Skip to main content

Arjun Makhijani and Nuclear Absolutism

Arjun_Makhijani The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog has an interesting post of a debate between two environmentalists with, shall we say, divergent views of nuclear energy. As it happens, we attended the same debate and Nuclear Energy Overview, the weekly newsletter for Nuclear Energy Institute members, covered it. Here's some excerpts from that story, focused on Arjun Makhijani's comments:

A debate last week at The National Press Club in Washington, DC, between two environmentalists – and newsmakers – laid out radically opposing views on commercial nuclear energy. One called it “inherently proliferation prone” and the other labeled it “one of the safest technologies ever invented.” The debaters were Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and Patrick Moore, Co-Chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy) and Co-Founder of Greenpeace.


The cost of building nuclear energy plants proved a potent sparring point, with Makhijani saying that Wall Street “would be lining up” to build nuclear power plants if the costs made sense. While Moore acknowledged the large cost of constructing a nuclear power plant, he said that the rising price of commodities have now reversed course and begun to decrease.


Both environmentalists referenced current and nascent technologies to bolster their preferences for future generation sources. Moore said “nuclear waste” is 95 percent reusable, though he acknowledged Makhijani’s point that the fast reactors required to make this true are not yet in common usage.


Similarly, Makhijani acknowledged that removing fossil fuels and nuclear energy from the mix of energy generators would introduce baseload generation issues, but touted the human imagination as a source for solutions. For example, he noted an air-conditioning method that uses wind energy to create ice at night so that the ice can cool a building in the daytime when wind energy is not readily available.

The point we'd like to make - and the WSJ's first-rate discussion does not make - is that environmentalists of Makhijani's stripe sort of shoot themselves in their collective feet by being so absolutist about nuclear energy. Without nuclear energy, and without fossil fuels, they leave themselves only with natural gas as a back stop for intermittent renewable energy sources - and natural gas would likely be equally unacceptable to them if they didn't need something.

The arguments about how the human imagination can fill in for lost energy capacity - and Overview didn't report Makhijani's comments about using a giant magnifying glass to generate heat for experiments requiring it - risks edging into a late-70s Whole Earth Catalog-style of energy options that leaves the practical far behind.

If Makhijani allowed nuclear energy into his equation instead of natural gas, he'd close the carbon free energy cycle and his arguments against a heavier investment into nuclear energy - which Patrick Moore advocates - would at least make for potent debate points and keep the arguments from drifting away into the (admittedly idealistic) ether. This is the calculation Moore has made - from the point of view of Makhijani, perhaps too much so - but that calculation does point a path forward.

Arjun Makhijani. If you're a smart guy, which Makhijani clearly is, this is how you want to be photographed - engaged, leaning in to your interlocutor, clearly thoughtful. You don't have to agree with a single thing he says, but you have to listen and give him his due. If you'd like to see and hear what he has to say, here's a YouTube video from his Nuclear Nonsense series.


djysrv said…
Makhijani showed up in Idaho not too long ago to testify against the GNEP PEIS. Regardless of what you think of GNEP, I was started to see him in Idaho Falls rather than in Washington, DC. When I asked him why he chose to submit his comments in Idaho, he said he was way out West promoting his book. To read what he had to say about GNEP and nuclear matters generally check it out here.
Anonymous said…
"Overview didn't report Makhijani's comments about using a giant magnifying glass to generate heat for experiments requiring it"

Play fair. You're taking this comment out of context in an attempt to make Makhijani look foolish. He was alluding to a story from Greek mythology to make a point about concentrated solar and process heat, not proposing that everyone build giant magnifying glasses for power generation.
GRLCowan said…
I think it is foolish to sell out.

Many interesting nuclear engineering trivia can be picked up -- metallic fuel can't release iodine! -- in this long discussion by Jerry D. Christian of a 1959 sodium reactor overheating accident. Makhijani's style of argument is pleasantly exposed.

--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
Rod Adams said…
One more time - I would bet that at least some of Makhijani's contributors know full well that supporting natural gas is not intellectually defensible.

However, it is economically advantageous if you happen to sell natural gas.

Not everyone is a straightforward, reality based engineering type. Some actually work hard to hide their true motivations.

Disclosure - I promote nuclear fission power and I hope to sometime make some money from that advocacy.
perdajz said…
Makhijani cites Wall Street to argue that nuclear power is not economic. You would think that with the events of the past year, noone would ever again reference Wall Street as the basis for any reasoned assessment of risk vs. reward, especially with regard to nuclear power. Can we all agree not to regard Wall Street as any citadel of wisdom and rationality?
Tom Blees said…
OT, but could anybody point me to a critique or two of Steve Wing's rehash of the Columbia U. TMI study back in 2003? I could have sworn I saw some comment on it on this site in the past, but nothing shows up when I search. I'm sure this must have been discussed here before. Thanks.
Anonymous said…
"Can we all agree not to regard Wall Street as any citadel of wisdom and rationality?"

1. logical fallacy: Wall Street was wrong about mortage-backed securities, thus they're wrong about everything.

2. moot point. Wall Street, ignorant or brilliant, will make the investment decisions. So their degree of confidence in new nuclear power for the US is extremely important.
Another Comment said…
U.S. utilities have already submitted applications for federal loan guarantees for 21 new reactors, totaling $112 billion. The demand is there, if the financing is available.
perdazj said…
To anonymous:

It was Makhijani who made the logical fallacy of assuming that something must be true because Wall Street says so. Wall Street, or what is left of it, may be efficient, but it is not all-knowing, or sage, or prescient.

I have worked in both industries. I have worked on probalistic risk assessments for the nuclear power industry, and value-at-risk calculations nearly every major bank in the U.S. Let me assure you that hedging mortgage backed securities, or any financial derivative for that matter, amounts to child's play compared to understanding how a nuclear power plant works.

At this point, after the MBS collapse and the historic bailout, who cares what Wall Street thinks? Wall Street, in the sense that you are talking about, barely exists.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…