Dr Jim Green's reply

Precisely 30 months and 1 day ago, I published my thoughts about Dr Jim Green and Friends of the Earth. Today, I am very please to have received the below reply.

Jim Green said...

hi, the point about Patrick Moore is that his connections to and payments from the Nuclear Energy Institute are too infrequently acknowledged by Moore, by other nuclear advocates (e.g. Hore-Lacy/UIC) or by the media.

As for pro-nuclear environmentalists, I think you have named most of them. More on that at foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power

I can think of quite a few nuclear advocates turned opponents - indeed there are quite a few in the EnergyScience Coalition alone. energyscience.org.au

As for trends in the industry, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Reports are
useful.

cheers, Jim

I decided to bring the discussion up to the front of the blog to more publicly thank Jim for his comment and in particular his willingness to engage in some type of dialogue. In the time that has passed since I began this blog in early 2007, no anti-nuclear campaigners or even people slightly skeptical of the technology have posted a reply or critique of a single post.

We still don't agree. I won't complain about that so long as we are communicating. Too often, issue based blogs and web pages are visited only by those who endorse the author's opinion. But without some sort of civil dialogue, the blog or site becomes a micro-culture's echo chamber of limited value. Barry Brook's BraveNewClimate blog has done an excellent job of avoiding this pitfall and I note that Jim has commented there as well.

So, on to Jim's comment.

Thanks for not highlighting me for going easy on Patrick Moore. I took what I think was a fairly hard opinion - similar to NNadir at DailyKos - that putting too much emphasis on Moore's current opinion gives unjustified credibility to Greenpeace. Rather than focus on one person, I prefer to note the more recent trend.

As for pro-nuclear environmentalists - several others have come on to my radar since my post in 2007. These include, Australia's Prof Barry Brook [mentioned above]; (UK) Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; (UK) Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; (UK) Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year; and (UK) Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate. [See this post for details]. Then there are the calls for nuclear from the AWU's Paul Howes and American author and former anti-nuclear campaigner Gwyneth Cravens, who now regrets her support of the anti-nuclear power movement. Ms Cravens describes her 10 year transition from anti-nuclear campaigner to nuclear advocate in a recent book and a related video linked here.

If anyone knows of others, please add them in a comment (with links please) so I may update the list.

I regret that Jim did not list any specific transitions in the other direction in recent years (say, that last 4). The energyscience website was not working (i.e. I was unable to access it).

I read the 2007 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. I was disappointed to see wind discussed with nuclear in terms of 'capacity' as opposed to actual energy generated (pg 6). I believe such discussions contribute negatively (i.e. add confusion rather than clarity) to policy discussions. There have also been a number of plant life extensions granted in the US alone to challenge the discussion of anticipated plant life on pg 9 and in the conclusion. However, I do agree with concerns expressed with respect to financing, human resource needs and supporting infrastructure / construction capability. However, none if these challenges significantly threaten the expansion of nuclear power's use over the coming decades.

I note the the OECD/IEA has just released an excerpt from the 2009 World Energy Outlook. In the excerpt, the IEA forecasts the required contribution from (and investment in) an array of technologies to achieve energy related emission reductions in support of a 450 Scenario. In this report, nuclear plays a significant role globally (obviously, to varying degree within different countries), despite being challenged to maintain the current level of generation in the context of an ageing worldwide operational fleet. This is shown in Figure 3 of the report by comparing the relative change in abatement between 2020 and 2030 (increase by a factor of 2.8) vs the required investment (an increase by a factor of 3.9). This reflects the need to build new plants to replace older facilities that will be shutdown at the end of their design lives. So the investment is necessary to maintain the same abatement level.

WEO 2009 Excerpt - Figure 3 World energy-related CO2 emissions abatement

Recent reports indicate more nuclear phase outs are being reversed. Belgium and Germany are now working to reverse their phase out programmes. Just in Europe, the list now includes these two countries plus Sweden and Italy. In the UK, a more indirect / passive phase out policy has been replaced by the investment of considerable resources into a new build program. Even a small training reactor at the Imperial College of London is being 'un-decommissioned' to support the development of human resources to support that effort. Those who doubt the reemergence of genuine interest in nuclear power are ignoring a constantly increasing amount of data.

I hope that Jim's comment reflects a more forward looking perspective; one that acknowledges an increasing role of nuclear technology over the coming decades as the marginal risks from nuclear power's use are weighed against those of other issues such as climate change, peak oil, and the threat of energy supplies being used as an instrument of foreign policy (e.g. Russia's repeated demonstration of their willingness to cut gas supply to Europe). There is an opportunity for Jim and other anti-nuclear campaigners to remain engaged on a proactive and productive level; contributing real ideas to ensure safety levels continue to improve, non-proliferation measures are made more resilient, acceptable interim and long term waste management programmes are implemented, transparency is enhanced, etc. Maybe I'm dreaming a bit here; but the opportunity is certainly there. Just look at the void Barry Brook as filled.

High-profile pro-nuclear converts

From the UK; yesterday's Independent contained a report detailing a 'kind of like religious conversion' of four high profile environmentalists who now support nuclear power.

The four are:

• Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace;
• Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency;
• Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and
• Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate.

Tindale ran Greenpeace from 2000-2005. “It was kind of like a religious conversion. Being anti-nuclear was an essential part of being an environmentalist for a long time but now that I’m talking to a number of environmentalists about this, it’s actually quite widespread this view that nuclear power is not ideal but it’s better than climate change,” he added.

"Renewable sources of energy, such as wind, wave and solar power, are still necessary in the fight against global warming, but achieving low-carbon electricity generation is far more difficult without nuclear power", Lord Smith said.

Lynas:
“The thing that initially pushed me was seeing how long and difficult the road to going to 100 per cent renewable economy would be, and realising that if we really are serious about tackling global warming it the next decade or two then we certainly need to consider a new generation of nuclear power stations.”

“In retrospect, [anti-nuclear activism] will come to be seen as an enormous mistake for which the earth’s climate is now paying the price. To give an example, the environmentalists stopped a nuclear plant in Austria from being switched on, a colossal waste of money, and instead [Austria] built two coal plants.”

In a separate report, Goodall sums it up well. "This country’s current and past emissions are far more than our share of the world population. Unless we reduce our carbon pollution urgently, we will be in breach of our moral, as well as EU and UN, obligations." He adds, "Every option is strongly opposed: the public seems to be anti-wind, anti-coal, anti-waste-to-energy, anti-tidal-barrage, anti-fuel-duty and anti-nuclear. We can’t be anti-everything, and time is running out. Large projects take many years to construct."

Finally, Goodall concludes, "Germany provides a useful cautionary tale. Despite huge subsidies for solar panels, photovoltaics have not yet replaced one per cent of fossil fuel electricity generation. Indeed, because Germany – under pressure from well-meaning environmentalists – is phasing out nuclear power, it is inexorably turning back towards dirty coal: 30 new coal plants are planned, including four burning lignite (brown coal), the dirtiest fuel of all."

Plenty of parallels with Australia in this article. Relatively high per-capita emissions, the need to increase generation infrastructure to satisfy current and future demand, and the need for civil and objective public discussion to name a few.

Another high profile [quiet] conversion

Al Gore continues to highlight the needs for environmental stewardship during the [seemingly never ending] US campaign 'season'. He has issued a challenge to America to transform their electricity generation system to totally emission free technologies within 10 years. No small feat.

During the video, he did not mention the 'N-word', but instead gave renewables top billing. However in subsequent interviews [this link being 1 of 971 hits], Gore went in to further detail, stating that he supports nuclear maintaining about 20% of total American electrical generation.

This would mean continuing license extensions of existing plants as well as some new plants to properly account for the projected increase in demand - coincidentally about what is in the pipeline [with respect to nuclear at least] within the USA for the coming decade.

And as Gore himself predicted, the naysayers are out en mass.

Support for nuclear grows

Paul Howes of the Australian Workers' Union [Australia's largest blue collar union], is still promoting nuclear as a means to achieve carbon emission reductions without the expense of significant Australian job loss and industrial exportation.

Howes is joined by Commonwealth Bank chairman John Schubert, who also chairs the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Schubert agrees in the need for nuclear power.

Howes is to release a report from Per Capita consulting on the effects of the emissoins trading scheme [ETS] impacts in Australian industryt - in this case aluminium.

Howes rejects claims that displaced employees can be easily retrained in Green industries and technologies.

Instead, workers could be "left on the scrapheap of history" and enter the ranks of the long-term unemployed.

"These guys aren't going to be automatically re-employed as eco-tourism operators," Mr Howes said.

Also, in Canberra today, Professor and economist Jeffrey Sachs is promoting nuclear power as a means to help address global poverty in a carbon constrained world. Formerly anti-nuclear leanding, Sachs sees nuclear as safe and cost-effective.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and the anti-nuclear movement

As world temperatures continue to rise and available resources [other than coal of course] continue to spur discussions of exactly when we will reach supply peaks [or when exactly that milestone was passed], attitudes are changing.

I began thinking about my own opinion - that the anti-nuclear movement will, over time, essentially die out. It has to, unless some magic technology is developed or humanity is willing to return to the dark ages - as frightening as that bad pun may be.

So what does this mean? How will it be manifested? Will there be a 'point' at which all will become informed and enlightened energy custodians? Na, it will be more analog than that, in fact it has begun already.

But how can this be? Can't we claim the anti- movement is as strong as ever and it's simply a case of governments being twisted by the industry, utilities taking advantage of subsidies, etc.? After all, many prominent anti-nukes have invested their lives into killing the atom. For their movement to die, a significant piece of them would also have to give up the ghost.

Then I thought of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Surely if something is dying out - the signs of Kübler-Ross' popular process or 'Stages of Grief' would be there. Specifically they are:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

Obviously, the anti-nuclear movement, even within Australia, does not move as one block or entity. Some - search enviro-conversions - have moved all the way through Acceptance and are now supporters of nuclear power. Many remain in Denial claiming, for example, nuclear takes too long, while defending the construction of more coal power stations because carbon-capture technology will eventually be there to save the day.

Anger? [Er, need I say it... 'election']

Even Bargaining has been around. Recall the pre-election films opposed to nuclear 'we don't need nuclear, we can get all we need from 'this' technology or 'that' energy reduction/saving program. I also see the elimination of the three mines policy as a form of Bargaining. Australia will support further nuclear power expansion elsewhere. But here? "No thanks mate." Eliminating 3-mines was a wise and helpful move indeed - but it only allows for partial implementation of a viable solution technology [just one of many that humanity needs].

I see other stages on the horizon. There will be Depression and - I expect - significant blame flying about as Australian emissions continue to rise, domestic coal stations continue to be built and/or climactic chaos intensifies; all despite the claims of complete fulfillment of all related election promises [i.e. significant government investment in reduction / mitigation programs].

Eventually there will be growing Acceptance and I'd like to add a 6th in this case.

Advocacy!

Media and Nuclear Power

From a review of Gwyneth Cravens' book Power to Save the World on the New York Times Freakonomics blog: Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear Energy.

Mrs. Cravens sent an Email to the blog author, adding the below information, explaing how the media is responsible for what her colleague Rip Anderson refers to as the profound 'second-hand ignorance' among the genreal public with respect to nuclear technology:

In the book (p.184) there is a graph based on a study by Bernard Cohen, Prof. Emeritus, U. of Pittsburgh, about stories by the New York Times of different types of accidents between 1974-78 (prior to Three Mile Island). He compared their frequency with the annual fatalities caused by these accidents. Cohen writes:

On an average, there were 120 entries per year on motor vehicle accidents, which kill 50,000 Americans each year; 50 entries per year on industrial accidents, which kill 12,000; and 20 entries per year on asphyxiation accidents, which kill 4,500; note that for these the number of entries, which represents roughly the amount of newspaper coverage, is approximately proportional to the death toll they cause. But for accidents involving radiation, there were something like 200 entries per year, in spite of there not having been a single fatality from a radiation accident for over a decade.

