I first became aware of the potential of nuclear energy, as an alternative to fossil fuels, during my Fate of the Earth class at Dartmouth. Even then, Professor Oreskes emphasized the uncertainties about whether it could/should became a primary source of power.However, she talked less about the safety of production and more about the question of where the nuclear waste could be stored. I recall that we were asked to assess the site at Yucca Mountain.
Jaczko does not even mention the issue of nuclear waste. Rather, he focuses on the Fukushima disaster and his gradual realization that similar potential accidents (especially those triggered by natural events like hurricanes and earthquakes), and their effect on nuclear reactors, cannot be adequately addressed.
Nuclear energy accounts for 19% of the United States supply, but there are only two new reactors being built (both in Georgia), and they are beset by delays and cost overruns. Two other projects in South Carolina were cancelled by the company building them (Toshiba (!), through its Westinghouse subsidiary).
620. I am surprised by this article. I did not realized that nuclear energy was on its way "out". Is Jaczko correct, or is he somewhat biased because of his current connection to the wind power industry?
