Thomas Cochran has been working with the Natural Resources Defense Council since the 1970s to impede the use of nuclear power, particularly the kind that uses most of the potential energy and produces the lease amount of radioactive waste: In his 1977 testimony to Congress, he makes several assertions against advanced nuclear power: 1) The risks of making massive investments in a plutonium-based energy technology, 2) The misplaced energy priorities characterized by an excessive emphasis on commercialization of the LMFBR technology, neglect of energy conservation potential and under funding of alternative non-nuclear supply technologies.
Charles Barton, lead advocate for advanced nuclear power technologies, in particular from thorium: Thomas B. Cochran is a lobbyist employed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, to attack nuclear power on a full time basis. As befits a Lobbyist, Cochran is well compensated. In 2006 Cochran was one of the 5 highest paid employees of the NRDC, with a total compensation package approaching $200,000. In 2006 the largest single foundation donor to the the NRDF was the Energy Foundation, an environmental funding NGO, that also funds many other anti-nuclear "environmental organizations.
Rod Adams, Atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. Financial, strategic, and political analyst.: Excessive regulation of extremely low radiation doses increases the public fears of nuclear technology, increases the costs borne by society, and can deprive society of the full benefit of that technology.” – Edward Maher, Sc.D., Harvard University
Neil Alexander, Ph.D. radiation damage in steels, business strategist, consultant and advocate for nuclear energy: In the 1950s, civilian nuclear power was born. We had already started using the by-products from the industry for radiation therapies to treat cancer. Now, reactors operating at not much more than atmospheric pressure using molten salts as a coolant. Reactors that can consume nuclear waste or transmute other elements into fuel. So when someone says we shouldn't develop new nuclear technologies because there were some problems in the past, tell them that that is like deciding not to develop the Dreamliner because the Wright flyer was too draughty.
Neil Alexander, Ph.D. radiation damage in steels, business strategist, consultant and advocate for nuclear energy: In this world, when we finally admit the renewables experiment was a failure, we will look around and find we have few other options available to us. New nuclear if we need it will take decades to research, develop, test, license and deploy.