Another problem, especially in TV coverage, was use of inflammatory language. We often heard about “deadly radiation” or “lethal radioactivity,” referring to a hazard that hadn’t claimed a single victim for over a decade, and had caused less than five deaths in American history. But we never heard about “lethal electricity,” although 1,200 Americans were dying each year from electrocution; or about “lethal natural gas,” which was killing 500 annually with asphyxiation accidents. (Bernard Cohen, “The Nuclear Energy Option,” pp. 58-59.)

Again, I'll say she's definately done her homework.

Professor James Lovelock - 2005

Professor James Lovelock

Click here to go to a new webpage to see the movie using Flash Media. Sorry wasn't able to embed this one. Try here if you can't get the video to play or go to the site linked below.

The video is from the Canadian Nuclear Association's video archive.

This video is was made by Professor Lovelock and presented at the 2005 Canadian Nuclear Association annual seminar. Within, Professor Lovelock discusses some history of the green movement and why current 'green' endorsed energy policy is not just wrong, but quite dangerous.

Like this blogger, Professor Lovelock takes a critical and objective approach to defining the problem as well as evaluating alternative solutions - looking hard at the demonstrated performance of different technologies around the globe.

Gweneth Cravens & Rip Anderson - Video

For the past week or so, I've had the above video parked at the top of the blog. I'll leave it here for posterity.

ABOUT THIS VIDEO Another Long Now seminar. This one is from September 2007. In this video Gweneth Cravens and Rip Anderson preview the history and details relating to Gweneth's new book - "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy". It's 1:43 long and worth every second. Much about the ten year journey that transformed Gweneth from a passionate anti-nuclear activist into an informed nuclear advocate can be seen from this sneak peek into her book. Enjoy.

Considering the progression of the nuclear argument from the first video - saved in a post below [from a nuclear debate in early 2006], we can see how fast the world's minds [some very interesting minds] are changing. In this presentation, the issues are given proper time and consideration. KUDOS to Long Now!!

Last week's video - Nuclear debate in early 2006

I'll store the video from last week here for history along with the original comment I made.

Note this 'discussion' [the host, Stewart Brand, is reluctant to refer to it to a debate] took place in the very beginning of 2006 - over a full year before I even started this blog. Certainly A LOT has changed since then technologically, socially and politically. [Catch Schwartz's scepticism regarding whether the Bush administration would ever acknowledge climate change and yet here we are.]

The pro-nuclear argument is presented by Peter Schwartz - an environmental scientist with a fluid mechanics background. The opposing view is presented by Schwartz’s friend/foe Ralph Cavanagh, an attorney from the National Resources Defence Council. I don't know if I would have the courage to trade points with an attorney, but good on Schwartz for having a go.

I would like to point out a few interesting aspects of the discussion. First, Schwartz's perspective - as pointed out by Stewart Brand - is more global; second, Cavanagh accuses Schwartz of 'wishing' for advanced technologies that may or may not come to fruition and raises the 'spectres' of waste, proliferation, etc. without providing any tangible [i.e. quantifiable] detail of his own points [e.g. a purely 'renewable' solution]; and third Cavanagh claims nuclear is a historically competitive loser in the open market system - while California remains in the midst of a 30 year ban on nuclear development.

Please, watch and enjoy with the 20/20 hindsight of over 20 months' history.

Stewart Brand

Stewart Brand

Another Environmentalist and former 'anti-nuke' supporting nuclear energy.

Please enjoy this article from the Economist.

