When I was a student athlete, I’d sometimes respond to jibes from other teams with a cheer: “Heck no, we don’t glow.” That’s the result of living near the only commercially operated nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the United States.
In the early 90s, an attempt to use the site for low-level radioactive material storage failed on a community vote. I was pleased. In the shadow of the Cold War and the fear of nuclear weapons, as well as the unknowns of radiation, opposing all things nuclear seemed logical.
My perspective on nuclear power has changed. I learned more about its risks and benefits. In the Navy, I served on the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) as a junior officer and trained operators at the Nuclear Power Training Unit in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Later I invested over a decade in training operators at two commercial nuclear plants. Experience and evidence helped change my mind.
As Christopher Nolan’s new film Oppenheimer reignites conversations about the ethics of nuclear technology, it’s a good opportunity for Christians to learn what distinguishes nuclear power from nuclear weapons and why the former can be a beneficial resource for humanity.
Electrical Dependence
Society is dependent on electricity. A recent ice storm in my area took out the power for days. As my well-insulated home dipped toward 50°F and most of the grocery stores were closed, I was reminded that my entire lifestyle is built around reliable power.
Renewable energy is a good thing. I have rooftop solar panels to provide about 70 percent of my annual power consumption. Without expensive batteries, however, my panels don’t provide power when the grid is out or the sun is down.
When the grid goes down for an extended time due to a storm, I’m inconvenienced. But for many people, it’s a huge problem. They have to worry about flooded basements, power for medical devices, or surviving extreme temperatures. For people on the margins, an extended electricity outage can quickly become a crisis.
For people on the margins, an extended electricity outage can quickly become a crisis.
Some sort of baseload generation—currently either fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydropower that reliably runs all the time—is morally necessary for people to thrive. As we increasingly rely on Wi-Fi and cellular networks and on electronic medical devices, our dependence on reliable electricity increases. We need power when the wind isn’t blowing, the sun isn’t shining, and the weather is extreme. Nuclear power can help.
Wrestling with the Unknown
Many people confuse power generation with nuclear weapons, not recognizing that nuclear fuel is enriched to less than 5 percent uranium-235, against the 90-plus percent concentration it would take to make a bomb. The difference between a reactor and a bomb is enormous. But the technology is foreign to daily life, so most people aren’t confident about it.
Uncertainty increases fear, which can lead to rejecting a technology with significant potential benefits. The link between radiation and cancer is enough to scare many people away from anything nuclear. Though nuclear power isn’t without risk, it remains one of the safest sources of electrical power.
During normal operations, most nuclear plant workers are exposed to hardly more radiation than the rest of the population. By far my highest sources of radioactive exposure have been from the sun, medical X-rays, and flying in commercial airlines.
When many people think about nuclear power, what comes to mind is Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima. These three well-known accidents reveal the technology isn’t perfectly safe. To some, that risk is enough to rule out nuclear power.
However, no source of electricity is risk-free. For example, in addition to the production of carbon dioxide, coal plants also leave ash containing heavy metals that can leak. Solar panels use heavy metals that have to be handled properly at the end of the panels’ useful life. Wind turbines cause the deaths of migratory birds and bats, some of which are endangered, though the degree of concern this should cause is disputed. Hydropower requires disrupting ecosystems, which can prevent fish from spawning.
As the economists say, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Fear of Nuclear Accidents
Radiation biologist Michael H. Fox notes, “Fear is a powerful emotion, and it is easy to stoke the fear by making claims that nuclear accidents have killed huge numbers of people.” The reality is, especially when compared to other sources of power, such fearful claims don’t hold up.
Nuclear accidents are highly unlikely. The major accident at Chernobyl was caused by extreme operator malfeasance. The much less significant events of Three Mile Island were related to operator errors. And in Japan in 2011, a tsunami over 130 feet in height caused damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
Despite the catastrophic events at Fukushima, there have been no documented negative health effects from radiation on individuals who didn’t work at the plant. The evacuation and long-term displacement, which was also largely driven by tsunami destruction, have been much more harmful than any exposure to radiation.
To minimize risks of accidents, new reactor designs rely on passive safety systems (i.e., no electricity required) rather than active ones (i.e., electrically powered pumps and valves) found in older plants. There’s a movement toward using multiple small reactors (approximately 50 MWe each) instead of the large-scale plants (1,000 MWe) from previous decades. The size of these reactors makes a nuclear accident that could release radioactive material even less likely.
Ironically, fear of nuclear accidents has slowed the use of new technologies that reduce risks. Older plants remain in service because of the high costs of new construction due to increasing regulations. Blanket resistance to nuclear power has prevented lower-risk solutions that can provide necessary, carbon-free power.
Count the Costs
Human activity always has an effect on the environment. That’s part of God’s creational design (Gen. 2:15). Christian stewardship requires us to honor God’s design by living in such a way that creation can recover from the demands we place on it.
Christian stewardship requires us to honor God’s design by living in such a way that creation can recover from the demands we place on it.
Spent fuel storage has been revolutionized through the development of dry cask storage, which allows plants to safely keep old fuel on-site for an extended period of time. Either reprocessing spent fuel, as France does, or a long-term geological storage solution will be required. These challenges are surmountable.
The nuclear industry continues to have issues with cost overruns on construction, especially new large-scale plants. Yet once built, nuclear plants generate power at a rate competitive with other combustion plants. Construction costs may be improved with smaller-scale plants. That remains to be seen. However, the financial costs of new plant construction may be outweighed by environmental benefits achieved through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Promoting nuclear power is not necessary for the gospel to get to all nations. However, as we prudentially consider technologies that balance the goods of society with the limits of creation, relatively clean sources of electricity like nuclear power are part of seeking the welfare of the city in which we dwell. (Jer. 29:7) This is especially true for people on the margins who cannot afford expensive electrical backups and are most at risk when the power goes out.
Nuclear power is radically different from nuclear weapons. It’s a reliable source of electricity that can keep our lights on and people’s medical devices going. There are risks to and effects on people and creation, but these are reasonable—and sometimes clearly better––compared to other sources of electricity. As I seek to care for God’s creation, I support the use of nuclear power because it’s the best baseload power source available.