1. Introduction
Nuclear energy involves risks but also potential benefits to society. This article addresses complex technical and ethical questions requiring expert input from multiple disciplines. To give a comprehensive analysis of the ethics of modern nuclear energy technology is far beyond what a single article could achieve. My aims are modest, but, I think important: to argue that theologians writing on the ethics of nuclear technology should provide more nuanced guidance that reflects current technological developments. There is limited theological engagement with how advanced nuclear energy technologies can positively impact intergenerational solidarity, which is an important issue from a theological standpoint in Catholic Social Teaching. Given the scope of the issues involved, readers are encouraged to refer to materials cited in the footnotes for deeper insight into specific areas.
This article examines why nuclear energy may be needed as part of the energy mix, challenging assumptions that renewable energy alone can meet all our energy needs. After reviewing key arguments explaining why nuclear energy may be desirable as part of the energy mix, I highlight current and prospective technological innovations that are of relevance to the role of nuclear energy in allaying fears over risk and the management of high-level waste. I then discuss conflicting perspectives on what is meant by intergenerational justice and the interaction of this issue with issues of resource depletion, which has an intergenerational dimension. Next, I turn to an analysis of some aspects of St Thomas Aquinas’ account of prudence, in response to the arguments of Jame Schaefer. Finally, I offer an overview of relevant ecclesial documents that comment on nuclear energy. I give reasons why the texts inadequately address intergenerational considerations in relation to justice especially given recent technological developments.
2. Is nuclear energy needed? Some considerations: pro and con
It is a matter of ongoing debate whether nuclear energy is needed in the context of reducing carbon emissions. An optimistic view proposed by those generally opposed to new nuclear energy is that some combination of renewables and battery storage will meet all necessary demand for electricity generation requirements, although the deployment of such alternatives is a very challenging endeavour.Footnote 1 As a general picture,
The current global primary energy mix is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, with 84% of the world’s primary energy being sourced from fossil fuels such as oil (33%), coal (27%), and natural gas (24%). In contrast, only 16% of the world’s energy is sourced from low-emission sources, including hydroelectric power (7%), renewable energy sources (5%), and nuclear energy (4%).Footnote 2
Although nuclear energy is not currently a significant source of energy in terms of total energy consumption, there is potential for nuclear in the decarbonisation of existing electrical generation capacity. In terms of looking at decarbonisation of total energy production, the electrification of fossil-fuel based energy sources ‘presents a practical and effective solution to reduce GHG emissions … and create a more sustainable and resilient energy system’.Footnote 3, Footnote 4
It is estimated that nuclear fission has prevented 1.8 million premature deaths due to air pollution globally and could potentially ‘prevent an average of 420 000–7.04 million deaths and 80–240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces’.Footnote 5 As for alternatives to nuclear power, it is worth noting that even renewable energy sources will have some sort of negative environmental impact, and an inappropriate development of renewable energy could be harmful for the environment.Footnote 6 For instance, with solar PV systems, there is the potential for a release of toxic materials that could endanger public health.Footnote 7
Renewable energy sources can be a cheaper and emission-free alternative source of electricity than fossil fuels, but there are potentially challenges due to intermittency and connecting to national grid infrastructure.Footnote 8 Furthermore, there are economic reasons why nuclear energy may be considered as desirable as part of a national energy portfolio. In a 2015 paper, Mariliis Lehtveer and Fredrik Hedenus concluded from future energy model analysis that it is possible to phase out nuclear energy and instead use other energy technologies to meet a sustainability agenda, but the overall costs of mitigating carbon emissions would be higher than using nuclear energy as part of the energy mix.Footnote 9 Other literature indicates including nuclear energy as part of a decarbonisation strategy will decrease mitigation costs by between 10 and 50%Footnote 10 and potentially more with advances in technology.Footnote 11
Simon Friederich and Maarten Boudry, for example, investigated the role of nuclear energy as part of climate change mitigation strategies.Footnote 12 The authors view economic considerations as ‘crucial for the ethical assessment of any energy technology, including nuclear energy, for climate change mitigation’.Footnote 13 Friederich and Boudry conclude that in general, including nuclear power as part of a national energy mix can enable decarbonisation, and for many nations ‘inclusion of nuclear energy in their energy strategy is plausibly ethically mandated’.Footnote 14
Within more contemporary scholarly literature on the ethics of nuclear energy, there has been a shift towards a discussion over ethical frameworks, rather than positions of being either for or against.Footnote 15 Nevertheless, it is still worth highlighting some of the generic reasons why nuclear energy has previously been viewed as being morally un-acceptable amongst authors over the last five decades:Footnote 16
• The very long timespans involved with the radioactive decay of nuclear waste and its high level of toxicity.
