Chapter 15. The History of Nuclear Energy

The development of nuclear energy exemplifies the consequences of scientific study, technological effort, and commercial application. We will review the history for its relation to our cultural background, which should include man's endeavors in the broadest sense. The author subscribes to the traditional conviction that history is relevant. Present understanding is grounded in recorded experience, and although we cannot undo errors, we can avoid them in the future. It is to be hoped that we can establish concepts and principles about human attitudes and capabilities that are independent of time to help guide future action. Finally, we can draw confidence and inspiration from the knowledge of what human beings have been able to accomplish.

15.1. The Rise of Nuclear Physics

The science on which practical nuclear energy is based can be categorized as classical, evolving from studies in chemistry and physics for the last several centuries, and modern, which relates to investigations over the past hundred years into the structure of the atom and nucleus. The modern era begins in 1879 with Crookes' achievement of ionization of a gas by an electric discharge. Thomson in 1897 identified the electron as the charged particle responsible for electricity. Roentgen in 1895 discovered penetrating X-rays from a discharge tube, and Becquerel in 1896 found similar rays—now known as γ-rays—from an entirely different source, the element uranium, which exhibited the phenomenon of radioactivity. The Curies in 1898 isolated the radioactive element radium. As a part of his revolutionary theory of motion, Einstein in 1905 concluded that the mass of any object increased with its speed and stated his now-famous formula E = mc², which expresses the equivalence of mass and energy. At that time, no experimental verification was available, and Einstein could not have foreseen the implications of his equation.

In the first third of the 20^th century, a host of experiments with the various particles coming from radioactive materials led to a rather clear understanding of the structure of the atom and its nucleus. It was learned from the work of Rutherford and Bohr that the electrically neutral atom is constructed from negative charge in the form of electrons surrounding a central positive nucleus, which contains most of the matter of the atom. Through further work by Rutherford in England around 1919, it was revealed that even though the nucleus is composed of particles bound together by forces of great strength, nuclear transmutations could be induced (e.g., the bombardment of nitrogen by helium yields oxygen and hydrogen).

In 1930, Bothe and Becker bombarded beryllium with α particles from polonium and found what they thought were γ-rays but which Chadwick in 1932 showed to be neutrons. A similar reaction is now used in nuclear reactors to provide a source of neutrons. Artificial radioactivity was first reported in 1934 by Curie and Joliot. Particles injected into nuclei of boron, magnesium, and aluminum gave new radioactive isotopes of several elements. The development of machines to accelerate charged particles to high speeds opened up new opportunities to study nuclear reactions. The cyclotron, developed in 1932 by Lawrence, was the first of a series of devices of ever-increasing capability.

15.2. The Discovery of Fission

During the 1930s, Enrico Fermi and his coworkers in Italy performed a number of experiments with the newly discovered neutron. He reasoned correctly that the lack of charge on the neutron would make it particularly effective in penetrating a nucleus. Among his discoveries was the great affinity of slow neutrons for many elements and the variety of radioisotopes that could be produced by neutron capture. Breit and Wigner provided the theoretical explanation of slow neutron processes in 1936. Fermi made measurements of the distribution of both fast and thermal neutrons and explained the behavior in terms of elastic scattering, chemical binding effects, and thermal motion in the target molecules. During this period, many cross sections for neutron reactions were measured, including that of uranium, but the fission process was not identified.

It was not until January 1939 that Hahn and Strassmann of Germany reported that they had found the element barium as a product of neutron bombardment of uranium. Frisch and Meitner made the guess that fission was responsible for the appearance of an element that is only half as heavy as uranium and that the fragments would be very energetic. Fermi then suggested that neutrons might be emitted during the process, and the idea was born that a chain reaction that releases great amounts of energy might be possible. The press picked up the idea, and many sensational articles were written. The information on fission, brought to the United States by Bohr on a visit from Denmark, prompted a flurry of activity at several universities, and by 1940 nearly a hundred papers had appeared in the technical literature. All of the qualitative characteristics of the chain reaction were soon learned—the moderation of neutrons by light elements, thermal and resonance capture, the existence of fission in U-235 by thermal neutrons, the large energy of fission fragments, the release of neutrons, and the possibility of producing transuranic elements, those beyond uranium in the periodic table.

