Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-w79xw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T03:16:45.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Technological Advancements and the Need for Revised Theological Guidance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2025

David Doherty Open the ORCID record for David Doherty [Opens in a new window]
David Doherty*
Affiliation:
Order of Preachers English Province, London, UK
*
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores some ethical implications of nuclear energy from a theological perspective. The key point argued for is that the few texts in the literature that address nuclear energy from a theological perspective do not give adequate weight to the importance of the potential benefits of nuclear energy as part of climate change mitigation strategies. The same also applies to the possible role of nuclear energy in providing compensation for future generations in terms of energy resource durability. The texts thus fail to address matters of importance for intergenerational justice. I examine first an article by Jame Schaefer that discusses Aquinas’ conception of prudence in relation to nuclear energy. I then discuss the relevant sections of the papal encyclical, Laudato Si’ and the Japanese Bishops Conference’s document, Abolition of Nuclear Power. All these texts fail to articulate the potential benefits of nuclear energy pertaining to some perspectives on intergenerational justice, because they do not take sufficient note of advances in nuclear technology that would allay some of the concerns expressed within the texts with which I take issue.

Keywords

climate changeethics of nuclear energyintergenerational justiceintergenerational solidarityprudence
Type
Article
Information
New Blackfriars , First View , pp. 1 - 16
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Jānis Krūmiņš and Māris Kļaviņš, ‘Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free Energy Future’, Energies, 16(9) (2023), 1–3, https://doi.org/10.3390/en16093612.

2 Ibid., 8.

3 Ibid., 1.

4 GHG = greenhouse gas.

5 Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen, ‘Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power’, Environmental Science & Technology, 4(9) (2013), 4889, https://doi.org/10.1021/es3051197.

6 See Abidur Rahman, Omar Farrok, and Md Mejbaul Haque, ‘Environmental Impact of Renewable Energy Source Based Electrical Power Plants: Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Biomass, Geothermal, Tidal, Ocean, and Osmotic’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161 (2022), 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112279.

7 See Ibid., 3–4.

8 See Krūmiņš and Kļaviņš, ‘Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free Energy Future’, 13.

9 See Mariliis Lehtveer and Fredrik Hedenus, ‘Nuclear Power as a Climate Mitigation Strategy – Technology and Proliferation Risk’, Journal of Risk Research, 18(3) (2015), 282–84, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.889194.

10 See Seth A. Hoedl, ‘Ethical Review for Nuclear Power: Inspiration from Bioethics’, in Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law – Volume VI, ed. Jonathan L. Black-Branch and Dieter Fleck (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2021), 349, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-463-1_13, citing Nuclear Energy Agency, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (Paris: OECD, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312180-en. Accessed Dec 12th 2024.

11 See Hoedl, ‘Ethical Review for Nuclear Power’, 348–49.

12 See Simon Friederich and Maarten Boudry, ‘Ethics of Nuclear Energy in Times of Climate Change: Escaping the Collective Action Problem’, Philosophy & Technology, 35(2) (2022), 30, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00527-1.

13 Ibid., 5.

14 Ibid., 18.

15 See Céline Kermisch and Behnam Taebi, ‘Sustainability, Ethics and Nuclear Energy: Escaping the Dichotomy’, Sustainability, 9(3) (2017), 4–5, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030446.

16 See Behnam Taebi and Sabine Roeser, ‘The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Its Past, Present and Future’, in In Search of Good Energy Policy, ed. Marc Ozawa et al., 1st edn (Cambridge University Press, 2019), 103, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108639439.010.

17 See Kristin Shrader-Frechette, ‘Answering “Scientific” Attacks on Ethical Imperatives: Wind and Solar Versus Nuclear Solutions to Climate Change’, Ethics and the Environment, 18(1) (2013), 11, https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.18.1.1.

18 See Edwin Lyman, ‘“Advanced” Isn’t Always Better: Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors’ (Union of Concerned Scientists, 18 March 2021), 4, https://doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000.

