Skip to main content

On the Papal Encyclical & Nuclear Energy

J.T. Rodriguez
The following is a guest post by J.T. Rodriguez, a communications intern at NEI.

In his recent encyclical about care for "our common home," the earth, Pope Francis had a lot to say. I was curious to see what he had to say. I had no idea if he had said anything on nuclear energy, but as it turns out, he has.

While there were many mentions about renewable energy resources in Laudato Si’, he does also say things about nuclear energy technology.

“These comments are not surprising from the first Pope to have studied chemistry, and who worked as a chemist prior to entering the seminary,” wrote Forbes contributor James Conca.

“It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous power,” wrote Pope Francis.

It is an interesting comment and not as self-evident as it first appears. Pope Francis says elsewhere that these technologies and other of men’s discoveries and creations can lead to bad ends if badly handled. As Spider-Man said, "With great power comes great responsibility," and the Pope makes it plain that emerging technologies can be used for good or evil.

There is a tone of caution: oversight, responsibility and accountability are necessary to the successful implementation of technologies like nuclear energy. Caution mixed with a little doubt: Pope Francis worries that “our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.”

The Pope and U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.
The American industry has shown the kind of responsibility mentioned here. If we allow that the Pope has subjective measures in mind, still, there are some objective measures that we can use to show this.

“In the U.S., commercial nuclear plants have been operating since the late 1960s. If you add up the plants’ years in operation, they average about 30 years each, totaling about 3,000 reactor years of operating experience. There have been no fatalities to any member of the public due to the operation of a commercial nuclear power plant in the U.S. Our risk in human terms is vanishingly low,” wrote Gary Was recently at Green Building Blogs.

Regulation also plays a large part in ensuring safety – you could call it a backstop to the industry’s own efforts. In fact, safety is taken so seriously in the U.S. that it is considered “an absolute way of life,” said Randy Edington, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at Palo Verde. The safety culture and regulatory regime of the American industry is considered the gold standard around the world.

Clearly, Pope Francis’ priorities have nothing directly to do with the energy business. But it is interesting to see him take note of renewable energy sources and to not dismiss nuclear energy as a non-starter. The encyclical is extremely well considered and worth attention by anyone interested in the subject. The Pope has the ability to shape attitudes broadly, so one must consider the encyclical an exceptionally compelling document, whatever one may feel about its details.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Coincidentally, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan cited that same quote from Spider-Man in a decision issued yesterday. Small world.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The pope's home country has a relatively ok nuclear power program and the vatican has long been ok with nuclear power specially as a way to burn up plutonium from dismantled nuclear bombs (vatican is a funding member of the IAEA and the catholic church didnt join multi faith anti nuclear power movements in japan post fukushima).

The pope more or less skirted around nuclear power in the Laudato si (but you could interpret some statements about the "lesser evil" and short term stopgap solutions as possibly pro nuclear) has advantages. As it is, the laudato si only alienates climate change deniers and a few greedy capitalists. Both pro and anti nuclear environmentalists would support it. I think avoiding direct outright support or condemnation of nuclear power is a very canny move to avoid unnecessarily alienating people
jimwg said…
Till I actually hear him bluntly stating that nukes are a climate change remedy everything else is good as PC hearsay.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …