reviews)

The Moby Dick of Energy Books

An interesting and well-researched report on the options Americans face in the production of energy. Tucker examines one by one all the energy sources we hear about in the daily paper, discusses their pros and cons, and makes a convincing case that nuclear generation of electricity is the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to produce the energy we're going to need as we move into a new world of diminishing oil production.
He deals exhaustively with nuclear accidents and nuclear waste and presents convincing arguments that these threats can be moderated with technology and careful human engineering. He takes us to France and shows how that country, uses nuclear energy to produce %80 of its electricity, and reprocesses the the whole nation's nuclear waste so effectively that it all fits into one room.
This book is a fascinating compendium of up-to-date information on nuclear energy and the American attitudes toward it . You find yourself reading about the Fugitive Poet's agrarian manifesto, the meaning of Albert Einstein's famous equation E equals MC squared, and a fuel assembly that resembles a "sinister benthic organism" behind a foot of leaded glass.
At the end of the book is a 41 page section of footnotes, bibliography, and index, plenty of material for the scholar who wishes to dive deeper into this controversial and existentially important subject.

November 18, 2008

Enlightened Energy

Award-winning journalist Bill Tucker begins this important book with a fair-minded review of the evidence that human activity is contributing to the greenhouse effect implicated in accelerating the warming of the earth. He concludes that, while the science remains provisional and somewhat equivocal, annually dumping three billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is likely to have some impact on climate--enough for reasonable people to be sufficiently alarmed about the practice to want it stopped, or substantially reduced. How to achieve this goal effectively while enhancing, even extending, the technology that preserves the energy requirements of modernity is the subject of the book.

Energy enables modern society by heating our homes and businesses, providing for vast transportation systems, and producing electricity. Transportation, mostly in the form of automobiles, produces over 40% of our nation's CO2 emissions. Consumption of electricity accounts for 39 % of all energy use in the United States, which includes nearly a third of the energy produced for heating and a tiny fraction now involved in transportation. However, because more than 70% of the power for electricity comes from the burning of fossil fuels, with 50% from coal alone (20% from natural gas, 2.5% from petroleum), electricity production emits 36% of all the greenhouse gasses humans dump into the atmosphere, with coal-fired plants contributing 30% of the total.

Only two of the five conventional power sources, hydro and nuclear, produce "clean" power, emitting no CO2. As Tucker documents, though, hydro, perhaps the most effective of all power sources and still generating 7% of the nation's electricity power, has already developed most of the best hydro sites while fomenting significant environmental damage, with each dam typically degrading hundreds of miles of sensitive watershed habitat. The Sierra Club has opposed hydro for most of its existence because of this reason, with its founder, John Muir, fulminating about the aesthetic loss to his valley when the redoubtable Hetch Hetchy Dam was built nearly a hundred years ago. Nuclear plants, which provide 20% of the nation's electricity, also produce at high levels without polluting the environment, but fears about radioactivity and the storage of waste material, not to mention the possibility that nuclear materials may be diverted for terrorist purposes, have given the industry such a problematic reputation that no new nuclear facilities have been built in the country for nearly thirty years.

The ten electricity grids that produce and transmit electricity in the continental US are mandated to provide reliability at affordable cost with high security. Electricity demand is today very predictable, always existing at some basic level, atop of which, as human activity ebbs and flows, mid and peak demand levels occur; each demand cycle also contains continuous demand fluctuations, as people and businesses turn their appliances on and off. Grid operators match power with demand at a better than 99% accuracy, dispatching heavy duty generators like nuclear, large coal, and, where it is abundant, hydro, to engage basic demand (which consists of about 40%-50% of a day's electricity consumption), then deploying highly reliable but smaller units to meet mid and peak demand periods, as well as rapidly-responsive generators to balance demand flux.

Terrestrial Energy is a marvelously told tale presenting the ineluctable case for expanding the role of electricity to more than 50% of our total energy use, with nuclear as the primary supplier for basic demand, replacing coal--in the process substantially reducing our production of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants. Tucker shows this is no fantasy, since France (and Sweden) has for years harnessed nuclear for this purpose, giving France the second-lowest level of CO2 emissions in Europe (Sweden is first). With clean burning nuclear providing much of our electricity, battery-powered automobiles and other transport can simply be recharged by plugging into the grid, thus also avoiding the CO2 from our present fleet of internal combustion engines.

