DOCSLIB.ORG

"Nuclear Power Attitudes in USSR."

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
. N ul / NUCLEAR POWER ATTITUDES IN THE U.S.S.R. Richard Wilson ao ~ ' Harvard Universitu go - 9 - Cambridder Massachusetts 0213 0 f .. , , _a v () A. During a recent visit to the Soviet Union, as a duest of the Soviet Academu of Sciences, I made efforts to discover the attitudes of various scientists and others about nuclear electric Power, and in Particular, the effect on Proliferation of nuclear weapons. I talked in Part,icular with Acedemicians Pietr Ka- Pitsa and Andrei Sakharov who, although not directlu involved with the nuclear Power Prodram of the LIS S R , are interested as concerned citizens and had made Publ- ic statements on the subject. In a speech to the Sovi- et Academu of Sciences two sears ador Pietr Kapitsa said there were "three important problems about nuclear Power how to Prevent nuclear accidentsr what to do about nuclear wastes, and how to Prevent Proliferation of nuclear weapons." This was reported in the New York Times in Audust 1977, but the Times did not report the next sentencer 'It is vital that we solve these Prob- lems soon because there is no other solution Ethan nu- clear Power] to the world's enerdu Problems." Napitsa re tu r ned to enerflu -rehlems in his Nobel address in De- cember 1978, and his idean_have been uidolu disseminat- 790824o494 827 130 O D m)D QvI PAGE 2 ~9'} ~ ollu_)].1_ _a ed (1). Sakharov had discussed the importance of nuclear Power to the strendth of the Western world in an arti- cle published durind 1978 in the Orande Counts Press and in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (2). Both Ka- Pitsa and Sakharov reaffirmed their Principal Posi- tions. Kapitsa believes in fusion, and he has a microwave Plasma (3) in his laborators which he believes in the ' hottest Place on earth" (50 million decrees). He is more optimistic about nuclear fusion than most e::Perts I know, and more optimistic than his son, Professor Serdei P. KaPitsa. However, he told me that we must have fission until fusion comes in and several times durind our conversation, coverind an afternoon at his Institute and en afternoon at his Dachar he asked me what the U.S. is doind about a breeder reactor, and seened not to.believe the answer "nothind." I commented that the official Position is that there is enoudh ur- anium until the end of the centuru in the U.S.A.r and beind now G5 uears old, Kapitza feels that 21 uears is a short time. He repeated, "uou must develop a b reetie r . " I discussed in Pa rti.ciela r mu own interest of en- nurinn that evoliferation of nucleer weapons amond na- tions and terrorist droups does not occur (4). We all adreed that this should be limited and all the scien- tists I talked to conuidered tt to be a technica11u in- 827 131 PAGE 3 solubler but hopefullu contro11 abler Problem. Kapitza ' had thouuht about this the most clearlu. He pointed % out that this was a reason whu stovernmen ts must cont rol h,M , nuclear Power so that Plutonium is kept out of Private Kapitra was willind to admit that operation bu '. hands. g [.M stovernments instead of bu private enterprise midht de- crease the efficiencu and therebu increase the cost, but thinks it is a small and necessars Price to Pau. Sakharov believes that Proliferation of weapons, and Plutonium in Particular, can be controlled bu in- stitutional means, and he comrnented that it is imPor- tant not to spend too much time on non-e::istent or small Problems when the real ones of the world e:< i s t . For c::ampl e r he Pointed out that the PLO and the Red B ristaden have stood connections with the KGBr and it would Prabablu be easier for them to det bombs from the KGB than to manufacture even a crude bomb themselves. He stated his belief that if the world situation dets less stabler the KGB will Provide them. Russia is a veru sedmented societu and mu visit was to the Academu of Sciences and not to the Ministru of Atomic Enerdu. Most scientists I met are not inter- ested in this issue. Hownver, all the scientists were most interested