Leslie Kemeny's nuclear crusade

Jim Green, Online Opinion, 29 January 2013

www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14624&page=0

Other than paid columnists, retired academic and strident nuclear advocate Leslie Kemeny has had more opinion pieces published in Australian newspapers than anyone else. A rough calculation indicates he has had over 200 pieces published over the past 40 years.

The remarkable thing is that it's pretty much the same opinion piece every time. A topical lead, then a light edit of previous material. Many of his pieces contain an appeal to "informed realism" − which is nothing more than a cheap shot at uninformed, unrealistic critics of the industry. He often refers to unnamed "international experts" who are purportedly "appalled" or "bemused" at Australia's failure to expand the nuclear industry − again, no substance, he's just wasting precious seconds that you'll never get back.

In recent years Kemeny has repeatedly quoted an International Energy Agency (IEA) report which purportedly states that: "Nuclear power is the technology which must be accelerated and promoted and relied upon if the world is to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at an acceptable level."

In fact, the IEA has never said any such thing. The report to which Kemeny refers merely said that nuclear power is one technology that can help reduce greenhouse emissions. Energy efficiency and renewables contribute eight times more to climate change abatement than nuclear power under the IEA's hypothetical scenario.

Nuclear expansion is always portrayed as a pathway to wealth and prosperity in Kemeny's opinion pieces and these assertions are unencumbered by any connection with reality. He writes that exporting uranium without first enriching it "is just plain dumb", yet the Switkowski Report, BHP Billiton and others have argued that an enrichment industry in Australia would be an economic white elephant.

There are numerous factual errors; for example, Kemeny claims that "about 60" countries have embraced nuclear power − nearly twice the true figure. He claims that the Chernobyl death toll is 56, but studies by the World Health Organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other UN bodies estimate 9,000 deaths in Eastern Europe, while other credible scientific studies put the global figure as much as 10 times higher.

Many of Kemeny's "facts" could be described as outliers; for example, he gives a figure of five kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of nuclear power, yet the 2006 Switkowski Report put the figure 12 times higher.

Kemeny claims in a January 2013 opinion piece in the Canberra Times that there is a growing consensus among the world's leading scientists that energy can be best sourced from a ''generation four'' nuclear power plant. There is no such consensus and Kemeny provides no evidence to support the claim. His claim that "generation four" reactors could produce electricity for under two cents per kilowatt hour is laughable. The French Superphenix was promoted as the first commercial-scale 'fast breeder' reactor in the world. However it was one of the worst-performing reactors in history and the electricity it produced cost US$1.33 perkilowatt hour. Once again, Kemeny isn't just wrong, but wrong by orders of magnitude.

In 1982, Kemeny's writings were subjected to detailed analysis by Prof. Brian Martin, a physicist who was then teaching in the science faculty at the Australian National University. Prof. Martin concluded his analysis: "In quite a number of ways, Kemeny in his public advocacy of nuclear power does not fit the image of the objective, trustworthy expert: he addresses only some of the issues and seldom replies to anti-nuclear arguments; he presents large amounts of irrelevant material; he is subject to inaccuracy, and on occasion fails to acknowledge his mistakes; he continually denigrates opponents; he speaks from a position representing a potential conflict of interest; and his expertise is mostly irrelevant to the issues, or of doubtful quality."

Kemeny threatened to sue and claimed that legal counsel had suggested a five-figure sum for damages. It was an idle threat − there was no apology and no legal action. The correspondence − both entertaining and illuminating − is posted on Prof. Martin's Wollongong University webpage.

Kemeny suggests Prof. Martin "may never have left the sterile corridors of academia", yet at least one of Kemeny's forays beyond academia ended in disaster. He was caught up in the failed Nu-Tec investment scheme (as a victim according to the ABC). This was the subject of a two-part special on the 7:30 Report in 2005.

