دانلود کتاب انقلاب هسته ای

Nuclear energy is having a moment. Republicans support nuclear energy because it provides national and energy security benefits. Democrats support it because it’s the only credible pathway to meeting their climate objectives. The once mighty and influential antinuclear movement has virtually no seat at the table, and the industry itself is no longer defined by disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Even the Fukushima accident in Japan in 2011 is ancient history to younger Americans. Hollow scaremongering about the dangers of nuclear energy has been supplanted by decades of safe operation, reliability, and familiarity. Communities nationwide have not only lived with nuclear power but thrived with it. The debate over the integrity of nuclear energy is over. Experience demonstrates that it provides good jobs, clean energy, and dependable power. As the late conservative writer Andrew Breitbart famously said, “Politics is downstream from culture,” and that is nowhere truer than when it comes to nuclear energy. When the fearful cultural aura around nuclear power started to fade, the politics also began to shift. And now, in a deeply divided America, this is one issue on which liberals and conservatives—Democrats and Republicans—largely agree, at least in principle. Today, a clear national consensus is emerging that nuclear energy is important to the future of the country, and that our political leaders need to act to bring about that future. None of this would have happened if American culture had not shifted in a pronuclear direction. The politics is following. But public acceptance alone will not result in a vibrant, competitive, and sustainable industry. Whether we like it or not, economics matter. No industry can succeed if it’s not economically competitive—and this must be the focus of the debate over nuclear energy in today’s discourse. While the antinuclear movement has been largely cast aside, its legacy looms in every corner of the American nuclear energy industry and the halls of power that affect its economic viability. Skepticism sown through decades of misinformation around nuclear power from those who opposed it continues to inform how the industry is regulated. Indeed, this skepticism has resulted in a regulatory approach that imposes unnecessary costs, has hindered innovation, and has left our political and industry leaders fearful of championing the sorts of reforms that most would recognize are necessary and legitimate. While nuclear does currently enjoy broad public and bipartisan political support, little is being done to reform the underlying policies and regulations that got the industry to the suboptimal position it is in today. To be clear, this is not to criticize the nuclear industry. That it even exists at all is testament to its value and resiliency. For nearly six decades, America’s nuclear companies have had to deal with whipsaw policies that try to push the industry forward at one moment and shut it down in the next. America’s incoherent nuclear energy policies can often do both simultaneously. So while this book will argue against subsidies for nuclear energy (or any other type of energy), it will not criticize firms for accepting those subsidies. No one in their right mind would invest their own money in an undertaking so wrought in political risk if the government, which largely created that risk in the first place, didn’t do the same. People on both sides of the debate will argue that nuclear energy is just too expensive to move forward. Those who support it will say that subsidies are needed to make the economics work and help validate new technologies. Those who oppose it will say that no amount of subsidy will create a viable industry.