• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives
  • Links

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

FoE Australia’s Jim Green issues conditional apology

May 28, 2013 By Rod Adams

On May 22, I republished a post written by Ben Heard and Geoff Russell for DecarboniseSA titled Green Nuclear Junk. In my introduction to the post, I made the following statement:

My goal is to add just a little more pressure on Jim Green — the national antinuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth, Australia — to come clean and admit his mistakes. It would be even better if Green began to make amends for the environmental and economic damage caused by his antinuclear activism, but that is probably a futile hope.

Though my post probably did not affect the situation, I need to follow up with a report that Jim Green has, indeed, apologized for his math error.

Sincere apologies to Ben Heard and Geoff Russell for attacking them for a “multi-order-of-magnitude mathematical howler”. The recurring 77-fold howler is mine, not theirs. (And Russell’s real mathematical howler is trivial compared to mine since his involved nothing more than an illustrative thought-experiment.)

However, Green has not yet decided to stop fighting the use of nuclear energy.

I’m bound to acknowledge my miscalculations and to apologise for an unwarranted attack. But my messaging − in my critique of the Kharecha/Hansen paper, and in the Choose Nuclear Free paper, and on countless other occasions − is that the greatest hazard posed by nuclear power (and the nuclear fuel cycle more broadly) is the repeatedly-demonstated connection to WMD proliferation. That is unchanged. I’ve also said repeatedly that i’ll gladly volunteer time and energy opposing the uranium/nuclear industry because of i) the WMD links and ii) the sickening, systemic racism which makes the industry unsupportable. Again, no change.

Green has demonstrated that he is willing to read and consider constructive criticism, so I thought I would offer a few thoughts that might help him take the next step away from antinuclear activism and, perhaps even towards pronuclear advocacy.

Like Green, I am no fan of nuclear weapons. Contemplation of the consequences of using them has given me many sleepless nights; as some of you may know, I served two tours on US ballistic missile submarines. I completed 11 strategic deterrent patrols and was a member of the two man control team for all but one of those patrols. I never took that responsibility lightly; it was a sobering assignment when I was 23 and the reality never wore off. However, I am enough of a realist to understand that there is nothing that humans can do to erase the knowledge that certain natural elements can be arranged to explode with enough force to destroy an entire city.

I think we can, and should, reduce the probability of using nuclear weapons to as close to zero as possible. Improving prosperity and reducing the vast inequalities in access to power around the world are two ways to reduce the use of all weapons, especially nuclear weapons; both of those can be enabled by using more and more nuclear energy.

Though hydrocarbons are fantastically useful materials and have served humanity well for hundreds of years, they are also the source of large and growing concentrations of wealth that impoverish others. Their use should be limited – by market competition with increasingly less expensive nuclear energy – to save as much of the finite resources as possible for many future generations and to achieve a situation where natural feedback loops can alleviate most of their climate changing emissions.

As we increase the use of nuclear energy, nuclear materials will become increasingly valuable as fuel sources. Using enriched uranium and plutonium in reactors reduces accessible stockpiles of potential weapons material. The most secure location I can think of for storing materials that could be assembled into weapons is inside the core of an operating nuclear reactor.

Not only are pressure vessels strong vaults, but the complex mixture of radioactive isotopes produced by a fission power plant make the fuel almost completely self-securing. The longer the material remains inside a power generating reactor, the less useful it will be for creating a weapon. After a certain amount of time, the material includes a sufficient variety of isotopes, some with characteristics that greatly reduce their usefulness in a weapon, that it is essentially impossible to convert them to any use other than producing more power.

I am not sure I understand Green’s concern about systemic racism. I am aware that there have been a few campaigns against uranium mining based on the fact that some resources have been exploited from land owned or occupied by aborigines, native Americans, or First Nation tribes, but that is not an inherent factor of nuclear energy. Uranium and thorium are widely distributed around the world; there is a known deposit within an hour of my southwest Virginia home that could supply the entire US demand for two years.

Using nuclear energy is certainly not a racist endeavor; in fact, the Atoms for Peace vision and the program that implemented that vision was one of the least racist programs ever devised by the powerful to share their power and provide opportunities for all to prosper. One of the main reasons that I favor nuclear energy development is that I honestly love humanity and want to bring power to the people.

There is a good chance that people like Jim Green can become effective pronuclear advocates as long as they continue to engage in critical thinking and learn as much as they can about the ways that nuclear energy use aligns with their primary concerns. If Green has the opportunity to watch Pandora’s Promise he might be inspired by a film about leaders who are concerned about both the environment and the power needs of the less advantaged people in the world and, as a result of open-minded examination, have switched from antinuclear opposition to pronuclear support.