15.3. The Development of Nuclear Weapons

The discovery of fission, with the possibility of a chain reaction of explosive violence, was of especial importance at this particular time in history, since World War II had begun in 1939. Because of the military potential of the fission process, a voluntary censorship of publication on the subject was established by scientists in 1940. The studies that showed U-235 to be fissile suggested that the new element plutonium, discovered in 1941 by Seaborg, might also be fissile and thus also serve as a weapon material. As early as July 1939, four leading scientists—Szilard, Wigner, Sachs, and Einstein—had initiated a contact with President Roosevelt, explaining the possibility of an atomic bomb based on uranium. As a consequence, a small grant of $6000 was made by the military to procure materials for experimental testing of the chain reaction. Before the end of World War II, a total of $2 billion had been spent, an almost inconceivable sum in those times. After a series of studies, reports, and policy decisions, a major effort was mounted through the United States Army Corps of Engineers under General Leslie Groves. The code name “Manhattan District” (or “Project”) was devised, with military security mandated on all information.

Although a great deal was known about the individual nuclear reactions, there was great uncertainty as to the practical behavior. Could a chain reaction be achieved at all? If so, could Pu-239 in adequate quantities be produced? Could a nuclear explosion be made to occur? Could U-235 be separated on a large scale? These questions were addressed at several institutions, and design of production plants began almost concurrently, with great impetus provided by the involvement of the United States in World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 by the Japanese. The distinct possibility that Germany was actively engaged in the development of an atomic weapon served as a strong stimulus to the work of American scientists, most of whom were in universities. They and their students dropped their normal work to enlist in some phase of the project.

As it was revealed by the Alsos Mission (see References), a military investigation project, Germany had actually made little progress toward an atomic bomb. A controversy has developed as to the reasons for its failure (see References). One theory is that an overestimate was made of the critical mass of enriched uranium—as tons rather than kilograms—with the conclusion that such amounts were not achievable. The other theory is that scientist Werner Heisenberg, the leader of the German effort, had deliberately stalled the project to prevent Hitler from having a nuclear weapon to use against the Allies.

The Manhattan Project consisted of several parallel endeavors. The major effort was in the United States, with cooperation from the United Kingdom, Canada, and France.

An experiment at the University of Chicago was crucial to the success of the Manhattan Project and also set the stage for future nuclear developments. The team under Enrico Fermi assembled blocks of graphite and embedded spheres of uranium oxide and uranium metal into what was called a “pile.” The main control rod was a wooden stick wrapped with cadmium foil. One safety rod would automatically drop on high neutron level; one was attached to a weight with a rope, ready to be cut with an axe if necessary. Containers of neutron-absorbing cadmium-salt solution were ready to be dumped on the assembly in case of emergency. On December 2, 1942, the system was ready. The team gathered for the key experiment as in Figure 15.1, an artist's recreation of the scene. Fermi calmly made calculations with his slide rule and called for the main control rod to be withdrawn in steps. The counters clicked faster and faster until it was necessary to switch to a recorder, whose pen kept climbing. Finally, Fermi closed his slide rule and said, “The reaction is self-sustaining. The curve is exponential.” The sixtieth anniversary of the startup of the Chicago pile was celebrated in 2002 by Nuclear News with an issue containing an account of the event (see References). Comments by prominent nuclear leaders are also featured.

Figure 15.1. The first man-made chain reaction, December 2, 1942. Painting The Birth of the Atomic Age by Gray Sheahan

(Courtesy Chicago Historical Society).

This first man-made chain reaction gave encouragement to the possibility of producing weapons material and was the basis for the construction of several nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington. By 1944, these were producing plutonium in kilogram quantities.

At the University of California at Berkeley, under the leadership of Ernest O. Lawrence, the electromagnetic separation “calutron” process for isolating U-235 was perfected, and government production plants at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, were built in 1943. At Columbia University, the gaseous diffusion process for isotope separation was studied, forming the basis for the present production system, the first units of which were built at Oak Ridge. At Los Alamos, New Mexico, a research laboratory was established under the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Theory and experiment led to the development of the nuclear weapons, first tested at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, and later used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

The brevity of this account fails to describe adequately the dedication of scientists, engineers, and other workers to the accomplishment of national objectives or the magnitude of the design and construction effort by American industry. Two questions are inevitably raised. Should the atom bombs have been developed? Should they have been used? Some of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project have expressed their feeling of guilt for having participated. Some insist that a lesser demonstration of the destructive power of the weapon should have been arranged, which would have been sufficient to end the conflict. Many others believed that the security of the United States was threatened and that the use of the weapon shortened World War II greatly and thus saved a large number of lives on both sides. Many surviving military personnel scheduled to invade Japan have expressed gratitude for the action taken.

In the ensuing years the buildup of nuclear weapons continued despite efforts to achieve disarmament. The dismantlement of excess weapons will require many years. It is of some comfort, albeit small, that the existence of nuclear weapons has served for several decades as a deterrent to a direct conflict between major powers.

The discovery of nuclear energy has a potential for the betterment of mankind through fission and fusion energy resources and through radioisotopes and their radiation for research and medical purposes. The benefits can outweigh the detriments if mankind is intelligent enough not to use nuclear weapons again.

15.4. Reactor Research and Development

One of the first important events in the United States after World War II ended was the creation of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This civilian federal agency was charged with the management of the nation's nuclear programs, including military protection and development of peaceful uses of the atom. Several national laboratories were established to continue nuclear research, sites such as Oak Ridge, Argonne (near Chicago), Los Alamos, and Brookhaven (on Long Island). A major objective was to achieve practical commercial nuclear power through research and development. Oak Ridge first studied a gas-cooled reactor and later planned a high-flux reactor fueled with highly enriched uranium alloyed with and clad with aluminum that used water as moderator and coolant. A reactor was eventually built in Idaho as the Materials Testing Reactor. The submarine reactor described in Section 20.1was adapted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation for use as the first commercial power plant at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. It began operation in 1957 at an electric power output of 60 MW. Uranium dioxide pellets as fuel were first introduced in this pressurized water reactor (PWR) design.

In the decade of the 1950s, several reactor concepts were tested and dropped for various reasons (see References). One used an organic liquid diphenyl as a coolant on the basis of a high boiling point. Unfortunately, radiation caused deterioration of the compound. Another was the homogeneous aqueous reactor, with a uranium salt in water solution that was circulated through the core and heat exchanger. Deposits of uranium led to excess heating and corrosion of wall materials. The sodium-graphite reactor had liquid metal coolant and carbon moderator. Only one commercial reactor of this type was built. The high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, developed by General Atomics, has not been widely adopted but is a potential alternative to light water reactors by virtue of its graphite moderator, helium coolant, and uranium-thorium fuel cycle.

Two other reactor research and development programs were underway at Argonne over the same period. The first program was aimed at achieving power plus breeding of plutonium by use of the fast reactor concept with liquid sodium coolant. The first electric power from a nuclear source was produced in late 1951 in the Experimental Breeder Reactor, and the possibility of breeding was demonstrated. The second program consisted of an investigation of the possibility of allowing water in a reactor to boil and generate steam directly. The principal concern was with the fluctuations and instability associated with the boiling. Tests called BORAX were performed that showed that a boiling reactor could operate safely, and work proceeded that led to electrical generation in 1955. The General Electric Company then proceeded to develop the boiling water reactor (BWR) concept further, with the first commercial reactor of this type put into operation at Dresden, Illinois, in 1960.

On the basis of the initial success of the PWR and BWR, and with the application of commercial design and construction know-how, Westinghouse and General Electric were able, in the early 1960s, to advertise large-scale nuclear plants of power approximately 500 MWe that would be competitive with fossil fuel plants in the cost of electricity. Immediately thereafter, there was a rapid move on the part of the electric utilities to order nuclear plants, and the growth in the late 1960s was phenomenal. Orders for nuclear steam supply systems for the years 1965–1970 inclusive amounted to approximately 88,000 MWe, which was more than a third of all orders, including fossil-fueled plants. The corresponding nuclear electric capacity was approximately a quarter of the total United States capacity at the end of the period of rapid growth.