Another convert

Gwyneth Cravens

Just in case you don't already read the Atomic Insights or NEI blogs (and I strongly recommend you do), Rod Adams has commented on a new book, "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens.

As Rod says, Cravens was a passionate anti-nuclear activist who, unlike many anti-nukes, invested the time - a considerable amount of time it would appear - to embark on a literal journey to discover the facts amidst the rhetoric.

Just one more example of an ever increasing trend.

See a related Cravens article for the Brookings Institute Review (2002) - Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks.

APEC - Nuclear Related Fallout

When nuclear power was promoted as an option to address the challenges associated with emissions linked to climate change; there was an almost immediate dismissal from various New Zealand politicians - including Helen Clark herself:

"not something we are going to endorse".

But now there seems to be a bit of a backlash happening over in New Zealand that I find very intriguing.

This Editorial from the NZ Herald is one example.

That nuclear power poses risks is indisputable. But those risks need to be assessed in context of the certain - not potential - environmental havoc that is being wrought by the use of fossil fuels to generate energy. In the US, more than 600 coal-fired power plants produce 36 per cent of that country's - and almost 10 per cent of the world's - emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. China is building a new coal-fired power station every week.

It may well be that nuclear power is not viable here [New Zealand] on practical or political grounds, though the likelihood is that we will fail to meet our emissions-reduction targets without a change in energy strategy. But we do ourselves and the world no favours by refusing out of hand to endorse or explore the nuclear option. When the biosphere collapses, it won't spare this country just because we remained philosophically pure.

Here's another story in the same paper from Fran O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan points out the sad irony of New Zealand's spirited charge for climate change action and subsequent advocacy for, and endorsement of, Kyoto in the context of current day, hefty fines for failing to meet those very same Kyoto targets. And then telling the world there's no place for nuclear power in the international struggle to cut fossil fuel emissions? Anyway, a good read.

In this editorial from the Hawke's Bay Today, Louis Pierard goes so far as to advocate New Zealand's consideration of a domestic nuclear power programme / plant.

Beyond the media, the Kiwiblog is taking a similar position. I also note that many comments [I only read about the first 20 or so, I assume from other Kiwis] reflect - how do I say this - opposition to, or concern regarding, the stated or implied position of the aforementioned political leaders. [Thanks to NEI for the tip on this blogger.]

One take on the Renaissance

Another pragmatic view from The Economist. (The cover story, no less).

Be sure to check out the linked articles within the main article above.

Australian of the Year; Tim Flannery (still) backs Nuclear

As requested in my post here; I was wondering why Tim Flannery was opposed to nuclear power. "Could he possibly think it's worse than climate change or fossil fuels?" I wondered. I was wishing for further information and now I've got it.

Turns out I was correct. He still supports nuclear as reported here at New Consumer and - I might add - to precisely the same extent that I have from the start.

To quote:

You talk about nuclear power in your book, saying one problem is it's slow to build. Do you think Gordon Brown's wrong to back it?

Do you know what I'd say to Gordon Brown if I could speak to him? I'd say if we look at this as a holistic problem, let's do the easy things first. Let's concentrate on energy efficiency, how much efficiency can you gain in the use of electricity in this country? I think there's enormous gains to be had. You might be able to halve your electricity use by focusing very strongly on efficiency, particularly it comes to retrofitting buildings, insulation and all that. So that's number one.

Number two, use local energy sources - the renewables. Wind, wave power, photovoltaics, combined heating and power, and then, if, after doing your utmost in those areas, you've still got a deficit in the amount of electricity you use, I'd then say if your choice is only between conventional coal-burning and nuclear power, I'd reluctantly support nuclear power.

My point here is when one takes the time to objectively consider the capabilities of other no/low carbon energy alternatives, realistic forecasts for increases in demand, etc.; Australia will find itself facing the very decision Tim poses above. I further believe that any reasonable consideration of that question and supporting facts will arrive at the same conclusion. It won't happen tomorrow, or in 5 years nor probably even 10; but Australia will adopt nuclear power if we are serious about achieving significant emissions reductions by 2050 (i.e. 42+ years on).