in a factual doucription of what h. Pened at Three Mile Islandr Pennsulvaniar on March 28, 1979 and subseouent daus. I sta ve seminars on this at the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research, Dutino and at the Institute of Nuclear Phunic_;r Gutchinar and con- 827 02 D l[dl PAGE 4 t ms <v JL ~ D "%~ " versed Privatelu with others. V - JL _3 Onlu Druno Pontecorvo (still workind at Dubna) knew mans details about the Three Mile Island accident, having read them in Il Messadero in Itals while on a recent visit. I understand that Russian nuclear Power stations have an endineer on everu shift, and also have a recorder in the control room as we do in aircraft cockpits in the U.S. The scientists I talked to, in- cludind the chief of the 15 MW(t) e::P e r i men ta l reactor at Lenindrad and the 100 MW(t) reactor under construc- tion, the chief of the 10 MW (t) D0 reactor- at Moscow 2 (Institute for E::Periment and Theoretical Phusics) and the chief endineer for the new Pulsed reactor at Dubna (4 MW(t) averade, 7000 MW Pulse) all acree that a con- tainment vessel is a good idea. When these e:-:P e r i m e n- tal reactors were clarted, there were no safetu rules and no safetu committees. Now theu have five separate sueervisors safets committees in Leningrad. ("At first we had to educate them--now thou are even helpful".) The sedmentat, ion of Soviet societs means that none of mu Russian friends had ans direct responsibilitu for safetu of Power reactors and did not know the People who do. Theu aPParentlu have none of the "outside' checks--such as the Advisoru Committee on Reactor Safe- duards (ACRS), which includes even a Phusicist or two who double check the endineers and were impressed bu mu descriptions of ACRS Operation. I referred to the article bu Dr. Ale::androv ( P r e -- 827 133 D I C'i) L WwI PAGE 5 O - -} 'l O k . Q sident of the Soviet Academu of Sciences) in either Pravda or Izvestia (I'm not sure which) where he com- mented that the Three Mile Island accident couldn't happen in the U.S.S.R. because theu don't have the Profit motive to make them cut corners. Thew all agreed that this was a Political, not a scientifier statement, thoudh the9 all insist that Proliferation auestions demand dovernment ownership. We t21ked about the economics of nuclear Power over a dinner at the (apartment) home of Professor Ser- dei Karitsar son of Pietr Kapitza, where another duest was one of the leadind Soviet economists, Professor Abel Adanbedian, from Novosibirsk. Thou consider nu- clear Power to be vital for European Russia because of the cost of brinding coal from Siberia. (This seems analodous to the economics of nuclear Power in New End- land compared to the advantades of coal in Montana.) Thew Plan to have about 70,000 megawatts (electric) b9 1990. Sakharov was interested in the Price of electrici- tu in the U.S.; it is 4 koneks/kwh in Moscow andr for some reason he did not know, 6 kopeks /kwh in Sverd- lovsk. dave an averade fidure of 4c /kwh in Poston with 2.Sc/kwh oil-fired busbar cost and 1.5c/kwh nu- clear busbar cost. Sakharov in his article (2) suddested usind bomb e:: Plosions as a source of enerdu. This idea is called Project Pacer in this countru. I Pointed out that this 827 134 rm D Dm) ' cv1 PAGE 6 C ~Q'} ~ vb. _.] led to problems of control, and Poucholodical Problems of acceptance, which far dreater than those Posed bu plutonium in a reactor. Sakharov accepted this criti- cism. We had no discussion of nuclear waster and it did not seem to be on easone's mind. I did not asks and no one volunteered, information about t he supposed nuclear accident in the Urals (5). I asked all the scientists about Public reaction to nuclear Power. Since the societu is segmented, this means reaction of' scientists in other disciplines. I was told that there is sometimes concern bu ecolodists and biolodists, but this concern is lardels confined to the larde-scale effects of so much enerdu deposited in rivers and estuaries from coolindtowers, etc. Academician Lobashov (Russia's leadind nuclear Phusi- cist) told me that he used to