ABC reporter Emma Alberici said: "Professor Leslie Kemeny has been involved in the area of nuclear science for 30 years. That's how long he's been trying to get his technologies commercialised. So far none of his theories have left the drawing board. ... According to the company line Nu-Tec was a serious player with ground-breaking nuclear applications. Noted nuclear physicist Leslie Kemeny was ... the company's ace. The truth, however, was that Nu-Tec was no tech. Its technology didn't exist. Just a few underdeveloped ideas rattling around Professor Kemeny's mind. Some rudimentary paper work and a sales pitch aimed at novice investors. ... None of the institutional investors fell for Gregory Symons's sizzle so the only people burnt were Nu-Tec's small shareholders."

Kemeny's opinion pieces refer to the "pseudo-science" or "coercive utopianism" or "hidden socio-political agendas" of nuclear critics or supporters of "renewable energy" (a term that always appears in quotation marks, for reasons unexplained).

He sometimes lets fly with a conspiracy theory − the same conspiracy theory as that of climate change denier Ian Plimer, two men of the same generation and social cohort. Kemeny writes: "Radical green activism and global terrorism can form dangerous, even deadly, alliances. The 'coercive utopianism' of radical greens, their avid desire for media publicity and their hidden socio-political agendas can produce societal outcomes that are sometimes violent and ugly."

Kemeny believes the anti-nuclear movement is "supported by immense funds from affluent rightwing interests" and that it should be "recognised for what it is − anti-working class activism aimed at maintaining the last "status quo" for a fortunate minority".

Oh please. Kemeny himself has imposing far-right connections. He was pencilled in as the Christian Democratic Party candidate in the 2007 federal election, though he was replaced by another candidate. The Institute of Public Affairs published his 1985 booklet titled 'The peace movement and its hidden agenda'. He has written for Australian Conservative, a "free and open blogging forum for conservatives". He has had numerous articles published by Quadrant (e.g. Pseudo-science and lost opportunities; Radiation phobia and phantom risks; Beyond Radiation Neurosis).

On other occasions Kemeny spares "affluent rightwing interests" but gets stuck into "the strident rhetoric and opportunistic pseudo-science of the political left."

Clive Hamilton's comments about Ian Plimer also seem apt for Kemeny: "The emergence of the environment and peace movements in the 1970s challenged the benefits of nuclear technology, the power of the military-industrial complex and the claims of science to neutrality and benevolence. ... The criticism of the hitherto unquestioned place of science and technology destabilised the power and privilege of the scientific elite."

Hence a cohort of Grumpy Old Men.

Even Kemeny's bio notes raise questions about the precision of his writing. For example one wonders what he means when he says he was "the Australian observer and assessor at Chernobyl". Elsewhere he says his trip to Chernobyl was organised "through the offices of the I.A.E.A." − whatever that means. He describes himself as the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy − but the Academy is just a lobby group comprised of Grumpy Old Men.

Jim Green is the national energy campaigner with Friends of the Earth

Here is a longer critique from which the above article was drawn ...

Other than paid newspaper columnists, who has had the most opinion pieces published in Australian newspapers in the past 40 years?

Retired academic and strident nuclear advocate Leslie Kemeny wins by a country mile. And good luck to him - he's nothing if not persistent.

Kemeny has had well over 100 opinion pieces published over the decades, probably 200+, perhaps even 300+. The remarkable thing is that it's pretty much the same opinion piece every time. His standard opinion piece:
-- nearly always argues for development of the entire fuel cycle in Australia - uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, power reactors, reprocessing and repositories.
-- nearly always contains an appeal to "informed realism" as a reason to expand the nuclear industry
-- there's often a reference to unnamed "international experts" who are purportedly appalled and/or bemused at Australia's failure to expand the nuclear industry. Recently, "the world" was "bemused" that Australia had not yet developed nuclear power.
-- there's usually a reference to the 'pseudo-science' and 'coercive utopianism' and 'hidden socio-political agendas' of critics of the nuclear industry or supporters of "renewable energy" (a term which always appears in quotation marks for reasons unexplained)
-- expansion of the nuclear industry is often presented as being "inevitable" (though Kemeny of all people would know otherwise - he has witnessed the rise and fall of plans in Australia for nuclear power, uranium enrichment, an international nuclear repository etc).

