Conclusion

Thank you very much for taking the time to read some of my blog posts! I hope to continue posting - all be it less frequently - in the future as the "nuclear future" becomes the "nuclear present"!

Any questions or queries about nuclear energy would be most welcome on this post.

Nuclear Energy and Christianity

As a Catholic I thought it would be interesting to examine the Christian ethical stance on nuclear energy and compare it to my own. From initial scans of literature it is clear that I am not exactly aligned with the general attitudes of the Church. The first explicit opposition to nuclear energy was provided by Pope Francis in an audience with the Bishops of Japan. He likened the human quest for nuclear energy to the Biblical story of the “Tower of Babel”. This story saw humans exceeding their role within the natural restraints – by attempting to build a tower directly to heaven. This project ended in their own destruction – Pope Francis therefore feels humans are going beyond what we are naturally here to achieve, meaning human destruction is potentially a result (Buff 2015). This was in response to the Fukushima disaster, where Japanese Bishops at the time demanded the state shutdown all reactors, due to the risk of mortality. This statement was the first to oppose nuclear energy, progressing from the previous stance that was explicitly in opposition to nuclear weapons only (Buff 2015).

Illustration of  the Tower of Babel - Humanity breaching the God-given natural laws. Image (Mallett 2008).

The Christian stewardship ethic develops from Genesis, where humans were given dominion over all life that shares the Earth with humanity (Christianto 2013). This stewardship ethic is not only a  product of maintaining the role provided by God, but also an ethic based on the “New Creation”, the Earth that will be produced in harmony and equity following the return of God (Butler 1979). Therefore not only does the ethic suggest we must be stewards to all life now, but also in the future to ensure the Earth is ready for the New Creation. This has obvious ties to nuclear energy – for example the inter-generational concerns of nuclear waste providing future risks of freshwater contamination, biodiversity pollution or human death, to name a few. However, it could be argued that climate change provides similar threats. Therefore nuclear energy may potentially be required to become a steward of life, as the loss of life from climate change may exceed anything imaginable via nuclear energy.

Nuclear has the potential to destroy life (Butler 1979); therefore in this sense it would be opposed by the Christian Stewardship ethic. Taken to a basic level, the commandant “You shall not kill” may conflict with the widespread implementation of nuclear energy (PCA 1987). If nuclear is implemented with the knowledge that there is the potential to kill, with past evidence displaying the threat to life, then it may be argued that nuclear is treading a fine line with this vastly important commandment. When taking into account the potential proliferation of nuclear material and waste for use in weapons and terrorism then this more explicitly highlights the conflict and Christian opposition (PCA 1987).

The stewardship ethic can expand into the economic side of nuclear energy, with many developing nations often taking out exponential loans to fund nuclear projects (Christianto 2013). The social detriment that vast debts can provide are obvious, they include reduced education, health care and other public services in order to repay the loans. This once again would conflict with the Christian ethic of stewardship, not only does nuclear construction place the people at greater risk, but it also can boost global inequality and human suffering.

Pope Francis is not very happy about the potential detriment of nuclear...
Image (Sdcharg Blog Account 2015).

Therefore it is suggested that Christians should push for other renewable options (Christianto 2013), such as wind, solar and hydro. This is perhaps ignorant to the risks and damages that these often “romanticised” options can provide. I acknowledge the risks at hand, yet I have to go against the Church by continuing to support the nuclear potential. If the view point is driven by stewardship to all life and inter-generational equality – then climate change must surely be acknowledged as a greater threat to this ethical stance. If nuclear can be influential in the fight against climate change and the biodiversity damage it causes, then it should be promoted as a suitable energy option!

Poll Results and Generation IV Reactors

The purpose of my poll was to attempt to gauge the common feeling about nuclear energy and its potential. Responses to the poll have occurred over time and therefore whether they are a priori deductions or based on the evidence from my posts is relatively unknown.

The vast majority see nuclear energy as playing a large role in the future energy sector - with many agreeing with me in that nuclear has to be used if climate change mitigation is going to become a reality. Those that viewed nuclear as a risk may experience some of the points made in past posts about public perception - the over exaggerated fear within a risk society (Beck 1992) or the enhanced opposition based on images of nuclear war and power plant disasters.

I initially believed many more would oppose nuclear energy. I was personally unsure on my stance to begin with also, however as the blog has developed over the weeks I have definitely shifted towards a pro-nuclear position - it simply can not be disregarded!

A greater shift towards positivity may emerge in the coming years with the transition from Generation III to Generation IV nuclear reactors (Horvath 2016). This is the product of The Generation IV International Forum, deciding upon 6 new nuclear technologies that will progress in the 21st Century - one being the Molten Salt Reactor mentioned in a past post (WNA 2015a). Three of the technologies will be "fast reactors" (WNA 2015a), meaning they use the fast neutrons from Uranium-238 as well as the U-235 isotope (WNA 2015b). It is hoped that wide-scale application of these technologies will emerge 2020-2030. The intent is to close the cycles of nuclear reactors, providing greater levels of recycling and consequently greater energy production efficiency and reduced waste creation (Horvath 2016).

It is believed that these new technologies will enable the life-time of nuclear waste to be reduced to hundreds of years, rather than the hundreds of thousands of years associated with conventional reactors (Horvath 2016). The fast reactors are capable of burning the actinides, which are the components of the high level waste that have exponential life-times (WNA 2015b).The waste produced following the reprocessing of spent fuel has a lower heat capacity than the spent fuel itself - therefore this means that when the waste is stored, for example in a deep, geological store, it can be done so at a greater density. This therefore means less space is required - which can prolong the global, burial potential - as well as limiting the level of proximate exposure to human settlements.

Not only do these new technologies provide sustainable, efficient energy production - but also there is the belief that they will increase the cost-efficiency via closed cycle reprocessing - as well as providing more resistant waste material against the potential proliferation for weapon construction (Horvath 2016).

Nuclear is not the same as it was when Chernobyl threatened global safety and security - progressions have been made and will continue to be made in the future. New technologies are emerging that reduce waste and improve security and awareness, with increased international checks and standards to abide to. I argue that many who oppose nuclear still have, what is now arguably an "archaic" image of nuclear. The majority showed similar viewpoints to me, supporting the potential for nuclear. This is potentially a product of the readership, with it suggested that increased support emerges from a more educated audience (OECD 2010).