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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…