Here's a typical Kemenyism: "It now seems inevitable that informed realism, globalisation and commercial realities will dictate for this country the use of domestic nuclear power generation and full involvement in the global nuclear fuel cycle industry."

And another: "A secure, clean and cheap energy future for Australia in which nuclear power plays a pivotal role is a categorical imperative."

Kemeny is fond of sweeping claims, including many that do not stand up to scrutiny, e.g.

"[E]nergy experts are agreed that for Australia domestic nuclear power and involvement in the global nuclear fuel cycle industry would be a commercially rewarding enterprise."

or this ...

"Most energy experts now believe that the only effective solution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is the global acceptance of nuclear power technology."

As you can see there are also frequent appeals to expertise and to unnamed experts.

Nuclear expansion is always portrayed as a pathway to wealth and prosperity and these assertions are unencumbered by any connection with reality. Kemeny writes: "Exporting yellowcake without value adding is just plain dumb." Yet the Switkowski report, BHP Billiton and others have rejected enrichment on economic grounds. According to BHP Billiton: "Enrichment has massive barriers to entry ... We do not believe that conversion and enrichment would be commercially viable in Australia. ... The economics of any Australian conversion, enrichment or fabrication do not look positive, either individually or collectively."

There are numerous factual errors - e.g. Kemeny's latest opinion piece (Oct 2009) claims that "about 60" countries have embraced nuclear power - nearly twice the true figure. Elsewhere he writes that "Many of the 190 nations scheduled to attend Copenhagen have adopted nuclear power ..." Many countries have indeed adopted nuclear power - 31 to be precise - and many more have not.

Kemeny claims that "As of 2005 the total [Chernobyl] death toll is 56." But detailed 2005-06 reports by the UN estimate a death toll of 9000 and other studies estimate a much higher death toll. That Kemeny puts the death toll at 56 lends weight to the view that some of the most unscientific, anti-scientific gibberish sometimes comes from scientists themselves.

Many of Kemeny's 'facts' could be described as outliers, e.g. he gives a figure of 5 kgs of CO2-e per megawatt-hour of nuclear power, yet the Switkowski report puts the figure 12 times higher. Likewise, Kemeny's statement that China plans to have "possibly 100 plants by 2030" is an improbable outlier given that only 11 now exist.

Some of his 'facts' are, on closer inspection, circular, e.g. he seems impressed that every one of the countries importing uranium from Australia operates nuclear power reactors - every last one of them. Whoever would have thunk it?!

Kemeny threatened to sue following publication of a journal article - 'The Naked Experts' - in 1984 by academic Brian Martin. The article and the correspondence are posted at: www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82ecol.html

Prof. Martin concluded his analysis of Kemeny's writings: "In quite a number of ways, Kemeny in his public advocacy of nuclear power does not fit the image of the objective, trustworthy expert: he addresses only some of the issues and seldom replies to anti-nuclear arguments; he presents large amounts of irrelevant material; he is subject to inaccuracy, and on occasion fails to acknowledge his mistakes; he continually denigrates opponents; he speaks from a position representing a potential conflict of interest; and his expertise is mostly irrelevant to the issues, or of doubtful quality."

To which Kemeny responded (as only Kemeny could): "On a recent official visit to Britain, my former colleagues, who know my background and are familiar with my technical expertise and publications, expressed incredulity at the offensive, incorrect, and defamatory nature of the article and expressed amazement that I have not taken legal action."

Later he wrote: "My legal counsel in the United Kingdom and Australia have now advised me that the article "The Naked Experts" ... is scurillous, dishonest and defamatory. The evidence can well be supported by expert witness in both countries and a five figure sum for damages has been proposed."

