October 28, 2009
Is Nuclear Power the Answer?
Theodore Rockwell
Author of The Rickover Effect and Creating the New World
Minutes of the Seventh Meeting of the 68th Year
President George Hansen called the seventh meeting of the 69th year to order at 10:15. Ben Colbert read the minutes of the previous week’s meeting. About 95 members were in attendance. Guests and their introducers were: Tim Chaston (Jim Harford), and Mary Walsh (Jim Walsh).
Our speaker, Theodore Rockwell, was introduced by his classmate and friend, John Brinster. Mr. Rockwell’s topic was, “Is Nuclear Power the Answer?” Among his many distinctions, Mr. Rockwell Is the author of “The Rickover Effect,” and “Creating the New World.” He received the Distinguished Service Medal from both the U.S. Navy and the Atomic Energy Commission. He is an engineer with decades of experience in the development and maintenance of nuclear power facilities.
Mr. Rockwell emphasized that he is an engineer, not a politician, so would address the technical aspects of nuclear power rather than political interests or popular concerns about nuclear energy. But he paused several times during his remarks for questions or comments, some of which referenced media and political criticisms concerning the storage of nuclear waste. He dismissed these concerns as largely misunderstandings of the danger of nuclear waste, and hinted that such anxieties might be fanned by those representing other energy sources such as coal, gas, wind, or solar power. The speaker believes that waste from burning fossil fuels constitutes a proper source of environmentalists’ concern; but the problems from nuclear waste are trivial by comparison. In fact, he says, waste from nuclear plants can be recycled, except for a single atom.
Mr. Rockwell discussed the accidents at Three Mile Island (where he was involved in the cleanup operation), and the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl. In the former case, the core meltdown was contained by the safeguards built into the system, and the speaker’s company removed the radioactive material without personal harm. Chernobyl was not a commercial reactor made to generate power, but was designed to produce material for atomic weapons, a very different type of installation. The Russian plant was badly designed and poorly maintained; the meltdown was a direct result of a series of risks taken by the plant’s staff. Nevertheless, not all reactors are completely safe from such accidents; however, they can be made safe from harming the population.
One questioner, a physician, asked, “What about radioactivity as a cause of medical problems?” The response was that such effects cannot derive from nuclear plant operations. An individual would have to ingest the nuclear waste to suffer physical harm. Mr. Rockwell pointed out that no other country, including scientifically advanced ones like France, agonizes over building nuclear reactors as we Americans do.
Another query was, “Where do we find the money to build extremely expensive nuclear power plants?” Mr. Rockwell agreed that such facilities are indeed very costly; he suggested that bid requirements in the United States are too complex, and unrealistic requirements could be safely reduced. He also pointed out that all energy costs need to be compared: nuclear waste can be recycled. Fossil fuels impose environmental costs and solar and wind power have limitations in terms of capacity, delivery of power over transmission lines, and the height of windmills, as well as the substantial costs of installing them.
Certainly, Mr. Rockwell is experienced and knowledgeable about nuclear power. It was clear from members’ questions and post-meeting discussions that, while not all doubts had been resolved, we had become better informed, and some common concerns had been challenged.
Respectfully submitted,
James Deneen
Our speaker, Theodore Rockwell, was introduced by his classmate and friend, John Brinster. Mr. Rockwell’s topic was, “Is Nuclear Power the Answer?” Among his many distinctions, Mr. Rockwell Is the author of “The Rickover Effect,” and “Creating the New World.” He received the Distinguished Service Medal from both the U.S. Navy and the Atomic Energy Commission. He is an engineer with decades of experience in the development and maintenance of nuclear power facilities.
Mr. Rockwell emphasized that he is an engineer, not a politician, so would address the technical aspects of nuclear power rather than political interests or popular concerns about nuclear energy. But he paused several times during his remarks for questions or comments, some of which referenced media and political criticisms concerning the storage of nuclear waste. He dismissed these concerns as largely misunderstandings of the danger of nuclear waste, and hinted that such anxieties might be fanned by those representing other energy sources such as coal, gas, wind, or solar power. The speaker believes that waste from burning fossil fuels constitutes a proper source of environmentalists’ concern; but the problems from nuclear waste are trivial by comparison. In fact, he says, waste from nuclear plants can be recycled, except for a single atom.
Mr. Rockwell discussed the accidents at Three Mile Island (where he was involved in the cleanup operation), and the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl. In the former case, the core meltdown was contained by the safeguards built into the system, and the speaker’s company removed the radioactive material without personal harm. Chernobyl was not a commercial reactor made to generate power, but was designed to produce material for atomic weapons, a very different type of installation. The Russian plant was badly designed and poorly maintained; the meltdown was a direct result of a series of risks taken by the plant’s staff. Nevertheless, not all reactors are completely safe from such accidents; however, they can be made safe from harming the population.
One questioner, a physician, asked, “What about radioactivity as a cause of medical problems?” The response was that such effects cannot derive from nuclear plant operations. An individual would have to ingest the nuclear waste to suffer physical harm. Mr. Rockwell pointed out that no other country, including scientifically advanced ones like France, agonizes over building nuclear reactors as we Americans do.
Another query was, “Where do we find the money to build extremely expensive nuclear power plants?” Mr. Rockwell agreed that such facilities are indeed very costly; he suggested that bid requirements in the United States are too complex, and unrealistic requirements could be safely reduced. He also pointed out that all energy costs need to be compared: nuclear waste can be recycled. Fossil fuels impose environmental costs and solar and wind power have limitations in terms of capacity, delivery of power over transmission lines, and the height of windmills, as well as the substantial costs of installing them.
Certainly, Mr. Rockwell is experienced and knowledgeable about nuclear power. It was clear from members’ questions and post-meeting discussions that, while not all doubts had been resolved, we had become better informed, and some common concerns had been challenged.
Respectfully submitted,
James Deneen