• Populations exposed to radioactive emissions are unable to control what happens to them.
• Increased radiation exposure and risks for nuclear workers.
• Increased radiation exposure risk for the general public.
• Inequity in the distribution of risk associated with nuclear energy.
• Justice concerns in relation to the nuclear fuel cycle and who is affected.
Other general points that are made against nuclear energy include a potential link between civil nuclear energy and the military-industrial complex.Footnote 17 This is another issue to bear in mind when considering reasons why nuclear energy may be considered morally wrong in principle or at least opposed at an emotional level.
The development of nuclear energy technology has been shaped by lessons learned from severe nuclear accidents with existing reactor fleets.Footnote 18 These experiences have driven innovations in safety and design, but regulatory frameworks must still balance any potential benefits of new designs with safeguards.Footnote 19 As existing reactor fleets are retired, more modern third generation (Generation-III) reactors offer improved safety, as well as technology to improve fuel burn-up and reduce waste production.Footnote 20 Generation-III reactors include passive safety systems relying on gravity or natural convection to mitigate accident scenarios, meaning no active intervention would be needed for an extended period.Footnote 21 Although such safety features allay concerns over a repeat of a disaster on the scale of Fukushima or Chernobyl, such reactors produce spent nuclear fuel which contains within it isotopes that will be highly radioactive for a long time. The production of fission products is unavoidable with any nuclear fission reactor, with 4–5% of the inventory of spent fuel representing the biggest source of radioactivity.Footnote 22
Although Generation-III designs offer improvements, some ethical concerns remain. Fourth generation (Generation-IV) reactors are advanced nuclear designs that still require research and development.Footnote 23 The aims for Generation-IV nuclear systems include ‘sustainability, economics, safety and reliability, and proliferation resistance and physical protection’.Footnote 24 Another aim includes developing a more sustainable fuel cycle that addresses the problem of long-term nuclear waste, where the use of ‘fast reactors’ or other types of more dedicated advanced reactor designs is necessary.Footnote 25 In a nutshell, there are promising technological developments where spent nuclear fuel can be recycled or reprocessed for use as new fuel.Footnote 26 For instance, a type of reprocessing known as pyroprocessing is an electrorefining process where spent fuel is dissolved at high temperature in an electrolytic solution, with groups of chemical elements separately extracted.Footnote 27 This setup would allow for a large fraction of spent nuclear fuel to be separated out from the other waste fractions.Footnote 28 Such technologies under development have the potential to reduce the time for which nuclear waste (i.e., fission products) remains significantly radioactive down to less than 1,000 years.Footnote 29 This is in comparison to the once-through nuclear fuel cycle (i.e., where no recycling or reprocessing takes place), in which spent fuel must be isolated from the environment for 200,000 years.Footnote 30 The benefits of new technology will ultimately depend on the specific configuration of reactor designs and fuel recycling or reprocessing technologies. The question of how much residual high-level waste will remain even with advanced nuclear energy systems is a useful question to pose in assessing specific design configurations. Ultimately, reactor developers need to provide answers on specific long-term waste disposal requirements.
As part of efforts to transition towards zero direct emission technologies, there is the question of how soon new nuclear projects can be completed. Conventional nuclear energy new-build projects (i.e. light water reactors) have often encountered construction delays, which have in turn increased capital costs.Footnote 31 Despite this, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) advocates that pathways to achieve carbon emission reduction targets by 2050 can be achieved with the assistance of nuclear energy ‘through a combination of the long-term operation of existing plants, large-scale new builds and SMRs’.Footnote 32 The term SMR (small modular reactor) is a broad description of nuclear reactors designed to be built in factories to reduce costs and construction duration.Footnote 33 It is difficult to give an estimate of when SMRs will be commercially available, particularly the types of designs proposed that would better address ethical issues such as long-lived waste. The NEA has developed a ‘dashboard’ for tracking the progress of individual reactor designs, estimating that advanced SMRs will play an increasing role in decarbonising energy infrastructure during the 2030s and 2040s.Footnote 34 Historically, smaller reactors (under 900 MW) have been constructed in less than 6 years (on average).Footnote 35 The question of how long it will take to develop new nuclear energy projects is relevant to an ethical debate, since there is an urgent need for solutions. However, if there is uncertainty in providing an accurate timeline for when nuclear energy projects will be ready (i.e., larger scale new-builds), this needs to be recognised.
An example of a Generation-IV modular-type nuclear reactor design would be a molten salt reactor (MSR) that is capable of consuming spent nuclear fuel.Footnote 36 This design essentially eliminates many of the hazards inherent in Gen-III reactors, as radioactive fission products exist in the form of non-volatile salts.Footnote 37 Developers of such MSR technology claim that the estimated costs will be far less than those of conventional reactors.Footnote 38 In terms of final waste requiring permanent deep geological disposal, waste volumes will be drastically reduced (but not eliminated entirely).Footnote 39 A reactor of this type is expected by its developers to be operational by the early 2030s,Footnote 40 implying widescale commercial availability within a decade.
While Generation-IV technologies offer promising technical solutions, their ethical implications remain largely unexplored in the theological literature using, for example, the insights of Catholic Social Teaching. Secular ethicists have identified key ethical values at stake, including the safety of reactors, ‘security (i.e., sabotage and proliferation), sustainability (i.e., environmental impacts, energy resource availability), economic viability (i.e., embarking on new technology and its continuation), as well as intergenerational justice (i.e., what we leave behind for future generations)’.Footnote 41 In relation to the latter, there is a need to leave behind only short-lived radioactive waste.Footnote 42 In the design for ethical values in new nuclear technology, a trade-off is often needed between different values, including intergenerational justice.Footnote 43
Where Generation-IV technologies are especially relevant to questions of intergenerational justice is in relation to the question of whether spent nuclear fuel should be considered as a waste or as a resource for future use. Generation-IV technologies indicate a much more positive expectation of the latter. A value relevant to a more positive view on the role of future nuclear energy technology pertaining to intergenerational justice is in relation to the conservation of resources.Footnote 44 This term (or similarly termed resource durability) is generally defined as ‘the availability of natural resources for the future or as the providing of an equivalent alternative (i.e., compensation) for the same function’.Footnote 45 On this theme of multiple intergenerational issues being at stake in an ethics of nuclear energy, Céline Kermisch and Benham Taebi highlight,
The depletion of natural resources is the first important intergenerational issue; this mainly concerns uranium, but also potentially other resources such as thorium that might be at stake with the development of Generation IV reactors. The second intergenerational issue has to do with potential accidents and malevolent acts leading to radioactive contamination insofar as the resulting damages could possibly extend beyond our current generation. Finally, a third crucial intergenerational issue is related to the type of waste generated by nuclear energy, some of which could be harmful for a period ranging up to several hundreds of thousand years.Footnote 46
There is an argument that technological advancements with nuclear energy can be considered as part of compensation for future generations, to compensate for the depletion of natural resources. Such compensation would be in the form of improved efficiencies or low-carbon technologies enabling deployment of new natural resources such as new nuclear fuel cycles using thorium.Footnote 47