Tucker not only demonstrates how nuclear facilities achieve stunning performance, given that nuclear energy is two million times more potent than the energy contained in fossil fuels, which are in turn exponentially more powerful than renewable fuels; he also demythologizes the nattering, well-intentioned concerns about their safety. He summons the ghost of Carl Sagan: we're all "star stuff," with radioactive heat forged in supernova explosions, then settling over everything, including our own sinew, providing Earth's internal heat that makes life on earth possible. He shows that radioactivity is as natural as air, and that radiation is merely energy in motion--it's all around, and coursing through us every second. The issue of concern is one of dosage. To determine "safe" levels, Tucker examines the effects of the accidents at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, and looks at epidemiological studies in the wake of the nuclear bombing of Japan, providing sober context for understanding, from a scientific perspective, what the health risks for nuclear really are. Even more intriguing, he cites several studies focusing upon hormesis--the idea that chronic low doses of radiation are beneficial, stimulating the immune system. As for "waste" material, Tucker proves the concern is a bagatelle, for nuclear fuel can be almost wholly reprocessed, as France does it.

For those seeking a preview about what the next several years may bring in terms of energy policy, go directly to Chapter 15, "The California Electrical Crisis." California's penchant for "renewables" mirrors the interest in those technologies today. Despite over 13,000 huge wind turbines and massive investments in solar technology, "the state found itself in the midst of electricity shortage in 2000--something no other advanced nation has ever experienced." The consequence of more than 25 years of emphasizing renewables and conservation, following that coquettish pied piper of "soft energy," Amory Lovins, is that Californians now pay the highest prices for electricity in the nation, getting 41% of their electricity from expensive natural gas, while continuing to increase their carbon emissions. Tucker's account ought to be the basis of a screenplay for a Monty Python full-length feature, with enough incompetence, venality, and wishful thinking to make even Tom Wolfe happy. Even in the United States of Amnesia, it should be enough to provide a lesson in precisely what not to do in the quest for an effective energy policy that drastically reduces CO2.

Tucker could have been clearer about the limitations of today's mainline "renewables:" wind and solar. Wind especially. For it's incompatible with demand cycles, typically producing most when demand is least; its relentless skittering destabilizes the grid, making conventional generators work harder to balance it, with thermal consequences that largely subvert any CO2 emissions offsets induced by wind energy; and it produces no effective capacity--prescribed levels of energy on demand--with the consequence that it can never take the place of any reliable conventional generators that do produce effective capacity, including coal. All conventional generators produce their rated capacities, or a desired fraction thereof, when dispatched to do so. However, no one can be sure of how much wind (or solar) will be available at any future time. Neither wind nor solar can satisfy base or peaking demand, since they're not dispatchable or dependable.

Any journalist who these days can gracefully weave together an accurate account of the reciprocal nature of the speed of energy (radiation), matter, time, and distance with Huber and Mills' laws of efficiency deserves the greatest respect. He also makes use of such cultural treasures as Blondie at Tudbury's and Jubilation T. Cornpone. Terrestrial Energy is an honest, even wise, undertaking in the best tradition of journalism in a democracy, for successful democracy insists upon an informed citizenry. It's at risk when leaders base policy on errant nonsense, as the recent California energy history suggests. Those concerned about a better energy future should recommend this book to all in their circle, presenting it as well to politicians, policy wonks, environmental leaders, and media representatives. Three cheers for Bill Tucker.
November 14, 2008

Most Important Book of the Year

I believe this is the most important book written this year, and perhaps in many years. Why? Because nothing is more critical to our economy and way of life than how we respond to the energy crisis and global warming. So far, we are not off to a good start.

In this thoroughly researched and beautifully written book, Mr. Tucker first acknowledges that global warming is PROBABLY real and PROBABLY at least partly anthropogenic, even though such conclusions are not provable by ordinary scientific hypothesis testing. He then rightly concludes that even if global warming is only very slightly caused by human activity, we cannot continue to pour billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without suffering consequences.

Mr. Tucker then proceeds to methodically and objectively examine every known source of energy, with respect to the advantages and problems inherent to each. He then concludes that there is only one source that even comes close to satisfying the criteria of no GG emissions, reasonable cost, and minimal environmental impact - nuclear energy.

I would take issue with Mr. Tucker's far too charitable treatment of wind energy. He does correctly point out that because electricity produced by wind is intermittent and effectively can't be stored, it cannot provide base load or peak load. He also mentions that modern grids must have reliable dispatch control over the amount of electricity going into the grid to balance load and avoid brownouts and blackouts, which wind can't provide. However, he inexplicably fails to mention the need for "backup" generation from conventional power plants to cover periods of low or no wind. He concludes, unconvincingly, that wind can provide "spinning reserves" to cover grid demand fluctuations. He does not explain how an unpredictable, constantly fluctuating source can provide reserves which must be instantly available when needed. These criticisms are mere quibbles, however, as Mr. Tucker makes it abundantly clear that wind, solar and other renewables are simply not going to solve our energy problems.