be opposed to nuclear Powerr but is now in favor of it to reduce air Pollu- tion. He does not want to see coal burned near cities. Air Pollution is improvind in Moscowr there is a larde fossil fuel Power Plant in Moscow in Cheremushinskauar . near most of the scientific institutes. Twentu uears ado I saw it belchind black sulfurous smoke. Now it is cleant burning natural das from Kazakhstant but how land this das will last is unclearr as it is also need- ed for domestic Purposes. I saw an e:: ample of this as I saw natural das beinq connected to the small villade of Nicholina Garar where the NaPitzasr the Minister or 827 135 ' D Dj su es EU - _ PAGE 7 D)_ [f ,u a ss & - 1 Atomic Enersw and other important eccele have their da- chas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Euthanasia Retums As Economic Policy
    Court documents show CIA role against LaRouche The beginning of the end for the Khomeiniacs? Laser fusion breakthroughs herald 'star power' Euthanasia retums­ as economic policy What do the Russians think of Executive Intelligence Review-? • Only EIR, among Western print-media, stated before • EIR issued a Special Report in 1983 on how beam­ and during the Reykjavik meeting that the Strategic weapons technologies would transform the civilian Defense Initiative was the only issue at stake for the economy and start a real worldwide recovery. Since Russians. The dramatic ending of the pre-summit proved 1983, EIR brought together political and industrial lead­ us right-and the liberal media wrong. ers in Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Tokyo, Bonn, and else­ where in major conferences on the SOL The Russians • EIR founder Lyndon LaRouche first publicly pre­ called these meetings "gatherings of cavemen" in their sented the "beam-weapons defense" program now press! known as the Strategic Defense Initiative in Washing­ ton, at an EIR-sponsored conference in Washington in • Now that the Russians have made their big propa­ February 1982. ganda play for the "zero option" to eliminate nuclear missiles from Europe, they're reviving the Reykjavik • In March 1983, President Reagan gave his historic demand that the U.S. won't get any arms deal without speech announcing the new strategic doctrine based giving up the SOl! Reagan's under more pressure than on defensive weapons that could make nuclear missiles ever to capitulate. "impotent and obsolete," EIR was the only general­ r-------------------------- circulation weekly to define this as the key to reviving the Western ideal of technological optimism.
    [Show full text]
  • Sputnik of the Seventies $1
    SPUTNIK OF THE SEVENTIES $1 Issued by the U.S. Labor Party Contents 2 Preface The Science to Survive 4 How Kissinger and McNamara Wrecked U.S. Military Capabilities 13 The Science Behind the Soviets' "Superweapon" 16 I. Soviet Welding Breakthroughs 19 II. MHD: From Nuclear Explosion to Electricity 23 Appendix to I and II Project PACER: Unravelling the Myth of "Uncontrolled" Nuclear Fusion 27 III. The Relativistic Electron Beam Angle 3 1 IV. Collective Acceleration: How the Beam Works 34 V. Beam Guidance and Propagation 36 On the Political-Strategic Debate in the USA 40 Bibliography Some ol the articles in this report originally appeared in New Solidarity. 1977 by Campaigner Publications. All rights reserved- Published by Campaigner Publications 231 West 29 Street New York. NY. 10001 Printed in the United States of America Edited by M. Minnicino. K. Stevens. T. DeCarlo Designed by Efthalia DeGroot New Solidarity International Press Service Vol. VIII. No. 25. Special Report No. 2 May 31.1977 X-523 PREFACE The Science to Survive Despite public admission by So\ iet plasma physicist for this is no mystery; as we have outlined fully I i Rudakov of basic scientific breakthroughs in elsewhere, it lies in usurpation of political-economic thermonuclear fusion research which put the Sovijet policy by the Rockefeller family and their voracious Union on the verge of developing directed particjle looting in the interests of preserving themselves from beam weapons in July of 1976, informed experts jin literal bankruptcy. In our elaboration of the array of government, the military, and the scientific com­ technologies outlined by Keegan from primarily a munity allowed this fact of vital Soviet strategic ad­ military applications standpoint, we properly empha­ vantage to be covered up for nine months.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 L'energia Nucleare Attualità E Prospettive