3. Prudence in St Thomas
In a 2016 article, Jame Schaefer applied the thought of St Thomas Aquinas on the virtue of prudence to the question of nuclear energy and intergenerational justice, more specifically on the ‘grounded process of making prudent decisions’.Footnote 48 As part of an assessment of Schaefer’s arguments, it is worth first considering briefly the source material within the Summa Theologiae. Footnote 49 The components of prudence include taking counsel (information-gathering), judgement (applying reason to the discoveries of taking counsel), and command (applying counsel and judgement to action).Footnote 50 Schaefer argued that the virtues can aid the decision-making process on whether to approve new nuclear reactors in the context of the United States, while also considering the context of the challenge of climate change.Footnote 51 This approach gives insight into natural prudence as practical wisdom as part of an approach to ethics in which the virtues and related ideas are the focus. The main section of the Summa Theologiae pertaining to this are questions 47–56 of the 2a2ae.Footnote 52 Especially relevant to the ethics of nuclear technology is prudence applied to what goes beyond the good of the individual.Footnote 53
In the taking counsel part of prudence which precedes judgement and command, ‘memory of the past is necessary in order to take good counsel for the future’.Footnote 54 This is obviously relevant to an ethical assessment of nuclear energy. Caution is an integral part of prudence which comes after deliberations as part of counsel and after a judgement is made.Footnote 55 Since the wise decision has already been taken at this point, caution relates more to adjustments required regarding hazards or dangers as they present themselves. In a context of nuclear energy, this could relate to precautions required to maintain a continual vigilance to what John Downer termed as the ‘unknown unknowns’.Footnote 56
As for vices that are in opposition to the virtue of prudence, a ‘lack of docility, memory, or reason is referable to precipitation’.Footnote 57 On the vice of precipitation, St Thomas wrote,
Now the summit of the soul is the reason, and the base is reached in the action performed by the body; while the steps that intervene by which one ought to descend in orderly fashion are memory of the past, intelligence of the present, shrewdness in considering the future outcome, reasoning which compares one thing with another, docility in accepting the opinions of others. He that takes counsel descends by these steps in due order, whereas if a man is rushed into action by the impulse of his will or of a passion, without taking these steps, it will be a case of precipitation. Since then inordinate counsel pertains to imprudence, it is evident that the vice of precipitation is contained under imprudence.Footnote 58
Reflecting upon this vice of precipitation, it is implied sufficient time must be allowed for deliberations as part of seeking counsel and information-gathering. Further to this, St Thomas puts this in the context of being rushed into action by what we can consider emotional impulses, or more generally a lack of virtue that regulates the passions of the soul. To re-iterate, in failing to recall lessons of the past, a defect in counsel impacts upon the judgement stage. Similarly, a defect of reason will also impact on subsequent parts of prudence.
In relation to the command part of prudence, vices of ‘inconstancy and negligence correspond to the command which is the proper act of prudence’.Footnote 59 The vices of ‘improvidence, lack of intelligence and of shrewdness, belong to negligence and inconstancy’.Footnote 60 In a context of nuclear safety, this would seem to fit more into the command part of prudence. For St Thomas, it ‘belongs to prudence to prefer the greater good to the lesser. Therefore to forsake the greater good belongs to imprudence. Now this is inconstancy’.Footnote 61 In the case of a major accident at a nuclear facility, preferring the greater good would be prudent. In contrast, a vice of inconstancy could translate into a chaotic response to a possible threat to the common good, such as not acting according to advance disaster response protocols to prevent a radiological release that threatens the wider population.
The interplay between counsel, judgement, and command is clearly important in determining if an individual is inconstant for St Thomas.Footnote 62 As for other relevant vices opposed to prudence, St Thomas wrote on vices opposed to foresight as part of the command stage of prudence, referring to a vice of seeking temporal goods in excess as a goal in life, rather than a virtuous individual who is seeking a greater end such as human flourishing.Footnote 63 The vices opposed to foresight or solicitude of the future are not entirely irrelevant to a meta-level debate over nuclear energy, since we can ask what the motivations are as part of a foresight of planning for the future, and what passions influence such motivations (e.g., motivations which underlie demands for more and more energy).
