Expert: Nuclear Power Is On Its Deathbed

Reader Comments
Back to article

Mark Cooper is NOT an expert on nuclear power. He is an anti-nuclear activitist who happens to have a PhD and calls himself an expert. Bull. The US News and World Report should be ashamed at the headline of this article. Pathetic.

Dave LV of NV 10:20PM March 30, 2012

The only accident with present-day Generation 1&2
LWRs that killed anyone was in the Soviet Union. That
type of reactor isn't built now, only passively-safe
Generation 3 types. Gen 4 types are mention in comments, available in a few years to decades.
This article is totally pessimistic...
The real reason Gen 3 will not get built here in the
near-future, except for a few now being licensed, is
because of cheap shale natgas. This isn't mentioned
in the article.

VACornell of CA 9:30PM March 30, 2012

Dr Alvin Weinberg, patent holder on the LWR reactor, cautioned using LWR for civil electrical power generation. He, as director of Oak Ridge, spent twenty years developing the {molten salt thermal breeder}MSTB with notable successes as a flex fuel reactor using spent fuel and weapon nuclear grade waste as fuel to produce electricity.
It takes 200 TONS of Uranium solid fuel LWR for a 06.0%cleanburn, leaving 35.0tons of waste, requiring 10,000 years of Yucca Mtn type storage. The LFTR Molten Salt Reactor burns 1 TON of natural THorium, LWR nuclear waste(spent fuel), and even Weapon Grade Nuclear Waste with a 96%cleanburn, leaving minuscule amount of waste requiring 500 years of storage while producing the same amount of clean electric power with no CO2 or Yucca Mtn.
LFTR an opportunity which must be pursued.

Terry Floyd of GA 9:09PM March 30, 2012

You know what drives me nuts? There is a perfectly viable, walk-away safe nuclear system that hardly anyone is using, because it was arbitrarily unpopular back in the day and got betamaxed. It's called a Thorium MSR, and the only reason we don't have hundreds of these today running our grids is because we deferred the in-depth and expensive safety analyses until now, instead of doing it in the first place. Such was our infatuation with Uranium then, and we're paying for it now.
So as a result, people think nuclear power is inherently dangerous, thanks to incidents like Fukushima. Rod fission reactors have smeared the whole business. You get nutters who think that every nuke plant is a three mile island or Chernobyl waiting to happen. I'm not saying they don't have a point about existing reactors, but nuclear is the only way to power our civilization long-term until we have cold fusion or near-orbit solar reflectors. And there are 100% safe, apocalypse proof ways to build them. I'd hate to see the good designs sabotaged by the reputation of the bad ones.

Philip Horger of OR 7:45PM March 30, 2012

There are many nuclear technologies that are substantively different from those most people are used to and that are commonly used these days.
It's unfortunate that people cannot see past the current state of things to what is possible. I have become convinced that thorium-based reactors have significant advantages over conventional fission systems.

Filippo Arnaldo Salustri 7:24PM March 30, 2012

Nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and deadly.
1 million additional deaths attributed to Chernobyl.
100,000 attributed to Three Mile Island.
How many will be attributed to Fukushima remains to be seen as the cancer gestation period is 5 to 40 years.
In addition, nuclear power plants release cancerous radiation into the air and water during their normal operations. The Savannah River and the Colombia River are highly polluted with nuclear radiation.
Studies have proven increases in leukemia in children living near nuclear power plants.
5 times increase in cancer rates of uranium miners.
40% increase in leukemia in downwinders of Rocky Flats.
The sad statistics go on and on.
Even Albert Einstein called nuclear energy "a menace."

Kara of GA 7:22PM March 30, 2012

@ DD of GA 4:00PM March 30, 2012
Please check out www.dirkpublishing.com for an understanding of thorium's advantages.

tmaloney of MI 6:30PM March 30, 2012

Statistics do not support nuclear power being near as dangerous as coal or even natural gas. Nuclear captures ALL waste. People are breathing and ingesting the waste of coal, gas, etc. and living with resulting diseases like asthma and dying, and that doesnt count mining/drilling deaths for coal/gas. There have been three Significant nuclear accidents with only one Chernobyl, having any deaths. Why do people choose to fear the safest form of energy.

Ed of NY 6:24PM March 30, 2012

Coal, gas and nuclear are unacceptable for the future. That is the challenge

Tim 6:24PM March 30, 2012

Back to article
disaster insurance for (nuclear) {coal} power plants in the United States is currently (underwritten by the federal government) {borne by public health expenditures and accumulating carbon debt} , (Cooper) {any competent observer} says. Without that safeguard, "(nuclear power) {fossil fuel} is neither affordable nor worth the risk. If the owners and operators of (nuclear reactors) {fossil-fuel facilities} had to face the full liability of (a Fukushima-style nuclear accident) {eco-collapse} or go head-to-head with alternatives in a truly competitive marketplace, (unfettered) {relieved of responsibility by} (subsidies) {externalization of their social effects}, no one would have built a (nuclear reactor) {coal-burner} in the past, no one would build one today, and anyone who owns a (reactor) {coal facility} would exit the (nuclear) {energy} business as quickly as possible."

tmaloney of MI 6:24PM March 30, 2012