Filed Under: Antinuclear activist, Atomic Advocacy, Politics of Nuclear Energy

Avatar

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience, now serving as a Managing Partner at Nucleation Capital, an emerging climate-focused fund. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial discussion and analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology and policies for several decades. He is the founder of Atomic Insights and host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast.

Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. AvatarJames Greenidge says

    May 28, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    For me it takes a big man to admit he’s in error and walk the less harmful rational path that’s a win for the environment and people — which is supposed to be his end game, right? It’s all about the goal, not the means, true greens!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  2. AvatarManic says

    May 28, 2013 at 7:56 AM

    Nine countries currently have nuclear weapons. Two; Israel and North Korea, have never had a civilian power reactor. USA, UK, The Soviet Union and France developed weapons before any power reactors came online. To my knowledge, only China, India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons before electricity generation. So out of the 30-odd countries that have power reactors, only 10% had weapons before hand.

    I’m not sure anyone is able to claim that nuclear power leads to weapons proliferation when in 90% of cases nuclear power does NOT lead to proliferation.

    One of the first articles I read about nuclear power had the quote: “The quickest way to get bombs is to make bombs, not to build power plants.”

    • AvatarDavid says

      May 28, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      @ Manic,

      The USA also developed Nuclear weapons before electricity generation.

  3. AvatarJohn Englert says

    May 28, 2013 at 8:45 AM

    If I recall correctly, there was systemic racism in lunch counters, mass transit, and public education. I believe the solution was to confront the racism not oppose the continued existence of those institutions.

    As for the connection to nuclear weapons, the secrecy surrounding the details of weapon designs, including materials that can be used to make them, means many opponents to nuclear power won’t ever trust statements from proponents about proliferation risks.

  4. AvatarDavid Walters says

    May 28, 2013 at 10:33 AM

    Rod, I don’t know your policy on republishing comments from other blogs but from the DeCarbonize site that you commented on, a commentator named “Irregular commentator” posted the following.

    [Kudos for Jim Green for apologizing about the whopper he laid in his paper. It is hard to admit mistakes like this.]

    Here is the posting/listing of countries with nuclear programs and no WMD program (those with WMD are so noted).

    On the Civilian Nuclear Power = WMD theory lets look at the countries that have Nuclear WMD programs and the countries that have operating civilian plants and research reactors (denoted by *).

    Algeria* – No Nuclear weapons
    Argentina* – No Nuclear weapons
    Armenia – No Nuclear weapons
    Australia* – No Nuclear weapons
    Bangladesh* – No Nuclear weapons
    Belgium – No Nuclear weapons
    Brazil* – No Nuclear weapons
    Bulgaria* – No Nuclear weapons
    Canada* – No Nuclear weapons
    Chile* – No Nuclear weapons
    China* – Nuclear weapon state under NPT
    Colombia* – No Nuclear weapons
    Cuba* – No Nuclear weapons (withdrew USSR aresnal in 1960s)
    Czech Republic – No Nuclear weapons
    Denmark* – No Nuclear weapons
    Egypt* – No Nuclear weapons
    Finland* – No Nuclear weapons
    France* – Nuclear weapon state under NPT
    Germany* – No Nuclear weapons
    Greece* – No Nuclear weapons
    Hungary* – No Nuclear weapons
    India* – Nuclear weapon state NOT under NPT (in reply to China’s arsenal in the early 1970s)
    Indonesia* – No Nuclear weapons
    Iran* – Concerns of Nuclear weapon construction (no tests detected)
    Israel* – Nuclear weapon state (unconfirmed, but assumed)
    Italy* – No Nuclear weapons
    Jamaica* – No Nuclear weapons
    Japan* – No Nuclear weapons
    Kazakhstan* – No Nuclear weapons (surrendered a significant USSR arsenal in 1990s)
    Libya* – No Nuclear weapons (was caught by INTERPOL and IAEA trying to establish weaponry)
    Lithuania – No Nuclear weapons
    Malaysia* – No Nuclear weapons
    Mexico* – No Nuclear weapons
    Morocco* – No Nuclear weapons
    Netherlands* – No Nuclear weapons (although apparently hosts US AGM-86s, not confirmed)
    North Korea* – Nuclear weapon state NOT under NPT
    Norway* – No Nuclear weapons
    Pakistan* – Nuclear weapon state NOT under NPT (in reply to India’s arsenal, and help of AQ Kahn)
    Peru* – No Nuclear weapons
    Philippines – No Nuclear weapons
    Poland* – No Nuclear weapons
    Portugal* – No Nuclear weapons
    Romania* – No Nuclear weapons
    Russia* – Nuclear weapon state under NPT
    Serbia* – No Nuclear weapons
    Slovakia – No Nuclear weapons
    Slovenia* – No Nuclear weapons
    South Africa* – FORMER Nuclear weapon state (dismantled in 1990s)
    South Korea* – No Nuclear weapons (although been cautioned by IAEA)
    Spain* – No Nuclear weapons
    Sweden* – No Nuclear weapons
    Switzerland* – No Nuclear weapons
    Syria* – No Nuclear weapons (Israel strike neutralised clandestine reactor in 2007)
    Taiwan* – No Nuclear weapons
    Thailand* – No Nuclear weapons
    Turkey* – No Nuclear weapons (did host US missiles at one point in 1960s)
    Ukraine* – No Nuclear weapons (handed back USSR missiles in 1990s)
    United Kingdom* – Nuclear weapon state under NPT
    USA* – Nuclear weapon state under NPT
    Uruguay* – No nuclear weapons
    Uzbekistan* – No nuclear weapons
    Vietnam* – No Nuclear weapons