4. Applied ethical analysis of Schaefer
Having reviewed these aspects of Aquinas’ discussion of the vices opposed to prudence, let us turn to Jame Schaefer’s article, which uses St Thomas’ work on prudence as a basis for an ethical assessment of expanding the use of nuclear energy in the USA.Footnote 64 Schaefer primarily focuses on the issue of spent nuclear fuel and a lack of long-term solution to this problem, with a premise that reprocessing is not a viable option.Footnote 65 Schaefer also provides an insight of using virtue ethics to an application where virtuous individuals ‘collaborate with one another to form communities that value, nurture, and demonstrate virtuous behavior as a group’.Footnote 66
In relation to seeking counsel, Schaefer views this as relating to individuals and the common good of the many.Footnote 67 Schaefer argues that as part of prudence, memory of the past is important when considering spent nuclear fuel, with a ‘looming large in this step of seeking counsel is the memory of the sixty-year history of scientific, technical, and political failures by the federal government to provide a means for isolating the spent fuel from the biosphere’.Footnote 68 Schaefer describes an ongoing production and build-up of spent fuel as a bad habit, moving to term this practice as constituting ‘the vice of imprudence and the vice of intergenerational injustice’.Footnote 69
There is a logic in drawing conclusions that an inability to permanently isolate spent nuclear fuel equates to imprudence and intergenerational injustice. But as previously discussed there is a question of whether spent nuclear fuel should be considered as waste or as a resource for use by future generations. If technologies capable of recycling spent nuclear fuel can be developed within a decade, then Schaefer’s designation of ongoing production and build-up of spent fuel is not necessarily a bad habit, therefore not necessarily constituting a vice of intergenerational injustice.
Moving from a discussion of counsel to the judgement stage of prudence, Schaefer interprets this as choosing an option that ‘achieves good and avoids evil’.Footnote 70 The options provided by Schaefer for the judgement stage include: expand nuclear energy without a system of waste isolation, delay expansion until after a repository has been approved for existing waste, or wait until a repository has been built for existing spent fuel with space allocated for future waste.Footnote 71 Schaefer concludes there should be a moratorium on new nuclear reactors (until repository sites are approved, constructed, and vaults designated for spent fuel to be deposited from future reactor production),Footnote 72 on the basis that this option ‘would break the sixty-year vices of imprudence and intergenerational injustice – building nuclear power plants without an operating means for isolating the spent fuel from the biosphere’.Footnote 73
As previously indicated, there will always be a waste stream from nuclear reactors. The questions to pose in an ethical analysis should include asking how long such waste remains radioactive, what the activity level is, what the final volume will be, and which fractions require permanent isolation from the environment. And is there a system of waste disposal, treatment, or internment that will gain more public support than proposals for deep geological repositories? Without conducting a more comprehensive analysis of specific reactor designs, there are several unknown factors. The realities of developing an ethical framework are more complex than the options provided by Schaefer in her 2016 article. This is in part due to technological developments, but also the methodology being used.
Schaefer puts forward strategies for addressing vices identified as contrary to prudence, including openness to learn about new ways of managing spent fuel.Footnote 74 The strategies are categorised as being under caution (a component of the command part of prudence), which appears misaligned with Aquinas’s understanding of caution as relating to adjustments required when implementing a prudent decision. Schaefer’s application of Aquinas’s framework on prudence overlooks several possible technology options in the judgement stage, indicating that the stage of seeking counsel in Schaefer’s analysis is now deficient. Given recent developments in nuclear energy technology, a complete return to the counsel stage is necessary, to inform subsequent parts of prudence in a revised ethical assessment. A more comprehensive ethical assessment requires detailed analysis and expert consultation.
5. The need for more nuanced theological guidance
5.1. Laudato Si’
While Schaefer’s application of the Thomistic virtue of prudence offers some insights into nuclear energy ethics, particularly around collaborative decision-making, its limitations suggest the need to examine other theological resources. Recent ecclesial documents have also engaged with nuclear energy, albeit from different perspectives. Of relevance is Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’, which addresses nuclear power within a broader framework of care for creation. However, as this analysis will demonstrate, even these authoritative teachings require further development.
Laudato Si’ comments on civil nuclear energy as giving tremendous power to those with the knowledge and economic ability to develop it, yet there is no assurance of wisdom in its use.Footnote 75 There is mention of ‘possible risks to the environment which may affect the common good now and in the future’Footnote 76 with nuclear energy given as one of such potential risks to the common good and quality of life of an area.Footnote 77 This is certainly the case when considering the effects of nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl or Fukushima, but, as previously discussed, there are benefits from the safe use of nuclear energy.
