Today: 31.Oct.2020

Thomas Cochran has been working with the Natural Resources Defense Council since the 1970s to stop the use of nuclear power, particularly the kind that uses most of the potential energy and produces the lease amount of radioactive waste. This article shows his position in 2006. It would put the world back in the state it was in before there was plentiful nuclear energy. So many saviors would have the world using the least energy dense sources for electric power, transportation, industrial processes, heating and air conditioning. Too many nuclear energy professionals and most nuclear energy organizations are not sufficiently involved in the effort to have the public understand the tremendous benefits and the actual very low risks of nuclear energy. Fear mongering and simple statements sells well with the public.

Published in USA

Eric Jelinski, Nuclear/Chemical/Mechanical Engineer: From the beginning of use of commercial nuclear power in the 1960s, scientists and engineers knew that the long term future of nuclear power depended on recycling of uranium spent fuel. Anti-nuclear organizations managed to get several U.S. presidents to stop development of advanced nuclear power technologies that can use recycled spent nuclear fuel efficiently. France, Japan, Russia, and the U.S. worked on developing recycling technologies practically from the beginning. France, Russia, China, Korea are going ahead with developing spent nuclear fuel technology. They will be well rewarded. Those who bend to anti-nuclear organizations will be held back at significant price.

Published in Canada

John Shanahan, civil engineer, president of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: Comment #2 on Bloomberg BNA article, Nuclear won't avoid climate problem, (Bobby Magill). Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) describes challenges of “impacts of climate change on dangerous nuclear waste.” If the ideas in this article are implemented and the reasoning about catastrophic man-made climate change, etc., and dangerous nuclear waste turn out to be wrong, the consequences of going without fossil fuels, permanently disposing of hazardous nuclear waste (used nuclear fuel), and not using the approximate 99% available energy in the uranium ore stored in depleted uranium and used nuclear fuel will certainly be a disaster for humanity.

Published in USA

John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: China, France, Russia, South Korea are countries with a bright future for nuclear power, even oil exporting countries have plans for nuclear power. The United States has minimal plans beyond the first generation of commercial power plants. This is disgraceful. The anti-nuclear organizations, spokespersons, and the public that agree with them can cheer for the moment. Modern societies need fossil fuels and nuclear power to prosper for the long term future. Things have to change and will.

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net: Many…
  • Sebastian Luening, paleogeologist, editor of kaltesonne.de: FFF,…
  • visualcapitalist.com: Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster…
  • .
  • Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, and members of…