A Few Thoughts on Nuclear Energy from a Christian Perspective
When I went out to dinner last night with my wife, at the end of dinner we exited the restaurant and found it raining. I thought twice about walking out into the rain because I'd read some Facebook posts that said that Thailand would be subject to Acid Rain because of the Japanese Nuclear Reactor.
That's a lie. And I knew it. But I still thought about it. How about you?
The ongoing concern over Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors following the Earthquakes and Tsunami are potentially game changers in the future of civil nuclear energy production. I'm no expert on the science or safety of nuclear reactors. Neither are most of the people who've written about the problem. And the people I've read who ARE experts are less than trustworthy. Most come from one of two camps. There are a bunch of people in the nuclear industry itself who are essentially nuclear power advocates. And there are a bunch of people who oppose the production of nuclear power on principle. Both perspectives seem inadequate to me.
I am reminded of Matthew chapter 4 where Jesus is being tempted by Satan and Satan tempts him with three things and each time offers only two choices. Each time Jesus resists by choosing an option that Satan hadn't seen. That's a lot of how I feel about this debate. The pundits present two choices... I think there are more.
Nuclear advocates argue that the dangers can be mitigated and that nuclear power is the only realistic alternative to the carbon heavy energy we over-consume today.
The critics argue that nuclear power is just too dangerous and can never under any circumstances be safe enough.
I don't believe these are our only options. Here are some of the reasons why from a theological perspective.
It is tempting to close our eyes and ears and say, "No. Nuclear power is too scary. It's too dangerous. We've had bad experiences in the past and we don't want to have them again. Therefore we're going to put away the knowledge and materials we do have and go home." That is the safest option, but the safest option is not always the best or most God-honoring option.
Lots of the anti-nukes writers try to point us toward solar and wind energy. We should be pursuing those as safe alternatives, but an awful lot of people on both sides say that neither of those alternatives are likely to ever produce enough power to make a dent in the world's need for supply. So what should we do?
One alternative is to consume less. I'm in favor of this... except that it's unrealistic. Even if the part of the world (the Americas and Western Europe) that over-consume so conspicuously cut back say by 50%... which is highly unlikely, you'd still have to figure out what to do with all the nations (think India and China) that are just beginning to realize their pollution potential. Will they be damned to their current levels of power usage? I doubt it. And it would be immoral and condescending for those of us who already enjoy the luxuries of life that are afforded by being big polluters (think the ability to travel by airplane if you are serious) to deny those same freedoms to others because we got here first.
But what if God gave us the potential for nuclear power as a gift? What if God intends us to use the best science, to be creative, to find ways to use it safely?
It's possible we are not there yet (although a lot of people think we are). I believe that this nuclear event is to be learned from and we should improve the technology. We should use it cautiously and pursue all alternatives. We should give thanks that the accidents which have occurred were not worse. And we should have the best checks and balances possible.
We should minimize the risks. But at this time, from this amateur's perspective, it looks like the pain and suffering (lack of energy available or continued reliance on carbon heavy energy) is too high a price for not trying. There are many people suffering greatly in our world who are relying on the rest of us to find energy sources which allow them to prosper as we already do. Getting ours and then saying "no, the rest is just too difficult" is not an honorable option.
That's a lie. And I knew it. But I still thought about it. How about you?
The ongoing concern over Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors following the Earthquakes and Tsunami are potentially game changers in the future of civil nuclear energy production. I'm no expert on the science or safety of nuclear reactors. Neither are most of the people who've written about the problem. And the people I've read who ARE experts are less than trustworthy. Most come from one of two camps. There are a bunch of people in the nuclear industry itself who are essentially nuclear power advocates. And there are a bunch of people who oppose the production of nuclear power on principle. Both perspectives seem inadequate to me.
I am reminded of Matthew chapter 4 where Jesus is being tempted by Satan and Satan tempts him with three things and each time offers only two choices. Each time Jesus resists by choosing an option that Satan hadn't seen. That's a lot of how I feel about this debate. The pundits present two choices... I think there are more.
Nuclear advocates argue that the dangers can be mitigated and that nuclear power is the only realistic alternative to the carbon heavy energy we over-consume today.
The critics argue that nuclear power is just too dangerous and can never under any circumstances be safe enough.
I don't believe these are our only options. Here are some of the reasons why from a theological perspective.
- God created the world and EVERYTHING in it. And God created it good.
- God desires for us to use the resources of the world for the good of the world.
- God is a God who is in the business of redeeming stuff and working for good in the midst of crisis. (Romans 8)
It is tempting to close our eyes and ears and say, "No. Nuclear power is too scary. It's too dangerous. We've had bad experiences in the past and we don't want to have them again. Therefore we're going to put away the knowledge and materials we do have and go home." That is the safest option, but the safest option is not always the best or most God-honoring option.
Lots of the anti-nukes writers try to point us toward solar and wind energy. We should be pursuing those as safe alternatives, but an awful lot of people on both sides say that neither of those alternatives are likely to ever produce enough power to make a dent in the world's need for supply. So what should we do?
One alternative is to consume less. I'm in favor of this... except that it's unrealistic. Even if the part of the world (the Americas and Western Europe) that over-consume so conspicuously cut back say by 50%... which is highly unlikely, you'd still have to figure out what to do with all the nations (think India and China) that are just beginning to realize their pollution potential. Will they be damned to their current levels of power usage? I doubt it. And it would be immoral and condescending for those of us who already enjoy the luxuries of life that are afforded by being big polluters (think the ability to travel by airplane if you are serious) to deny those same freedoms to others because we got here first.
But what if God gave us the potential for nuclear power as a gift? What if God intends us to use the best science, to be creative, to find ways to use it safely?
It's possible we are not there yet (although a lot of people think we are). I believe that this nuclear event is to be learned from and we should improve the technology. We should use it cautiously and pursue all alternatives. We should give thanks that the accidents which have occurred were not worse. And we should have the best checks and balances possible.
We should minimize the risks. But at this time, from this amateur's perspective, it looks like the pain and suffering (lack of energy available or continued reliance on carbon heavy energy) is too high a price for not trying. There are many people suffering greatly in our world who are relying on the rest of us to find energy sources which allow them to prosper as we already do. Getting ours and then saying "no, the rest is just too difficult" is not an honorable option.
I could be wrong. And I might change my mind tomorrow. But these are my thoughts today. What are your thoughts?