In Laudato Si’, our planet is considered as a gift freely received by us from God and is something which belongs to those who will be born after us.Footnote 78 On this topic,
We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity. Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit. Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us.Footnote 79
Advanced nuclear energy technologies are one possible route to developing more sustainable energy systems. The anthropologist Vincent Ialenti suggests Laudato Si’ is against the expansion of nuclear energy.Footnote 80 With reference to The Ecomodernist Manifesto (EM) as a document that proposes more of a widescale expansion of nuclear energy as part of a solution to the ecological crisis, Ialenti comments,
[Laudato Si’] would urge EM to be more realistic about future nuclear innovations’ powers to solve ecological problems without also creating other new problems. EM would urge Laudato Si’ to be more realistic about whether climate progress is possible without nuclear power, which requires technocratic control to function.Footnote 81
Based on the preceding analysis, I argue that from a theological ethical perspective, there needs to be more of a debate over the role of nuclear energy than what Laudato Si’ has so far established. While Laudato Si’ emphasises risks to the common good from nuclear energy, these concerns must be evaluated against the enhanced safety features of more advanced nuclear technologies that substantially mitigate such risks. Moreover, any comprehensive assessment based on reason should consider the role of nuclear energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
On one hand, expanding a civil nuclear programme does not address concerns within Laudato’ Si over the tremendous power that some have in possessing such technology. On the other hand, as part of intergenerational solidarity, developing Generation-IV technologies could be considered as part of a strategy for ensuring compensation for future generations. Provided new technology can prevent disasters on the scale of Fukushima from happening again through, e.g., enhanced safety, there is the potential for nuclear energy to assist with the task of responsible stewardship of God’s created world using zero direct emission technology.
While Laudato Si’ addresses intergenerational solidarity broadly, it does not acknowledge that technological advancements with nuclear energy might possibly enhance intergenerational solidarity. In particular, it does not adequately differentiate, for example, between the three distinct intergenerational challenges identified by Kermisch and Taebi in relation to nuclear energy (i.e., depletion of natural resources, potential intergenerational effects of accidents, and the longevity of radioactive waste streams).Footnote 82 The encyclical’s dominant focus on risks to the common good overlooks how advanced nuclear technologies could positively contribute to sustainability (which, according to the encyclical encompasses intergenerational solidarity).Footnote 83 Moreover, the brief coverage of nuclear energy in Laudato Si’ does not consider how technological developments could transform spent fuel from an intergenerational burden into a resource for future generations. This suggests a need for more nuanced theological engagement with how different nuclear technologies impact each dimension of intergenerational justice, as well as other ethical values at stake.
5.2. Abolition of nuclear power
While Laudato Si’ addresses nuclear energy within a broader ecological framework, a more focused ecclesial response emerged from the Japanese context. The 2014 document Abolition of Nuclear Power by the Bishops Conference of Japan engages directly with the topic of nuclear energy, shaped by the nation’s experience of the Fukushima disaster.Footnote 84 The version consulted for this article was translated into English in 2020. The document calls for the complete closure of all nuclear reactors.Footnote 85 An insight is provided into the traumatic effects of a nuclear disaster at a human level, which is important in capturing the strong opposition to nuclear energy among some of those directly affected by the Fukushima disaster. For instance, the authors highlight that thousands of evacuees from Fukushima and the surrounding areas have faced long-term uncertainty over their housing situation, as well as the associated upheavals that impact education, employment, healthcare, and family life.Footnote 86 There are clearly justice related concerns relevant to a theological critique of a nuclear disaster on this scale.
Abolition of Nuclear Power provides guidance on what can go very badly wrong with nuclear energy. Yet, there are several issues with the contents of this document that undermine its credibility in providing nuanced guidance from a theological perspective. For example, there is a discussion of nuclear energy in a context of the encyclical Laudato Si’ and a Christian salvation that includes ‘Universal reconciliation with every creature’,Footnote 87
We must admit that humanity’s use of nuclear energy is a deviation from the God-given position of humans in nature. The vast power of nuclear energy and the large amount of unstable nuclei that it produces are incompatible with life, raising the serious risk of destroying the ordered community of living things.Footnote 88
The reference to an order of creation as being somehow destroyed with the use of nuclear energy does not seem to be based on scientific reasoning. Although radioactivity can be damaging to biological life, this statement on unstable nuclei being incompatible with life is incorrect at a technical level, given that unstable radioactive nuclei are naturally occurring and are inside our bodies.Footnote 89, Footnote 90 To give a scientific perspective on the effects of radioactivity released due to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reported in 2014 that ‘no radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed from among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident’.Footnote 91 This is in contrast with the devastating effects of the tsunami itself, which led to the deaths of almost 20,000 people.Footnote 92 The UNSCEAR 2016 committee noted that in general, doses of radiation due to the Fukushima disaster were low and no discernible health effects are expected.Footnote 93 The subsequent UNSCEAR 2021 report put forward evidence that some doses to the public were overestimated in previous reports, particularly ingestion of radionuclides.Footnote 94
Although the long-term health and environmental consequences of Fukushima likely require continual research and scrutiny, I would argue that positions against technology such as those conveyed in Abolition of Nuclear Power hinder a dialogue between theologians and technological experts. There is much which can be developed from a theological angle on how to navigate the complexities of ongoing debates over the future of nuclear energy. The Holy See is well placed to provide more nuanced guidance since this area requires the input of experts and stakeholders from many fields and from different national experiences.
5.3. Public theology and energy policy
The political theologian, Jonathan Chaplin, would, I think, agree that the sort of involvement that I propose for bodies like the Holy See is a form of public theology.Footnote 95 Chaplin describes public theology as referring to,
theological or religious reflection addressed to publics, and concerning public issues, existing beyond the confines of religious communities themselves. It is the application or elaboration of religious ideas within potentially any issue of public concern or public policy.Footnote 96
As I have argued, whilst theological reflection on nuclear energy has thus far been largely deficient, there is no reason to think that theologians cannot bring their valuable reflections and insights into the public forum in better-informed ways. Thus, for example, while St Thomas’ theologically informed framework on prudence offers valuable insights, Schaefer’s use of the Thomistic conception of prudence to the ethical assessment of complex energy systems shows limitations. Yet, Schaefer’s concept of prudent individuals collaborating in making prudent decisions can nevertheless be a basis for recontextualising the political role theologians have in developing ethical frameworks for nuclear energy in the public sphere.
A theological or religious reflection on energy policy ultimately depends on an assumption that there is a moral dimension to debates over energy that can be enhanced by the specifically theological. Further to this, theological guidance needs to be theologically and scientifically legitimate, aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of their particular domains. Chaplain indicates that theologians involved in debates over energy systems can stray into ‘an unhelpful and paralysing utopianism’.Footnote 97 As indicated previously, there is no ideal energy generation technology that will have zero negative impacts or zero risk of negative impacts. And it is very challenging to phase out fossil fuels without the use of nuclear energy. One of the roles of theological reflection in a context of public theology is to adopt a more pragmatic realism, using existing intellectual resources within theological traditions.Footnote 98 Concurrently, there is scope for a public theology to challenge conventional approaches in developing energy systems. If it is likely that there will be a considerable expansion of nuclear energy in the 21st century, then the development of more nuanced ethical frameworks specifically for the comprehensive analysis of nuclear energy systems is overdue.
6. Conclusions
The debate over nuclear energy highlights significant economic, environmental, social, and intergenerational considerations at stake. Advanced nuclear technologies may offer potential solutions to long-term waste management, and this challenges some of the prevailing assumptions made by theological commentators on intergenerational justice. The Japanese Bishops document Abolition of Nuclear Power is more specifically opposed to nuclear energy but lacks a suitably balanced and informed scientific foundation. Future academic research on the ethics of nuclear energy should consider how theologians can provide guidance on prospective atomic energy technologies, particularly in relation to intergenerational solidarity. But such theologians will need to do justice to technological possibilities to give a balanced assessment considering realities which we face. Positions that view nuclear technology as intrinsically against an order of creation will hinder a dialogue with scientists, engineers, and other experts in the nuclear sector. Further discussion and debate on this area is best seen as a form of public theology. Overall, as a topic for theological study linked with a secular philosophical ethics of technology, the ethics of nuclear energy would seem to be under-developed and requires more attention.
