Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, which in some cases is billions of yearsI do not believe that nuclear power is worth the present benefits since it creates radiation.” Admiral RICKOVER, Father of the US Nuclear Navy, 1982)

Thirty-five years ago, the “Father of the Nuclear Navy”; of the world’s first commercial Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), and thus a major father of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and much of the commercial nuclear reactor industry testified before Congress.

In his testimony, Admiral Rickover objected both to continued subsidies to the nuclear industry, and to the existence of nuclear power itself, because of the radioactive discharges and radioactive waste:

Admiral RICKOVER. I do not believe the Government should spend money fostering nuclear power. Government should have people checking on their operation. I do not believe the Government should subsidize the development of commercial nuclear power. They have done enough now

RADIOACTIVITY PROBLEM

I will be philosophical. Until about 2 billion years ago it was impossible for there to be any life on Earth. That is, there was so much heat and radiation on Earth that there could be no life-fish or any other form of life. Gradually, about 2 billion years ago, the amount of heat and radiation on this planet, and probably in the entire system, became reduced. This made it possible for some form of life to begin. It started in the seas, I understand. The amount of radiation has gradually decreased, because all radiation has a half-life; which means ultimately there could be no radiation.

Now when we use nuclear weapons or nuclear power we are creating something which nature has been eliminating. That is the philosophical aspect, and it pertains whether it is radiation from nuclear weapons, nuclear power, use of radiation for medical or industrial purposes. Of course, some radiation is not bad because it doesn’t last long, or has little effect on the surroundings. We live with a certain amount of natural radiation all the time. But every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, which in some cases is billions of years.

There are, of course, many other things mankind is doing which, in the broadest sense, are having an adverse impact, such as using up scarce resources. I think the human race is ultimately going to wreck itself. It is important that we control these forces and try to eliminate them.

In this broad philosophical sense, I do not believe that nuclear power is worth the present benefits since it creates radiation. You might ask why do I design nuclear-powered ships? That is because it is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. Have I given you an answer to your question?

Senator PROXMIRE. You have certainly given me a surprising answer. I didn’t expect it and it is very logical.

Admiral RICKOVER. Why wouldn’t you expect it?

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, I hadn’t felt that somebody who has been as close to nuclear power as you have and who has been so expert in it and advanced it so greatly would point out that, as you say, it destroys life.

Admiral RICKOVER. I am not proud
Senator PROXMIRE. Without eliminating it or reducing it many years ago, we couldn’t have had life on Earth. It’s fascinating.
Admiral RICKOVER. I am proud of the part I have played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of our country. That is why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately, attempts to outlaw war have always failed. One lesson of history is when a war erupts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon is available. That is a lesson learned time and again. Therefore, we must expect, if another war-a serious war-were to break out, we will use nuclear energy in some form. That is due to the imperfection of human beings.

PROSPECT OF NUCLEAR WAR
Senator PROXMIRE. What do you think is the prospect, then, of nuclear war?
Admiral RICKOVER. I think we will probably destroy ourselves. So what difference will it make? Some new species will arise eventually; it might be wiser than we are. We think we are wise because we have
Senator PROXMIRE. With that knowledge, it would seem to me that we could control, limit, and reduce nuclear weapons. Every-body loses.
Admiral RICKOVER. From a long-range standpoint-I am talking about humanity-the most important thing we could do at present is to have an international meeting where first we outlaw nuclear weapons. Eventually we could outlaw nuclear reactors too.
Senator PROXMIRE. Do you think that’s realistic in a world with the Soviet Union?
Admiral RICKOVER. I don’t know. You are asking me to think as a person who probably knows more about this issue and has thought more about it than anybody else. I think I have a reasonable mind and I can think these things through. I understand what humanity is all about and the part human beings play on this Earth. I do not believe in divine intercession. I think we are making our own bed and we have to lie on it. We can go to church every Sunday and pray, but the Lord has many demands made on him from many other worlds and in the eyes of the Lord we are not the most important thing in the universe.