Ziggy Switkowski agrees,

[He]told Sky Business Sunday that a nuclear reactor on the eastern seaboard of Australia was inevitable.

"The first reactors are probably going to be found serving the major markets of the eastern seaboard," he said.

Good on newconsumer.com for straight up reporting - or as they call it on their web-page... ethical.

Blogger NNadir on Patrick Moore & Greenpeace

I know that "Doctor" Moore is popular with the nuclear industry, but I would submit that continuously talking up the support of the "Founder of Greenpeace" for nuclear energy affords Greenpeace environmental credibility it has neither earned nor deserves. If the nuclear industry were listening to me, it wouldn't be awarding that credibility.

See the whole post here

NNadir has submitted another Diary [post] in the DailyKos Blog, rich with passionate, well researched arguments in favour of increased nuclear deployment as part of the solution to many of the world's current problems.

The post above is his reply to a comment on his Diary. See the whole Diary here. Be warned, it's long and the comments are approaching 130.

Nuclear Conversions

All in all the score card remains about even.

First, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: Australian of the year Tim Flannery is now opposing nuclear power, citing Australia's abundant renewable potential - but there's no technology references or studies, examples, case studies or demonstration projects. I would love to know more.

However, as reported by ABC News: The federal Member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, says she now supports the idea of nuclear power, but still strongly opposes a nuclear plant in her electorate on the NSW south coast.

Dr. Jim Green & Friends of the Earth

I hear that Dr. Green and/or some of his colleagues are looking for a review of the above on this site, so here goes:

Dr. Green's site may be found here, that of Friends of the Earth, Melbourne is here.

As I interpret the two websites:

- Dr. Green received his PhD. from the University of Wollongong in 1998. Copies of his full thesis on "Reactors, Radioisotopes & the HIFAR Controversy” can be requested via his Email address and/or phone number, listed in the site linked above.

- There's no disputed words; Dr. Green is listed in several linked references on those pages as an anti-nuclear campaigner. He appears to have dedicated his life (or at least his professional life) to the defeat of the nuclear industry in any form. I was unable to find a single positive word about nuclear technology on the sites or links that I followed (but I admit that I have not been able to check them all).

- I did notice that some of the claims mentioned on the sites/links are no longer valid though. This is particularly true with respect to international trends. For example, in a linked 2005 summary report you will find the following passage under the section on solutions to climate change:

Worldwide, there were only 26 nuclear reactors under construction at the end of 2004, with only one in Western Europe and none in the USA. Nuclear power capacity in Europe is falling and is expected to drop 25% over the next 15 years. The projected growth of nuclear power in a small number of countries, such as China and India, will not substantially change the global picture of stagnation and decline.

Media reports of the past 12 months tend to contradict the above for many countries and regions around the world. As an example, see this link or just recently (and if you prefer video) try here.

Also with respect to trends, we should not disregard the trends of high profile environmentalists reconsidering their position on nuclear power. Not just those like Dr. Patrick More, Co-Founder, Former Leader of Greenpeace (often dismissed, because he is now advocating nuclear energy for a living. But apparently it is perfectly acceptable to be compensated for opposing nuclear power... but I digress), but also about Friends of the Earth's own Hugh Montefiore, environmental guru James Lovelock, James Martin, and Stewart Brand to name a few.

I am not aware of any recent trends in the opposite direction (e.g. pro-nuclear advocates moving to firm, anti-nuclear positions) but I am willing to read about any should they be made known to me.

I respect Dr. Green's passion and his considerable effort. However, I have to wonder if this work has been based on an objective quest for truth and knowledge, or if it began with one basic foregone conclusion... that all things nuclear are bad? I can find no evidence to support the former, but again, I'm willing to consider any should it be made known to me.