    L’ENERGIA NUCLEARE ATTUALITÀ E PROSPETTIVE G. Giorgio Bombi – Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche “Little Boy” – Hiroshima, 6 agosto 1945 IL FENOMENO DELLA RADIOATTIVITÀ “Fat Man” – Nagasaki, 9 agosto 1945 Combinando fra di loro i quark si producono gli adroni: Le particelle elementari 3 quark formano un barione (protone o neutrone) 2 quark (1 quark + 1 antiquark) formano un mesone Fermioni (particelle con spin semiintero): 24 particelle in totale: 6 quark quark up: carica 2/3 6 leptoni (elettrone, muone, tauone, neutrini: elettronico, muonico, tauonico) quark down: carica -1/3 altrettante antiparticelle protone neutrone Bosoni (particelle con spin intero): 6 (o 7?) particelle in totale: (up up down) (up down down) gluone: mediatore della forza forte (spin 1) Fortunatamente, per i nostri scopi sarà sufficiente prendere in bosoni elettrodeboli (spin 1) considerazione solo 7 particelle: - fotone (mediatore della forza elettromagnetica) - bosoni deboli: W +, W - e Z0 (mediatori della forza debole) protoni neutroni bosone di Higgs (spin 0) elettroni (e antielettroni) gravitone (mediatore della gravità) (spin 2) (?) neutrini (e antineutrini) elettronici fotoni 1 Un particolare nuclide può essere rappresentato indicando il IL CONCETTO DI NUCLIDE simbolo dell’elemento corrispondente, il numero di massa e il numero atomico (quest’ultima indicazione è in realtà pleonastica!). Per nuclide si intende una specie atomica caratterizzata dalla Ad esempio, l’elemento carbonio ha due isotopi stabili: il costituzione del suo nucleo, cioè dal numero di protoni (Z) e dal carbonio-12 il cui nucleo contiene 6 protoni e 6 neutroni e il numero di neutroni (N). I protoni e i neutroni vengono chiamati carbonio-13 il cui nucleo contiene 7 neutroni.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Gain Laser Fusion Targets Demonstrated
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 15, Number 17, April 22, 1988 �TIillScience & Technology High-gain laser fusion targets demonstrated While technological hurdles must be overcome blifore thefull potentials qflaser fusion can be realized. the question is not "whether," but when. By Charles B. Stevens. In a front-pagearticle on March 21, 1988 the to provide a means of propulsion for ships. The ships in this New York Times confirmed in detail reports published by EIR last fall, when case, though, will be terawatt interplanetary spaceships, which we wrote in our Oct. 2, 1987 issue that "researchers at the will provide the essential means for making the colonization California-based Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory . of Mars over the next four decades eminently feasible. Sci­ . have experimentally demonstrated the science for har­ entifically, the mastery of laser fusion will revolutionize vir­ nessing the 'internal combustion engine' of the 21st centu­ tually every field of research, as is now being demonstrated ry-the thermonuclear-powered laser fusion reactor." And in the Livermore effort to make x-ray laser microholograms just as the Wright brothers' first demonstration of powered of living cells-atomic-scale motion pictures of living pro­ flight in 1903 was, at the time, hardly noticed, though later cesses-for the first time. widely acclaimed, this event will be celebrated by many generations to come as the dawn of the fusion age. revelations New York Times The data revealed in the article confirms The article reveals for the first time top New York Times New York Times that the essential scientific prerequisites for harnessing laser secret data from the Halite-Centurion program and the over­ fusion have been experimentally demonstrated.