Kemeny demanded an apology but did not get one and he did not pursue his legal threats. Kemeny's demand for all copies of that issue of The Ecologist magazine to be sent to him was not met

Kemeny sometimes offers a conspiracy theory (much the same conspiracy theory as Ian Plimer's - two men of the same generation and social cohort):

"Chernobyl's reassessed medical and societal impacts show that risks as perceived through the human psyche can only be understood by those who undertake a measure of scientific enquiry and then exercise informed realism. Without this, fear and emotional blackmail can govern our lives. And there are some who are willing to use the incitement of fear to achieve control over the lives of individuals, communities and even nations to achieve socio-political goals."

Kemeny believes the anti-nuclear movement is "supported by immense funds from affluent rightwing interests" and that it should be "recognised for what it is - anti-working class activism aimed at maintaining the last "status quo" for a fortunate minority".

Where he gets such barking mad ideas from is anyone's guess. Lyndon LaRouche makes similar comments, e.g. "The 'anti-blue collar,' 'anti-industrial,' 'anti-nuclear power,' and 'green' traits of that increasingly influential, 'white-collar baby-boomer' portion of the population, have exerted an extraordinary influence ..."

And another conspiratorial line from Kemeny: "Radical green activism and global terrorism can form dangerous, even deadly, alliances. The 'coercive utopianism' of radical greens, their avid desire for media publicity and their hidden socio-political agendas can produce societal outcomes that are sometimes violent and ugly." And another from LaRouche: "This utterly depraved, dionysian cult-formation found its echoed, more violent expression in late 1980s Germany, where the anti-nuclear, fascist rioting reached near to the level of outright civil war by the German "cousins" of the Weathermen."

On other occasions it is not "affluent rightwing interests" but the "political left" which Kemeny blames: "Solutions to Australia's greenhouse gas emission problems are not to be found in the strident rhetoric and opportunistic pseudo-science, of the political left."

Clive Hamilton's comments about Ian Plimer also seem apt for Kemeny: "The emergence of the environment and peace movements in the 1970s challenged the benefits of nuclear technology, the power of the military-industrial complex and the claims of science to neutrality and benevolence. ... The criticism of the hitherto unquestioned place of science and technology destabilised the power and privilege of the scientific elite."

Thus Kemeny attacks activists who "use pseudo-science to create an environment of terror and distrust of all legitimate authority."

And another appeal to cede authority to experts: "Among the enormous crowds who observe international sporting contests, there are always those who think they can change the course or even the rules of a game by simply shouting or demonstrating from the grandstand. But desirable conduct on the field should always be in the hands of the expert umpires and linesmen."

For nuclear scientists such as Kemeny it wasn't just their beliefs under challenge - there were major practical effects. Kemeny writes: "Sadly, by the mid-1980s atomic energy had dropped out of the agenda of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and projects with an engineering or energy technology orientation were terminated. Australia began to face a huge policy vacuum in respect of peaceful nuclear energy. This is still being experienced today. The nation's only School of Nuclear Engineering was disestablished. Radical green political activism, enjoying a fruitful alliance with the media and using the potent psychology of fear of radiation and pseudo-scientific risk analysis, had successfully established a powerful anti-nuclear ethos within the Australia community."

Hence a cohort of disgruntled, elderly, and sometimes conspiratorial nuclear scientists. (Keith Alder's book title says it all: 'Australia's Uranium Opportunities: How Her Scientists and Engineers Tried to Bring Her into the Nuclear Age but were Stymied by Politics'.)

Kemeny was caught up in the failed Nu-Tec investment scheme (as a victim according to the ABC - and I'm not suggesting otherwise). This was the subject of a 2-part special on ABC TV's 7:30 Report in March 2005. ABC reporter Emma Alberici concluded: "The truth, however, was that Nu-Tec was no tech. Its technology didn't exist. Just a few underdeveloped ideas rattling around Professor Kemeny's mind. Some rudimentary paper work and a sales pitch aimed at novice investors."

Lastly, a response by UNSW academic Mark Diesendorf to one of Kemeny's recent opinion pieces is posted at:
www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/need-energy-forget-nuclear...