After 1970, the rate of installation of nuclear plants in the United States declined, for a variety of reasons: (a) the very long time required—greater than 10 years—to design, license, and construct nuclear facilities; (b) the energy conservation measures adopted as a result of the Arab oil embargo of 1973–1974, which produced a lower growth rate of demand for electricity; and (c) public opposition in some areas. The last order for nuclear plants was in 1978; a number of orders were canceled; and construction was stopped before completion on others. The total nuclear power capacity of the 104 United States reactors in operation by 2007 was 102,056 MW, representing more than 20% of the total electrical capacity of the country. In other parts of the world there were 339 reactors in operation with a 274,285 MW capacity.

This large new power source was put in place in a relatively brief period of 40 y after the end of World War II. The endeavor revealed a new concept—that large-scale national technological projects could be undertaken and successfully completed by the application of large amounts of money and the organization of the efforts of many sectors of society. The nuclear project in many ways served as a model for the United States space program of the 1960s. The important lesson that the history of nuclear energy development may have for us is that urgent national and world problems can be solved by wisdom, dedication, and cooperation.

For economic and political reasons, considerable uncertainty developed about the future of nuclear power in the United States and many other countries of the world. In the next section we will discuss the nuclear controversy and later describe the dimensions of the problem and its solution in coming decades.

15.5. The Nuclear Controversy

The popularity of nuclear power decreased during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, with adverse public opinion threatening to prevent the construction of new reactors. We can attempt to analyze this situation, explaining causes and assessing effects.

In the 1950s, nuclear power was heralded by the AEC and the press as inexpensive, inexhaustible, and safe. Congress was highly supportive of reactor development, and the general public seemed to feel that great progress toward a better life was being made. In the 1960s, however, a series of events and trends raised public concerns and began to reverse the favorable opinion.

First was the youth movement against authority and constraints. In that generation's search for a simpler and more primitive or “natural” lifestyle, the use of wood and solar energy was preferred to energy based on the high technology of the “establishment.” Another target for opposition was the military–industrial complex, blamed for the generally unpopular Viet Nam War. A 1980s version of the antiestablishment philosophy advocated decentralization of government and industry, favoring small locally controlled power units based on renewable resources.

Second was the 1960s environmental movement, which revealed the extent to which industrial pollution in general was affecting wildlife and human beings, with its related issue of the possible contamination of air, water, and land by accidental releases of radioactivity from nuclear reactors. Continued revelations about the extent of improper management of hazardous chemical waste had a side effect of creating adverse opinion about radioactive wastes.

Third was a growing loss of respect for government, with public disillusionment becoming acute as an aftermath of the Watergate affair. Concerned observers cited actions taken by the AEC or the DOE without informing or consulting those affected. Changes in policy about radioactive waste management from one administration to another resulted in inaction, interpreted as evidence of ignorance or ineptness. A common opinion was that no one knew what to do with the nuclear wastes.

A fourth development was the confusion created by the sharp differences in opinion among scientists about the wisdom of developing nuclear power. Nobel prize winners were arrayed on both sides of the argument; the public understandably could hardly fail to be confused and worried about where the truth lay.

The fifth was the fear of the unknown hazard represented by reactors, radioactivity, and radiation. It may be agreed that an individual has a much greater chance of dying in an automobile accident than from exposure to fallout from a reactor accident. But because the hazard of the roads is familiar, and believed to be within the individual's control, it does not evoke nearly as great concern as does a nuclear event.

The sixth was the association between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. This is in part inevitable, because both involve plutonium, use the physical process of fission with neutrons, and have radioactive byproducts. On the other hand, the connection has been cultivated by opponents of nuclear power, who stress the similarities rather than the differences.

As with any subject, there is a spectrum of opinions. At one end are the dedicated advocates, who believe nuclear power to be safe, badly needed, and capable of success only if opposition can be reduced. A large percentage of physical scientists and engineers fall in this category, believing that technical solutions for most problems are possible.

Next are those who are technically knowledgeable but are concerned about the ability of man to avoid reactor accidents or to design and build safe waste facilities. Depending on the strength of their concerns, they may believe that consequences outweigh benefits.

Next are average citizens who are suspicious of government and who believe in “Murphy's law,” being aware of failures such as Love Canal, Three Mile Island, the 1986 space shuttle, and Chernobyl. They have been influenced as well by strong antinuclear claims and tend to be opposed to further nuclear power development, although they recognize the need for continuous electric power generation.

At the other end of the spectrum are ardent opponents of nuclear power who actively speak, write polemics, intervene in licensing hearings, lead demonstrations, or take physical action to try to prevent power plants from coming into being.

There are a variety of attitudes among representatives of the news and entertainment media—newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and movies—but there is an apparent tendency toward skepticism. Nuclear advocates are convinced that any incident involving reactors or radiation is given undue emphasis by the media. They believe that if people were adequately informed they would find nuclear power acceptable. This view is only partially accurate, for two reasons: (a) some technically knowledgeable people are strongly antinuclear; and (b) irrational fears cannot be removed by additional facts. Many people have sought to analyze the phenomenon of nuclear fear, but the study by Weart (see References) is one of the best.

Nevertheless, in recent years there has been a growing public acceptance of nuclear power in the United States for several reasons: (a) the industry has maintained an excellent nuclear safety record, through actions by utilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations; (b) increased awareness of energy needs, related to the continued demand for expensive and uncertain foreign oil; and (c) realization that the generation of electricity by fission does not release greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Polls indicate that two thirds of the public favor the construction of new nuclear plants and some communities welcome them.

15.6. Summary

A series of investigations in atomic and nuclear physics in the period 1879–1939 led to the discovery of fission. New knowledge was developed about particles and rays, radioactivity, and the structures of the atom and the nucleus. The existence of fission suggested that a chain reaction involving neutrons was possible and that the process had military significance. A major national program was initiated in the United States during World War II. The development of uranium isotope separation methods, of nuclear reactors for plutonium production, and of weapons technology culminated in the use of atomic bombs to end the war.

In the post-war period, emphasis was placed on maintenance of nuclear protection and on peaceful applications of nuclear processes under the AEC. Four reactor concepts—the pressurized water, boiling water, fast breeder, and gas-cooled—evolved through work by national laboratories and industry. The first two concepts were brought to commercial status in the 1960s.

Public support for nuclear power waned for a variety of reasons in the late 20th century but has increased markedly in recent years.

15.7. Exercises

1. Enter into an Internet search engine the phrase “Nuclear Age Timeline” and consult several sources to develop a list of what seem to be the most important single events in each decade.
2. Enter into Google the phrase Einstein letter Roosevelt and read the letter of August 2, 1939.

15.8 References

Historical Figures in Nuclear Science Historical Figures in Nuclear Science http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/historical_background.html
Biographies of Roentgen, Becquerel, Mme. Curie, and Rutherford

Wolfe Smyth 1978 Henry De Wolfe Smyth, Reprinted by AMS Press, New York, 1978 and reprinted with additional commentary by Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA 1989. The first unclassified account of the nuclear effort of World War II Atomic Energy for Military Purposes 1945 Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ

The Smyth Report The Smyth Report online http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Smyth
Chapters I, II, IX–XIII, and Appendices

Kelly 2007 Cynthia C Kelly, The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of its Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians 2007 Blackdog & Leventhal New York

The Manhattan Project The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/about.htm
Comprehensive account of WWII project

The History of Nuclear Energy The History of Nuclear Energy http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdf
Includes timeline

Atomic Heritage Atomic Heritage Foundation http://childrenofthemanhattanproject.org
Information on the nuclear effort of WWII

Jungk 1958 Robert Jungk, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns 1958 Harcourt Brace & Co. New York A very readable history of nuclear developments from 1918 to 1955, with emphasis on the atomic bomb. Based on conversations with many participants

Lt. General Leslie R. Groves 1962 Lt. General Leslie R. Groves Now it Can be Told 1962 Harper & Row New York
The account of the Manhattan Project by the person in charge

Hewlett G Richard G. Hewlett, Oscar E. Anderson Jr., The History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission 1972 United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington DC
The New World, Vol. I, 1939/1946; Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Atomic Shield, Vol. II, 1947/1952,1972. The first volume starts with the discovery of fission and covers the Manhattan Project in great detail

The United States The United States Department of Energy, 1977–1994 http://energy.gov/media/Summary_History.pdf
Includes material from 1939 to present. By Terrence R. Fehner and Jack M. Holl

Nuclear Nuclear Age Timeline http://www.em.doe.gov/Publications/timeline.aspx
Events from the pre-40s to 1993, with sources of additional information

Atomic Bomb The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/pdf/DE99001330/DE99001330.pdf
January 1999 edition by F. G. Gosling