    There we have it 62 nations with civilian Nuclear programs, 5 recognised Nuclear weapon states under NPT, 4 outside of NPT, and 3 who handed over or dismantled arsenals.

    The question is, why haven’t the other 81% (n 50) pursued a Nuclear weapon program?
    You did note in your PhD thesis Jim that research reactors can be used to make bombs and are a proliferation risk, so why haven’t the other 48 out of 58 who have research reactors actively pursued (not mooted) a nuclear weapons program?

    I’d take it that those numbers highlight that the risk is low due to the existing 5 nuclear weapon states, alliances with the P5, threat of force if a clandestine program is exposed, regional geopolitics, and a regional proliferation risk if one decides to go nuclear. There are some states in there with reactors that are in hot geopolitical zones but have not built weapons. Why is that?

    • AvatarIrregular Commentator says

      May 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM

      This comment looks familiar. Thank you for the hat-tip.

      I’ve got a table in the works that not only looks at what parts of the Nuclear industry that country has but also the non-proliferation treaties, agreements, and safeguards they are signatories to as well. This will give a better picture of the proliferation risk (dual use tech) and proliferation resistance (safeguards, treaties etc.).

      To say North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel (maybe Iran) highlight that proliferation is a fait accompli to civilian Nuclear industry ignores the fact that the large majority haven’t proliferated. The question we have to ask is, why has it been so proliferation adverse?

  5. Avatarmike says

    May 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

    Thank you David for the list of nations that already have nuclear power programs.
    If we promote nuclear power use in only these countries that already have the capability to pursue nuclear weapons then I do not see how this would increase weapons proliferation. The countries listed account for over 85% of the CO2 emissions in the world. Reducing the emissions of these countries seems like a good start.

  6. AvatarJoel Riddle says

    May 28, 2013 at 7:58 PM

    When I see those claims of racism coming from Mr. Green, I can’t help but see it as essentially an instance of Godwin’s Law (albeit w/ no specific mention of nazis) with Mr. Green automatically conceding defeat.

    Sorry, Jim Green, but what you have thought about nuclear power for so many years is actually mostly wrong.

    • AvatarJoel Riddle says

      May 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM

      Oh yeah, a link for Godwin’s Law:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

      • AvatarJeff Walther says

        May 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

        Heh. Godwin was my TA when I took “Shakespear at Winedale” in 1981.

    • AvatarAtomikRabbit says

      May 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM

      I nominate Riddle’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law:

      “As an online discussion opposing nuclear energy grows more tiresome, the probability of a comparison involving racism approaches 1.”

  7. AvatarJoris van Dorp says

    May 29, 2013 at 9:22 AM

    Excellent post Rod. It would be tremendous if Dr. Green would become a born-again pro-nuke. While long-term pro-nukes like yourself have done a lot for nuclear power understanding and acceptance, born-again pro-nukes are especially effective at getting people to rethink long-held anti-nuke beliefs.

    I think you did a very good job at extending a hand to Dr. Green, rather than do what I might have done in your place: crush his fault-ridden anti-nuclear advocacy in the dust with maniacal glee, which may be enjoyable for a short while, but which is of course largely pointless and probably counterproductive to the cause of improving nuclear energy acceptance with the aim of increasing the availability of clean, affordable energy for all.