19 See Ibid.

20 See Georges Van Goethem, ‘Generation IV: European Union – Breakthrough Technologies to Improve Sustainability, Safety & Reliability, Socio-Economics and Proliferation Resistance’, in Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors: A Guidebook, ed. I. L. Pioro, 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA: Woodhead Publishing, 2023), 321.

21 See Ibid.

22 See Man-Sung Yim, Nuclear Waste Management: Science, Technology, and Policy, Lecture Notes in Energy, Volume 83 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2022), 263.

23 See Van Goethem, ‘Generation IV: European Union – Breakthrough Technologies to Improve Sustainability, Safety & Reliability, Socio-Economics and Proliferation Resistance’, 321.

24 Ibid., 114.

25 See Igor L. Pioro and Gilles H Rodriguez, ‘Generation IV International Forum (GIF)’, in Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors: A Guidebook, ed. I. L. Pioro, 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA: Woodhead Publishing, 2023), 116–17.

26 See NEA, ‘The NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard’ (OECD Publishing, 2023), www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_78743/the-nea-small-modular-reactor-dashboard?details=true.

27 See David Bodansky, Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edn (New York: Springer, 2004), 218. Although written over 20 years ago, this is a useful source on gaining insights into nuclear energy.

28 See Ibid.

29 See Taebi and Roeser, ‘The Ethics of Nuclear Energy’, 106.

30 See Ibid., 105.

31 See J. Portugal-Pereira et al., ‘Better Late than Never, but Never Late Is Better: Risk Assessment of Nuclear Power Construction Projects’, Energy Policy, 120 (2018), 158–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.041.

32 NEA, ‘The NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard’, 2nd edn (Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 13 March 2024), 12, https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_90816/the-nea-small-modular-reactor-dashboard-second-edition.

33 See Ibid., 18.

34 See Ibid., 20.

35 See Portugal-Pereira et al., ‘Better Late than Never, but Never Late Is Better’, 163.

36 See Ian Scott, ‘Static Liquid Fuel Reactors’, in Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium Energy, ed. Thomas James Dolan, Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy (Duxford, United Kingdom; Cambridge, MA, United States; Kidlington, United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing, an imprint of Elsevier, 2017), 492.

37 See Ibid., 490.

38 See Moltex Energy, ‘Stable Salt Reactor’, accessed 3 December 2024, https://www.moltexenergy.com/costs-less/.

39 See Moltex Energy, ‘Stable Salt Reactor (Wasteburner): Reduces Waste’, accessed 5 December 2024, https://www.moltexenergy.com/reduces-waste/.

40 See Moltex Energy, ‘New Brunswick Stable Salt Reactor’, accessed 3 December 2024, https://www.moltexenergy.com/our-first-reactor/.

41 Behnam Taebi and Jan Leen Kloosterman, ‘Design for Values in Nuclear Technology’, in Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, ed. Jeroen Van Den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas, and Ibo Van De Poel (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2015), 805–6, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_30.

42 See Taebi and Roeser, ‘The Ethics of Nuclear Energy’, 104.

43 Taebi and Kloosterman, ‘Design for Values in Nuclear Technology’, 819.

44 See Behnam Taebi and Andrew C. Kadak, ‘Intergenerational Considerations Affecting the Future of Nuclear Power: Equity as a Framework for Assessing Fuel Cycles’, Risk Analysis, 30(9) (2010), 1346, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01434.x.

45 Taebi and Kloosterman, ‘Design for Values in Nuclear Technology’, 814.

46 Kermisch and Taebi, ‘Sustainability, Ethics and Nuclear Energy’, 5.

47 See Taebi and Kadak, ‘Intergenerational Considerations Affecting the Future of Nuclear Power’, 1347.

48 Jame Schaefer, ‘Imprudence and Intergenerational Injustice: The Ongoing Vices of Opting for Nuclear Fueled Electricity’, Environmental Ethics, 38(3) (2016), 261, https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201638325.

49 See St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Secunda Secundae, 1-91, ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón, trans. Laurence Shapcote, O.P., vol. 17, Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas (Lander, Wyoming: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012). The English translation is the version referred to in this article.

