About Thomas P Cochran (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) USofA

Link: https://thebulletin.org/bio/thomas-b-cochran Please see link above for original article, embedded hotlinks and comments.

Thomas B. Cochran

A nuclear physicist, Cochran is a senior scientist at the Natural Resource Defense Council's (NRDC) Nuclear Program and a member of the Energy Department's Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee. His expertise includes nuclear weapons, fissile material control, and nuclear waste management.

At the NRDC, he initiated the Nuclear Weapons Datebook project in 1980 and the U.S.-Soviet nuclear test ban verification project in 1986 with the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Note: For the most part, he has not contributed to developing nuclear technologies, just tearing them down. What a world that would be. The initiative to stop development of breeder reactors denies the United States access to already mined and milled fertile nuclear material, enough to power all of America’s electrical energy needs at 1994 levels for 700 years. See graph at end of this article. That would be an act of war if that much energy was taken away by other methods.

Instead, the Natural Resources Defense Council and their Hollywood front man are looked up to

by Americans who don’t want nuclear power.

Articles by Thomas B. Cochran 1 May 2010

It's Time to Give Up on Breeder Reactors Thomas B. CochranHarold A. FeivesonZia MianM. V. RamanaMycle SchneiderFrank N. von Hippel Since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear energy advocates have dreamed of a reactor that could produce more fuel than it used. More than 60 years and $100 billion later, that vision remains as far from reality as ever.

Agree to Disagree 5 February 2009

1

Safety and carbon mitigation must be top energy priorities, not advanced nuclear energy projects Thomas B. Cochran Going forward what should we do about the biggest issues that have plagued the nuclear power industry? They are--proliferation; the risk of another catastrophic nuclear plant accident; spent fuel/high-level waste disposal; and poor economics.

Agree to Disagree 10 December 2008

Current nuclear technology isn't a cost-effective solution to U.S. energy, climate change, and security needs Thomas B. Cochran Miles Pomper and Stephen Goldberg have made several good suggestions regarding how the Obama administration should focus its nuclear energy efforts--i.e., encouraging developing countries that are considering nuclear power to forgo proliferation-sensitive uranium enrichment and spent fuel reproce Agree to Disagree 22 October 2008

We must focus on alternative energy technologies that can mitigate climate change in the near-term, not nuclear power Thomas B. Cochran Stephen Goldberg argues that the United States must have a robust research and development program to create and deploy advanced reprocessing technologies and fast reactors in order for us to influence how other countries manage their nuclear fuel and waste.

Agree to Disagree 17 September 2008

Positive spin on GNEP ignores dangerous aspects of partnership Thomas B. Cochran

2

Stephen Goldberg has been careful to focus his discussion on the least controversial aspects of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), providing fuel services to emerging nuclear energy countries.

This graph published by the DOE in 1995 shows that already mined and milled depleted uranium and used nuclear fuel can provide all of America’s electrical energy needs at 1994 levels for over 700 years.

2,138 TWy / 2.85 TWy/y = 750.17 years No resource of this economic importance has been taken away from the American people so that it could be “put back in the ground!” That is what the Natural Resources Defense Council and other anti-nuclear power organizations insist be done. That is far worse than taking away all our domestic reserves of petroleum. They want that left in the ground also.

3