    [Show full text]
  • 5/6/2004 4:15 PM 030904 Drell Lecture.Doc 1 Tape Transcription Dr. Richard Garwin Drell Lecture U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS and NUCLEA
    Tape Transcription Dr. Richard Garwin Drell Lecture U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR EXPLOSION TESTING Tuesday, March 9, 2004 [With “[SLIDE x]” references to accompany file USNW_Slides.pdf] CHAIR: [Welcome on behalf of the Center for International Security and Cooperation within the Stanford Institute for International Studies.] My name is Christopher Chyba, and with Scott Sagan I co-direct CISAC, the Center for International Security and Cooperation. The Drell Lecture was established by Bud and Cecily Wheelon who are with us here this evening, in 1994, and then named in honor of Professor Sidney Drell upon his retirement at Stanford. Bud Wheelon has had a remarkable career as Deputy Director of the CIA and been CEO of Hughes Aircraft, and he and Sid Drell both played a remarkable role in intelligence gathering and the resulting possibilities for arms control during the Cold War. You can read about those roles in Philip Taubman's book Secret Empire. Sidney Drell was also here at Stanford, one of the founding co-directors of CISAC as well as Deputy Director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator facility. We could hardly have a better speaker to be this year's Drell Lecture than tonight's speaker Dr. Richard Garwin. Dr. Garwin received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Chicago in 1949. He is now Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations and also IBM Fellow Emeritus as well as previous Director of the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. He was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee and is currently a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Engineering as well as the Council on Foreign Relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology American Aerospace Events
    CHRONOLOGY AMERICAN AEROSPACE EVENTS HAROLD “PHIL” MYERS CHIEF HISTORIAN AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE AGENCY LACKLAND AFB, TEXAS 23 February 2009 EVOLUTION OF A CHRONOLOGY In 1981, as an Air Force enlisted historian, I worked for the Research Division of the Air Force Historical Research Agency (then Albert F. Simpson Historical Center) at Maxwell AFB, Al. For the next two years, I answered inquiries and conducted the Historian’s Development Course. While there I discovered a real “nugget,” A Chronology of American Aerospace Events from 1903-1974, gathering dust on an obscure shelf. I knew the draft document would be a handy reference for all enlisted field historians. In 1983, I took a copy of this chronology with me on my next assignment with the 39th Tactical Group in Turkey. The chronology proved to be an invaluable source in promoting Air Force history. It allowed me to prepare “Today in Aerospace History” slides for weekly staff meetings and write a weekly “Aerospace Highlights” column for the base newspaper. But at that time, the chronology was arranged by year and date, and it took considerable time to find events by specific dates. In 1985, I moved to the Ballistic Missile Office at Norton AFB, California, to write about the Peacekeeper and Small ICBM programs. The introduction of computers allowed me to convert the original chronology into a “By Date” product. I knew that the chronology was not an all inclusive listing, so I began to integrate events from other works—like the Development of Strategic Air Command, 1946-1986, The SAC Missile Chronology, and The Military Airlift Command Historical Handbook, 1941-1986—into an electronic product.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnostics Considerations for the Inertial Confinement Approach to Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion Power Production
    Ct l^f-- IWlK** - j PREPRINT UCRL-81609 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory DIAGNOSTICS CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE INERTIAL CONFINEMENT APPROACH TO CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR FUSION POWER PRODUCTION Lowell Wood MASTER li.ihiiity or irip'iHMbilny fi>i llir s^uiaiy "r iiidulriesi (if any .ni'ji'iyiH r>. appar.ii August 28, 1978 ri"c» Jnclnsci!. »i irpiesfi'H dial Us • mlniipr pnviiely owned rip.dii This paper was prepared for submission to the International School of Plasma Physics, Varenna, Italy, Italian Physical Soc, 4-15 September 1978. To be presented as two lectures. This is a preprint of a paper intended for publicatior in a journal or proceedings. Since changes may be made before publication, this preprint is made available with the understanding that it will not be cited or reproducea without the permission of the author. f^^sssm^^^. ^**>- -»vo*-._ DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED DIAGNOSTICS CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE INERTIAL CONFINEMENT APPROACH TO CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR FUSION POWER PRODUCTION * Lowell Wood University of California Lawrence Liver-more Laboratory Livermore, CA S4550 INTRODUCTION The basic problem confronting workers on the inertial confinement approach to controlled thermonuclear fusion may be resolved into three challenging sub-problems: 1) invention, detailed physics design and fabrication of the optimal fusion pellet (under whatever technological constraints may be pertinent), 2) design and implementation of the pellet driver' (the pulsed power device which delivers onto this pellet the energy at the peak power required to implode and center-ignite it as specified by the detailed physics design), and 3) the feedback-intensive exercising of the driver on such pellets to identify, quantitate and correct for the myriad real-world non-idealities not initially accounted for in the designs and implementations of the pellet and the pellet driver.
    [Show full text]