ARMS LIMITATIONS

Senator PROXMIRE. So you think if we have the commitment, we can limit and reduce our arms?
Admiral RICKOVER. Yes, sir. I remember the 1921 disarmament conference. That is the one Charles Evans Hughes helped organize. The United States called that conference and had significant results. An arms race was underway. England, France, and Italy were building many ships and so were we. The conference resulted in the limitation of arms. The treaty expired in 1935. It would be the finest thing in the world for the President of the United States to initiate another disarmament conference. It can be done. They did it then. The agreement lasted for a period of 15 years. It expired in 1935. By that time Hitler had come to power in Germany and there was no choice of continuing disarmament. Had it not been for him, probably disarmament would have gone on and decreased the amount of armaments even more. I believe this is a propitious time, since military expenses are eating up so much money. These costs are completely unproductive, and use so much of the people’s taxes. This would be a fine thing for the President to do, and I urge you, in your capacity as a Senator, to try to do as I suggest. Make me a member. I will do something. Put me in charge of it and I will get you some results.

NAVAL ACADEMY

Senator PROXMIRE. I’m sure you would and I’ll do my best to help. Admiral, one of your major contributions has been in obtaining highly qualified officers to serve in the Navy’s nuclear power program, and I think some of the interviews that you have conducted-at least as they have been reported-have been extremely colorful, some people think even cruel, but extraordinarily effective. You have had a particular interest in improving the U.S. Naval Academy. How do you view this situation today and is it getting better?
Admiral RIcKovER. Today’s Navy is a highly technical calling. All of the Navy’s leaders, both in the nuclear and nonnuclear field need solid technical knowledge to deal adequately with sophisticated equipment and to properly lead the people in today’s ships and in the shore establishment. My concern is that the Naval Academy may not be fully supporting this need. During the past few weeks I interviewed over 250 midshipmen from the Academy who will graduate this June. I have interviewed more than 5,000 Naval Academy midshipmen personally over the past 20 years. Each of them had previously been interviewed by three experienced engineers separately, with each interview lasting…
” (pp. 60-63) “ECONOMICS OF DEFENSE POLICY: ADM. H. G. RICKOVER, HEARING BEFORE THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION PART 1, JANUARY 28, 1982.http://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/97th%20Congress/Economics%20of%20Defense%20Policy%20-%20Adm.%20H.%20G.%20Rickover%20Part%20I%20(1110).pdf (Emphasis our own)

Thus, one sees that Sandia National Nuclear Lab “managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000,” which in turn subcontracted out a study to “Scitor Corporation, an SAIC Company” – a waste of taxpayer money upon a waste of taxpayer money – is telling outrageous lies when they claim that nuclear is clean and that nuclear has not had access to “extensive incentive programs”. In fact, NuScale, quoted by this “study”, is based on a US government funded project which the US government dropped and somehow former US DOE workers got the patent (probably expired) for it, and are still getting government funding! This is a major taxpayer rip-off. Construction only (ignoring waste and fuel fabrication) makes it more costly than solar or wind. NuScale project has received funding in the early 2000s, and more recently, well after Rickover said that the government had done enough. And, the SMRs go back to old reactor designs, several of which were designed by Lockheed Martin ancestor, Martin Co., and which were paid for, of course, by the taxpayer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program Another huge “incentive” to the nuclear industry, ongoing, is the agreement by the government to dispose of nuclear waste, as well as a cap on nuclear accident liability. Since the Federal government doesn’t know what to do with the nuclear waste, they are being sued by the utilities. The US taxpayer paid for both the contractor (Lockheed Martin) and subcontractor (Scitor, SAIC) to spout these patently outrageous lies: “In contrast to nuclear, other clean energy sources such as solar and wind have had access to extensive incentive programs at the Federal and state level. Investor-owned developers of solar projects, for example, have had access to a production tax credit of $0.023/kwh, or an investment tax credit of 30% of project cost that is convertible to a cash grant at the time the project goes into operation. An analysis by NuScale Power found; however, that even if an SMR has access to the more generous incentives available to solar, the cost of power from an investor-owned SMR remains slightly higher than one with municipal or cooperative ownership“. “SANDIA REPORT SAND 2016-2600 Unlimited Release March 2016 Assessment of Small Modular Reactor Suitability for Use On or Near Air Force Space Command Installations Bobby Middleton, Thomas R. Boland, William E. Schlafli, Bruce T. Landreyhttps://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/SANDReport_Final.pdf

NuScale was founded based on research funded by the Department of Energy from 2000 to 2003. After funding was cut, scientists with the program obtained related patents in 2007 and started NuScale to commercialize the technology. In 2011, the company’s largest investor had its assets frozen due to an investigation by the Securities Exchange Commission. The company experienced financial hardship, until new funding was obtained from Fluor Corporation and later from the Department of Energy. NuScale is currently planning the first NuScale power plant in Idaho….
NuScale’s SMR designs are for 9′ by 65′ reactor vessels that use conventional light water cooling methods. Each module is intended to be kept in an underground pool and is expected to produce about 50 megawatts of electricity….” Each NuScale reactor vessel is expected to be 9 feet by 65 feet and weigh 650 tons.[17] The modules would be pre-fabricated, delivered by rail-car, barge or special trucks[25] and assembled on-site.[8][9][26][27] The units are designed to produce 50 megawatts.[28][a] of electricity each and require refueling with standard 4.95 percent enriched Uranium 235 fuel every two years.[17]… The company estimates a twelve-unit NuScale plant would cost $5,000 per kilowatt
“. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/department-of-energy-awards-another-226-million-for-small-modular-reactor-d

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/when-it-comes-to-nuclear-power-small-isnt-beautiful-nor-safe-nor-cheap-nor-even-new-usnrc-nuscale-comment-deadline-monday-night-31-august-one-minute-to-midnight-ny-dc-time/

Modern day nuclear proponents either follow, or have fallen victim, to Hitler’s big lie theory: “people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe ithttps://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/his-primary-rules-never-allow-the-public-to-cool-off-repeat-a-big-lie-frequently-enough-and-people-sooner-or-later-believe-it/
But, lying and saying something true, doesn’t make it so. And, the majority of the American people do not believe the lies that nuclear is safe or good for you. Neither do real scientists. They continue to find that it is worse than previously believed. US government funded BEIR reports have said for half a century that there is no safe dose of nuclear radiation. Increased dose is increased risk.

60 minutes interview with Rickover: http://youtu.be/lpAWiqwSw-U
PBS trailer for Rickover movie: http://youtu.be/Xqe3P0wOCXo ( Steve Bannon was executive producer)

There is a public hearing on storing high level nuclear waste in “interim storage” in West Texas on Monday. The evening meeting seems to be half-way between WCS in Andrews Texas and WIPP. See here: https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20170131

There is a telephone hearing on the proposed SMRs for Clinch River on Monday. Although the deadline to sign up was the 10th they might let you sign up on Monday morning anyway.
To discuss topics associated with the following sections in Part 2 (SSAR) of TVA’s early site permit application for the Clinch River Nuclear Site: 2.1 – Geography and Demography, 2.2 – Nearby Industrial, Transportation and Military Facilities, and 2.3 – Meteorology. Other topics related to the application review may also be discussed
Meeting Feedback
Meeting Dates and Times
02/13/17
1:00PM – 2:00PM
Meeting Location
Teleconference
Contact
Allen Fetter
301-415-8556

Mallecia Sutton
301-415-0763

Participation Level
Category 1
NRC Participants
Office of New Reactors
External Participants

Docket Numbers – Facility Names

Related Documents
ML17040A271 – NRC-TVA Public Meeting on February 13, 2017 – Topics For Discuss.

ML17031A388 – 02/13/2017 Notice of Forthcoming Meeting between the U.S. NRC and Tennessee Valley Authority to Discuss Topics Associated With Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 in Part 2 (SSAR) of TVA’s Early Site Permit Application

Comments
Members of the public may request to call in for the meeting by contacting Allen Fetter at 301-415-8556, or via e-mail at Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov, or Mallecia Sutton at 301-415-0673 or Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov by 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), February 10, 2017.

https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20170123