Nuclear Technology Milestones Nuclear Technology Milestones: 1942–1998 http://www.nei.org
Search on Timeline. By Nuclear Energy Institute

Allardice 2002 Corbin Allardice, Edward R. Trapnell, The First Pile Nuclear News November 200234-

Murray 1988 Raymond L. Murray, The Etymology of Scram La Grange Park, IL An article on the origin of the word based on correspondence with Norman Hilberry, the Safety Control Rod Axe Man in the Chicago experiment Nuclear News August 1988105-107

Pash 1970 Boris T. Pash, The Alsos Mission 1970 Universal Publishing & Distribution Corp. New York This book, long out of print, describes the adventures of the military unit that entered Germany in World War II to find out about the atom bomb effort

Goudsmit 1947 Samuel A. Goudsmit, Alsos 1947 Henry Schuman, Inc. New York Reprinted in 1983 by Tomash Publishers and American Institute of Physics, with a new introduction by R. V. Jones and supplemental photographs. The technical leader of the Alsos mission describes his experiences and assessment of the German atom bomb program

Walker 1989 Mark Walker, German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939–1949 1989 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

Walker 1990 Mark Walker, Heisenberg, Goudsmit, and the German Atomic Bomb Physics Today January 199052- This article prompted a series of letters to the editor in the issues of May 1991 and February 1992

Charles 1993 Sir Frank Charles, Operation Epsilon: The Farm Hall Transcripts 1993 University of California Press Berkeley Recorded conversations among German scientists captured at the end of World War II

Rose 1998 Paul Lawrence Rose, Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project: A Study in German Culture 1998 University of California Press Berkeley Thorough investigation with voluminous bibliography. Believes that the critical mass was overestimated by error

Groueff 1967 Stephane Groueff, Manhattan Project 1967 Little, Brown & Co. Boston Subtitle: The Untold Story of the Making of the Atomic Bomb. The author benefited from material published right after WWII and interviews with participants. The book was praised by both General Leslie Groves and AEC Commissioner Glenn Seaborg

Bird 2005 Kai Bird, Martin J. Sherwin, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer 2005 Knopf New York The best book on the subject

Davis 1968 Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer 1968 Simon & Schuster New York (Also available in paperback from Fawcett Publications). The roles of the two atomic leaders, Ernest O. Lawrence and J. Robert Oppenheimer, and their conflict are described. The book presents an accurate portrayal of the two men

Goldschmidt 1982 Bertrand Goldschmidt, The Atomic Complex 1982 American Nuclear Society La Grange Park, IL A technical and political history of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. The author participated in developments in the United States and France

Rhodes 1986 Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb 1986 Simon & Schuster New York A detailed fascinating account of the Manhattan Project

Rhodes 1995 Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb 1995 Simon & Schuster New York Research and development by both the United States and U.S.S.R. Describes espionage

Simpson 1995 John W Simpson, Nuclear Power from Underseas to Outer Space 1995 American Nuclear Society La Grange Park, IL Personalized technical history of nuclear submarine, early nuclear power, and nuclear rocket by a Westinghouse executive

Dawson 1976 Frank G. Dawson, Nuclear Power: Development and Management of A Technology 1976 University of Washington Press Seattle Covers nuclear power development and regulations from 1946 to around 1975

Murray 2007 Raymond L. Murray, Nuclear Reactors, in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 2007 John Wiley & Sons New York

The Virtual Nuclear Tourist The Virtual Nuclear Tourist http://www.nucleartourist.com
A wealth of information with links to history sites. By Joseph Gonyeau

Weart 1988 Spencer R. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images 1988 Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA An analysis of attitudes toward nuclear power

Hilgartner 1982 Stephen Hilgartner, Richard C. Bell, Rory O'Connor, Nukespeak 1982 Sierra Club Books San Francisco Subtitle: Nuclear Language, Visions, and Mindset

Cohen 1983 Bernard L. Cohen, Before It's Too Late 1983 Plenum Press New York Subtitle: A Scientist's Case FOR Nuclear Energy. Discusses risks on nuclear power and public perception of them

History of the Department History of the Department of Energy's National Laboratories http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/nuggets/historynatlabs.html
Histories of 13 individual national nuclear laboratories