  8. AvatarCyril R. says

    May 31, 2013 at 5:26 AM

    Fossil fuels also have repeatedly demonstrated connections to weapons of mass destruction.

    All conventional weaponry – bombs, missiles, even bullets – are powered by fossil fuel and fossil fuel derived chemicals. Such weapons have killed orders of magnitudes more people historically than nuclear weapons.

    Since wind and solar need lots of natural gas to back them up, and natural gas *IS* used to make weapons, there clearly is a major weapons of mass destuction risk from wind and solar power.

    Or does the killing of millions by bombs and bullets not count as mass destruction? WWI, WWII, Iraq, was this not mass destruction? Many more people were killed by fossil fuel powered weapons in WWII than by nuclear weapons.

    While we’re at it, we can also ban toy factories, as they can demonstrably be converted to AK47 manufacturing facilities. No more toys for you, kids!

    • AvatarAtomikrabbit says

      May 31, 2013 at 8:07 AM

      Windmills are obviously first cousins to other rotating mechanical devices such as propellers. Any idea how many people have been killed by fossil-fueled bombs dropped by by propeller-powered aircraft?

    • AvatarJoris van Dorp says

      May 31, 2013 at 8:55 AM

      Here in the Netherlands, a windturbine salesman giving us a presentation claimed that the large modern windturbines ‘do not kill more birds than smaller turbines’. I asked him: why should we sacrifice birds by building windturbines? He laughed and pretended I was joking.

      • AvatarBrian Mays says

        May 31, 2013 at 9:02 AM

        You mean windturbine con man.

      • AvatarEL says

        May 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM

        SNAP! You got him on that one.

    • AvatarDavid Walters says

      May 31, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      The Colt M-16, Vietnam era, was indeed made in large part from a toy company.

      • AvatarBrian Mays says

        May 31, 2013 at 10:17 AM

        The company that designed the weapon, however, came largely out of the aircraft industry.

        Colt merely licensed the design.

  9. AvatarFrank Jablonski says

    May 31, 2013 at 3:56 PM

    I had standing personal and professional ties to local institutional environmentalists. When I decided I needed to at least consider nuclear energy, it took me a couple of years, from about 2004 to 2006 to re-think the issue and study my way through my (factually unsupported, but nonetheless strongly-held) objections.

    I had the benefit of substantial independence, i.e., of not being, in that time frame, directly employed, or in a leadership position in any environmental institution. This took me out of the continuous, self-reinforcing, anti-nuclear echo chamber, and meant that I did not professionally or personally NEED to maintain the same opinion.

    I think it requires extra courage to switch one’s position if one is in a position like Jim Green. It is harder to do so, both socially and professionally, when anti-nuclear activism is part of your defined professional role, and you are closely surrounded by the anti-nuclear echo chamber.

    Institutional environmental leaders do not have much independence. Being anti-nuclear is part of their job description. Their daily and weekly experience has them wrapped up in social relationships that are intertwined with a surrounding anti-nuclear echo-chamber. A different position is well-nigh inconceivable. It should be no surprise, then, that virtually all environmental institutions remain virulently opposed to nuclear energy.

    Change on this issue among environmental institutions is going to have to be forced in from the outside, by people like the film-maker behind Pandora’s Promise. Further, the targets of reality-based advocacy on nuclear energy will have to be the members of environmental groups, as opposed to the established leaders; the leaders have too much at stake in established positions.

    Mr. Green is an example of how environmentalist leaders will only acknowledge facts on nuclear issues when there is no viable alternative to doing so. His acknowledgement of a factual error appears to be a passing phenomena that came about because he could not avoid it anymore. His error was simply too big, too blatant, and too broadly called-out, for him to simply ignore it. When Mr. Green acknowledged his error, he immediately fled to another, equally specious rationalization – – the supposed unbroken link between civilian nuclear energy and nuclear weapons – – that could “justify” his stance.

    I would not call this courage. I would call it clever.

    It is futile to hope that institutionally connected environmentalists in leadership positions will exercise full intellectual integrity, and carefully weigh all the issues associated with nuclear in light of the full set of relevant facts, and in light of the climate and energy challenges. Doing so would make them uncomfortable, and the social and professional costs of changing one’s opinion are too high.

Primary Sidebar

Search Atomic Insights

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #291 – Kalev Kallemets, Fermi Energia

Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell

South Texas Project Unit 1 tripped at 0537 on Feb 15, 2021

Atomic Show #290 – Myrto Tripathi, Voices of Nuclear

Change is in the wind: Commencing a new phase as a Venture Capitalist

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy