logo
Going Nuclear by Tim Gregory: Want to save the planet? GO NUCLEAR

Going Nuclear by Tim Gregory: Want to save the planet? GO NUCLEAR

Daily Mail​21-06-2025

Going Nuclear: How The Atom Will Save The World by Tim Gregory (Bodley Head £25, 384pp)
Tim Gregory works in what he calls 'one of the most chemically exotic square miles on the planet'.
He is a scientist at the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory at Sellafield. So, it is no surprise that his new book offers a deeply researched and mostly persuasive argument in favour of nuclear power and its benefits.
If we want to renounce fossil fuels and clean up our energy systems, 'splitting atoms of uranium inside nuclear reactors is our best bet at reaching net zero by 2050'.
Yet, as he acknowledges, profound suspicion of the nuclear industry is rooted in the public mind.
And, in what he sees as an ironic contradiction, those people who are most concerned about climate change are the very ones who are least supportive of nuclear power.
This anxiety was not always so widespread. In the 1950s, nuclear power was often seen as the future we should happily embrace. In Britain, Calder Hall, the country's first atomic power station, was opened by Queen Elizabeth II 'with pride'.
The town of Workington became one of the first in the world where people's washing machines, record players and other electrical appliances were driven by nuclear electricity.
It was not only the Queen who was enthused by the then new technology. Gregory tells the oddly charming story of Muriel Howorth, who became a staunch advocate of nuclear power at the age of 62 after reading a book she'd borrowed from her local library.
She went on to found the Ladies' Atomic Energy Club and to write a pantomime called Isotopia, which included characters such as Isotope, Neutron and Atom Man. In 1950, it was staged in London with members of the Ladies' Atomic Energy Club playing all the roles. She had hopes of a performance at the Albert Hall but, sadly, this was never to be.
A 21st-century Muriel Howorth seems unlikely to emerge. Nuclear power has lost the glamour it may have possessed in the 1950s. It is more likely today to elicit alarm and anxiety. Gregory puts much of contemporary worry about the nuclear industry down to what he calls 'radiophobia' – an irrational fear of radiation.
Popular culture has played its part in warping society's perception of the subject. The idea of atomic bombs has become entwined with our notions of the nuclear industry. Gregory endeavours to get beyond the mushroom clouds of our imagination.
As he points out, all kinds of unexpected objects are radioactive to some extent. Potassium-40 emits beta and gamma radiation. Bananas and potatoes both contain potassium, so are therefore radioactive.
'Biology,' he notes, 'unfolds against a background of radioactivity.' All of us spend our lives 'bathed in radiation'. The only way we could avoid it would be by adopting a highly impractical programme of not eating, drinking or even breathing. 'You can't have radiation-free anything,' Gregory writes. 'Background radiation is about as ubiquitous and as harmless as it gets.'
What about the dangers of nuclear waste and the difficulties of disposing of it? Gregory argues that these are greatly exaggerated.
The paraphernalia in his lab – gloves, test-tubes, biros – is all classified as nuclear waste because it comes from Sellafield. Most of it is 'far less radioactive than a banana'.
'Low-level' nuclear waste accounts for just one per cent of the radioactivity in all nuclear waste but 87 per cent of its volume. The most dangerous type of 'high-level' waste, by contrast, represents 0.1 per cent of the total volume of nuclear waste but contains 95 per cent of its radioactivity.
All the high-level waste from the past 70 years of the nuclear industry would fit inside a medium-sized concert hall.
Figures such as these may well be reassuring, but Gregory is on less sure ground when he turns to the major disasters that have struck the industry over the decades. Again he turns to statistics to argue that we should not be over-anxious.
'Nuclear's safety record is blotted by a small number of rare, high-visibility events,' he acknowledges, but it's 'about as safe as wind and solar, and it's tens or hundreds times safer than fossil fuels'. Air pollution from the latter kills as many people every six hours, Gregory states, as nuclear power has ever done.
He acknowledges the seriousness of Chernobyl, which he describes unequivocally as 'the worst disaster in the history of nuclear power', but he argues that we should not overestimate its long-term effects.
The accident at Chernobyl happened because of a combination of factors – an unusual design of reactor, operators who broke the rules, Soviet-era corruption – that is extremely unlikely to occur again.
He also uses an array of statistics and scientific studies to show fears of ongoing health risks are exaggerated. A study from 2019 found that cancer rates in regions of Ukraine close to Chernobyl were no higher than the national average.
Not everyone will buy Gregory's take on Chernobyl, but he's more convincing on the 2011 Fukushima disaster, where an earthquake triggered a tsunami that caused three nuclear units to explode. Twenty thousand people died due to the natural disasters but only one person died as a result of the radiation, and a UN scientific committee found no evidence that the radiation caused an increase in any type of cancer.
Arguments over the dangers of nuclear power will continue. What seems inarguable is its potential.
There is, Gregory writes, 'as much nuclear energy in a gram of uranium as there is chemical energy in more than a tonne of coal'. If you powered a lightbulb with a gram of coal, it would give you 15 minutes of light; a gram of uranium would light up the bulb for 30 years. As he bluntly states, 'Net zero is impossible without nuclear power.'
Renewables such as wind and solar have important roles to play but alone they cannot possibly satisfy a society that needs on-demand electricity. And the demand is growing.
Europe today generates a fifth of its electricity from nuclear. It's the biggest source of emissions-free electricity, bigger than solar and wind combined.
Gregory reports on what he calls 'the flatpack furniture of the nuclear world' – small modular reactors that take up the space of 5.5 football pitches. He envisages a future in which every large town will have one of these smaller reactors and there will be several in every major city worldwide.
'Nuclear,' he writes, 'will become routine.' Gregory is passionate in his belief that nuclear power will solve the world's energy problems. Not all readers will be so evangelical but his book presents a strong, carefully argued case for his ideas.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Charli XCX, Glastonbury Festival, review: Underwhelming set that was more sizzle than sausage
Charli XCX, Glastonbury Festival, review: Underwhelming set that was more sizzle than sausage

Telegraph

time8 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Charli XCX, Glastonbury Festival, review: Underwhelming set that was more sizzle than sausage

Glasto-goers lucky enough to get into the Other Stage field to see Charli XCX headline (there were crowd issues because so many people wanted to be there) were treated to a banging 75 minutes of Gen Z-friendly techno-pop. Yet for all the noise and hype, this was a set that was more sizzle than sausage. It was a huge 'event', Charli having released Brat, the most talked about album of the year, last summer. Brat was essentially a ravey celebration of messy rebellion. The album was so big that it launched its own season (Brat summer) and colour (bogey green). As the bass throbbed and the beats pulsated, Charli, whose real name is Charlotte Emma Aitchison, gyrated and crawled around on all fours in a black bikini and shades, wiggling her bum at the camera and, at one point, snogging her own arm. There was fire and rain on stage, and strobes galore. Yet it was all a bit one-note. As is the way these days, she sang to a backing track (which seemed to include the singing part) and her voice was heavily autotuned. No one around me cared that she seemed to be miming some of the time. But any suggestions that she should be headlining the Pyramid Stage instead of Olivia Rodrigo on Sunday night were scotched. This didn't feel like a Pyramid headlining show. After The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony warmed up the crowd, a curtain fell to reveal the green Brat logo, and Charli bounded on to 365. 'Party Girl' flashed on the screens. 'Fucking jump!' she screamed. And so we did. She did indeed bring the party, and the word-perfect crowd were certainly up for it. Club Classics and Von Dutch were absolutely belting, and there was a moment of tenderness when she asked who in the audience 'is really in love tonight?' Then she said, 'Me too. I love you, George' in reference to her fiancé George Daniel, the drummer in Friday night's Pyramid headliner The 1975. Bless. It's quite a weekend they're having. I'd love to know where that joint aftershow party is. Her song Apple has acquired its own viral TikTok dance (basically this century's Chicken Dance), and a tradition has emerged for cameras to zone in on celebrities doing the dance at gigs. Tonight it was Gracie Abrams, the singer who performed on the same stage earlier and is daughter of Star Wars director J.J. Abrams. The force definitely awakened. There were no guests (speculation was rife that Billie Eilish might appear on Guess). It was just Charli, alone, on stage all show. You did wonder where she goes from here (except for Block 9), and whether – and how – the Brat zeitgeist can be maintained in summers to come.

Parents warned to limit their children's screen time, as research finds youngsters glued to smartphones and tablets have smaller brains and lower IQs
Parents warned to limit their children's screen time, as research finds youngsters glued to smartphones and tablets have smaller brains and lower IQs

Daily Mail​

time9 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Parents warned to limit their children's screen time, as research finds youngsters glued to smartphones and tablets have smaller brains and lower IQs

Parents are being warned to limit children's screen time after a study found it could lead to them having smaller brains and lower intelligence. Scientists found children who watched television and used smartphones, tablets and computers had, on average, lower IQs and less intracranial volume (ICV) – a marker for brain size. In contrast, children who exercised in their spare time were likely to be more intelligent and had a larger brain volume, according to the research. The study used databases from across Europe that contained information from thousands of children on IQ, screen use and physical exercise. This was analysed to establish whether there was any link between leisure time habits, intelligence and ICV – the total space within the skull which is used as a proxy for the maximum size of the brain. Larger ICV has been linked to superior intelligence. The researchers, based in China, say their results provide further evidence that excessive screen time has a lifelong impact on children's brain development. 'These findings highlight the critical need to manage and regulate children's media use while also promoting increased physical activity,' they wrote in the journal Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. The study comes as children's screen time use has rocketed in recent years. The average amount of time British children aged five to 15 spend on screens rose from nine hours a week in 2009 to 15 hours a week in 2018, according to a House of Commons education committee report from last year. While there can be benefits, including building friendships and improving learning, negative effects include online bullying, exposure to violence and pornography, lower levels of physical activity and eye strain. Sir Cary Cooper, a psychology professor at the University of Manchester, said: 'Children are using these devices and they are not learning social and non-verbal skills that we pick up from interacting, face-to-face, with other people.'

Pulp's secret Glastonbury set review – still the magnificently misshapen oddballs of British pop
Pulp's secret Glastonbury set review – still the magnificently misshapen oddballs of British pop

The Guardian

time14 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Pulp's secret Glastonbury set review – still the magnificently misshapen oddballs of British pop

'Sorry for people who were expecting Patchwork,' says Jarvis Cocker, in reference to the mysterious name that appeared on the Glastonbury bill in lieu of Pulp's. 'How did you know we were going to play?' In fairness, Pulp did their best to conceal their appearance at the festival (as Cocker says, it's 30 years and four days since they were parachuted into the Glastonbury headlining slot, a now-legendary performance that sealed their ascendancy). Keyboard player Candida Doyle even gave an interview to a local Somerset newspaper insisting that while they wanted to play, Glastonbury 'weren't interested'. But clearly no one was convinced – the Pyramid stage is headlining-set heaving. There's something charming about the fact that they open with Sorted For E's & Wizz, a song that takes a pretty equivocal, even steely view of the kind of hedonism that prevails at Glastonbury: proof, should it be needed, that Pulp remain a band who seldom go about things the straightforward way. Listening to them play their 90s hits – Mis‐Shapes, Disco 2000, Babies – you're struck by how little they had in common with their ostensible Britpop contemporaries. Their wonky collision of 70s glam, French pop, disco and analogue electronics didn't sound like any of their peers, nor was the prevailing mood of their songs much in tune with the supposed mood of the era. They're substantially darker and grubbier, consistently sticking up for oddballs and outsiders at a time when alternative music was making a lunge for a mainstream audience. It's as if they became huge coincidentally, rather than as part of a movement. This means that, for all the nostalgia their old songs evoke in anyone who can remember the 90s – and a quick scan around the audience reveals a number of people looking distinctly moist-eyed as they play – they aren't welded to the era in which they were first recorded, so they haven't really dated. Moreover, there isn't really any diminution in quality when they drop in Spike Island and Got To Have Love, two songs from their comeback album More, a smart reapplication of their longstanding approach to a later stage of life. Cocker, meanwhile, remains a fantastic frontman, dispensing sage wisdom about the festival itself – 'to enjoy Glastonbury, you have to submit to it' – and reflecting on how terrified the band were to find themselves filling in at short notice for an indisposed Stone Roses in 1995: 'But I feel very relaxed today – how about you?' You'd probably feel quite relaxed too if you knew you had Common People as your closing number. Surely the most straightforwardly rousing anthem ever written about class rage, it causes delirium on a scale not so different from that you can see in old footage of their headlining appearance: a highlight then, it's also one of the most joyous moments so far in this year's festival. Presumably somewhat by coincidence, the Red Arrows stage a flypast midway through the song. And off Pulp go, Jarvis promising to see the audience in Arcadia later.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store