Mr Tucker then gets to his main point, that nuclear energy is the answer. He convincingly deconstructs all of of the popular arguments against nuclear energy, such as the terrorist problem, the nuclear accident problem and the waste disposal problem. He makes it clear that these problems are either non-existent urban myths or a product of bad political decisions made during the last thirty years. He does this by taking us on a tour of the French nuclear industry, which provides 80% of France's electricity needs.

It is painful to listen to the comments of French nuclear industry officials as they describe how cheap, clean, reliable and safe their nuclear industry is, and how grateful they are to us for inventing the nuclear reactor. If only we had done what France did 30 years ago, we wouldn't be having an energy crisis and our GG emissions would be a fraction of what they now are. How frustrating!

This book should be required reading for every public official having anything to do with energy policy, from President-elect Obama to members of congress and governors. The stakes here are huge. We are about to commit over a TRILLION dollars on "renewable" and "alternative" energy that simply does not work and cannot be made to work. We are doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing, and will pay dearly for this fundamental policy mistake. Mr. Tucker makes it clear that the task of replacing coal with nuclear energy can be accomplished, but is not going to happen unless the public becomes educated and the myths and misinformation fed to us during the last 30 years are refuted. This book is a great start. I intend to give copies to my environmentalist friends who "believe in wind" but have no idea what they are talking about.
November 10, 2008

Engineering Energy Production.

This is an excellent book; clear, concise, factual, and educational. Let's start with the present energy situation. Many people want to stop global warming and severe air polution. A big contributor is electrity production, burning coal or natural gas to generate steam to power turbines. These fuels are plentiful, cheap, safe to handle. They also are very dirty, producing tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Therefore, environmists want alternatives, including solar, wind, biomass, etc. All of these have negatives; sunshine is inconsistent, especialy at night. Solar panels cover acres of land better put to other uses. Wind is also inconsistent. Wind turbines are big, ugly, and dangerous to the people they fall on or the birds they chop to pieces. Biomass still has to be burned. Nuclear is the best answer.
Now, nuclear power has one big disadvantage as well. The waste is highly toxic, and some bozos in the past have screwed up at Chernobel and Three Mile Island. Lesson learned. After 40+ years, I certainly think we can safely handle this technology. The French definitely do; I cannot recall their power plants ever having a problem. Next, if you look at the amount of extractable energy contained in a uranium atom versus a coal or natural gas atom, the difference is a factor of a million or two. Less fuel equals less emmisions. We should push to replace all of our coal and natural gas power plants with nuclear plants.
The main obsticle to building nuclear power plants is political. People have been cowed for decades into thinking that nuclear is dangerous. People also don't understand how nuclear power works. Finally, a lot of politicians depend on coal miners and natural gas for their elections. No one wants to lose his or her job because technology advances. Fortunately, coal and natural gas can both be converted to gasoline to power cars and trucks, so no one has to lose money or their jobs. The strongest part of William Tucker's book is educational. This book is intended to define nuclear power to engineering students, but is so clear and logical anyone can understand it. Being a professor of Electrical Engineering, I have held these views since the '70s. Tucker goes a lot further, reducing to plain facts and solid logic the arguments supporting nuclear power. As for the politicians, I don't think any of them are Engineers. My hat is off for William Tucker; he has done this country a great service. Now if only the people will listen to him.
November 05, 2008

Terrestrial Energy the dominant option after fossil fuels

For openers an excellent history of the key technologies of the Industrial Revolution that have brought us to complete dependence on fossil fuels. Mr.Tucker explains that oil, natural gas and coal are solar, or extraterrestrial in origin. Sun, wind, tides, biofuels and hydroelectric power, are also extraterrestrial in origin. This century will mark the end of the short-lived fossil fuel era. They will already be severely depleted by mid century. Mr.Tucker describes the Global Warming crowd's rush to sun and wind and bio technology to replace fossils. He brilliantly explains how these intermittent and land intensive sources can't provide the reliable, large volumes of power modern economies need. They will remain supplemental sources. The only ready alternatives are the truly terrestrial nuclear fuels, exclusively uranium at this point. Think about it....if fossil fuels are gone and the so called 'renewables' can't come close to powering modern economies, what is left? Mr. Tucker explains how safe, modern nuclear technology is ready to produce high volume, low cost electricity. And it does not emit 'green house gases'. It will long outlive fossil fuels. Mr. Tucker's book will help educate the public about this sole option that is ignored and blocked at every opportunity by environmentalists.
November 05, 2008

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy (Vintage)
by Gwyneth Cravens
by Richard Rhodes

Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time Has Come for the World's Most Misunderstood Energy Source
by Alan M. Herbst, George W. Hopley

Economic Facts and Fallacies
by Thomas Sowell

Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us ... and What to Do About It
by Dick Morris, Eileen Mcgann

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
by Lawrence Solomon