50 See ST 2a2ae q47 a8 respondeo.

51 See Schaefer, ‘Imprudence and Intergenerational Injustice’, 263.

52 See Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Secunda Secundae, 1-91, 17, loc. 443–526.

53 See ST 2a2ae q47 a10 reply obj 1.

54 ST 2a2ae q49 a1 reply obj 3.

55 The caution part of prudence is not to be equated with the precautionary principle in environmental ethics.

56 See John Downer, ‘The Unknowable Ceilings of Safety: Three Ways That Nuclear Accidents Escape the Calculus of Risk Assessments’, in The Ethics of Nuclear Energy, ed. Behnam Taebi and Sabine Roeser, 1st edn (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 47, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107294905.003.

57 ST 2a2ae q49 a1 reply obj 3.

58 ST 2a2ae q53, a3 respondeo.

59 ST 2a2ae q53 a2 respondeo.

60 Ibid.

61 ST 2a2ae q53 a5 sed contra.

62 See ST 2a2ae q53 a2 respondeo.

63 See ST 2a2ae q55 a7 rep obj 2.

64 See Schaefer, ‘Imprudence and Intergenerational Injustice’, 259.

65 See Ibid., 259–62.

66 Ibid., 262.

67 See Ibid., 263.

68 Ibid., 264.

69 Ibid., 268.

70 Schaefer, ‘Imprudence and Intergenerational Injustice’, 275, citing from St Thomas’ Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae q47 a8 and 1a2ae q57 a6.

71 See Schaefer, ‘Imprudence and Intergenerational Injustice’, 275.

72 See Ibid.

73 Ibid., 276.

74 See Ibid., 282–83.

75 See Pope Francis, ‘Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home’ (Holy See, 24 May 2015), 104, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.

76 Ibid., 184.

77 Ibid.

78 See Ibid., 159.

79 Ibid.

80 See Vincent Ialenti, ‘Alter-Ecologies: Envisioning Papal and Ecomodernist Nuclear Energy Policy Futures’, in Care for the World, ed. Frank Pasquale, 1st edn (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 82, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108227049.005.

81 Ibid., 78.

82 See Kermisch and Taebi, ‘Sustainability, Ethics and Nuclear Energy’, 5.

83 See Pope Francis, ‘Laudato Si’, 159.

84 See Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Japan, Abolition of Nuclear Power: An Appeal from the Catholic Church in Japan (Tokyo: Bishops Conference of Japan, 2020), https://www.cbcj.catholic.jp/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ABOLITIONofNUCLEAR_POWER_pdf_ver.pdf.

85 See Ibid., 9.

86 See Ibid., 56.

87 See Ibid., 166., citing Laudato Si’ 66.

88 Ibid.

89 See Jacob Shapiro, Radiation Protection: A Guide for Scientists, Regulators, and Physicians, 4th edn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 83 (Table 2.12).

90 Note that Shapiro (2002) is an excellent source of general information on the technical aspects of nuclear energy and radiation protection.

91 ‘UNSCEAR 2013 Report’, Scientific Annex A, Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (New York: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2014), 10, https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscear-reports/UNSCEAR_2013_Report_Vol.I.pdf.

92 See Ibid., 6.

93 See ‘UNSCEAR 2016 Report’, Report to the General Assembly (Scientific Annexes A, B, C and D) (New York: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2017), 3, https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscear-reports/UNSCEAR_2016_Report-CORR2.pdf.

94 See ‘UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report’, Scientific Annex B, Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: Implications of Information Published since the UNSCEAR 2013 Report (New York: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2022), 5, https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscear-reports/UNSCEAR_2020_21_Report_Vol.II.pdf.

95 See Jonathan Chaplin, ‘Public Theology – “Grounded”: An Energy Policy Rooted in Human Flourishing’, in In Search of Good Energy Policy, ed. Marc Ozawa et al., 1st edn (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 57–68, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108639439.005.

96 Ibid., 57.

97 Ibid., 64.

98 See Ibid.