Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:24:02.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Its Past, Present and Future1

from Part II - Cases and Multidisciplinary Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2019

By
Behnam Taebi  and
Sabine Roeser
Edited by
Marc Ozawa ,
Jonathan Chaplin ,
Michael Pollitt ,
David Reiner  and
Paul Warde
Marc Ozawa
Affiliation:
Energy Policy Research Group, University of Cambridge
Jonathan Chaplin
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Michael Pollitt
Affiliation:
Judge Business School, Cambridge
David Reiner
Affiliation:
Judge Business School, Cambridge
Paul Warde
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we discuss the evolution of the field of ‘ethics of nuclear energy’, regarding its past, present and future. We will first review the history of this field in the previous four decades, focusing on new and emerging challenges of nuclear energy production and waste disposal, in light of several important developments. Four of the most pressing ethical challenges will be further reviewed in the chapter. First, what is a morally ‘acceptable’ nuclear energy production method, if we consider the existing and possible new technologies? Second, provided a new tendency to consider nuclear waste disposal with several countries, what would be the new ethical and governance challenges of these multinational collaborations? Third, how should we deal with the (safety) challenges of the new geographic distribution of nuclear energy, tilting towards emerging economies with less experience with nuclear technology? Fourth, nuclear energy projects engender highly emotional controversies. Neither ignoring the emotions of the public nor taking them as a reason to prohibit or restrict a technology – we call them technocratic populist pitfalls respectively – seem to be able to guide responsible policy making.

Keywords

ethics of nuclear energynuclear ethicsnuclear safetynuclear securityintergenerational justicemultinational disposalnuclear fuel cyclemoral emotionsmorally acceptablenuclear safety governance
Type
Chapter
Information
In Search of Good Energy Policy , pp. 101 - 119
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asveld, L., and Roeser, S., eds. 2009. The Ethics of Technological Risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Bergen, J. P. 2016. ‘Irreversibility and Reversibility of Nuclear Energy Production Technologies: A Framework and Three Cases’. Ethics, Policy and Environment 19 (1): 37–59.Google Scholar
Bertell, R. 1991. ‘Ethics of Nuclear Option in the 1990s’. In Nuclear Energy and Ethics, edited by Shrader-Frechette, K. S., 161–81. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications.Google Scholar
Blix, Hans. 1986. ‘The Influence of the Accident at Chernobyl. Lecture Delivered at Round Table No. 7, on “The Future for Nuclear Power” at the 13th Congress of the World Energy Conference’. Cannes, France: International Atomic Energy Agency, Division of Public Information.Google Scholar
Boutellier, C., McCombie, C., and Mele, I.. 2006. ‘Multinational Repositories: Ethical, Legal and Political/Public Aspects’. International Journal of Nuclear Law 1 (1): 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ Error. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Downer, J. 2015. ‘The Unknowable Ceiling of Safety: Three Ways That Nuclear Accidents Escape the Calculus of Risk Assessments’. In The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era, edited by Taebi, B. and Roeser, S., 35–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DoyleII, T. E. 2010. ‘Reviving Nuclear Ethics: A Renewed Research Agenda for the Twenty First Century’. Ethics & International Affairs 24 (3): 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frijda, N. 1987. The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gosseries, A. 2008. ‘Radiological Protection and Intergenerational Justice’. In Ethics and Radiological Protection, edited by Eggermont, G. and Feltz, B., 167–95. Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant.Google Scholar
Hollyday, J. 1991. ‘In The Valley of the Shadow of Three Miles Island’. In Nuclear Energy and Ethics, edited by Shrader-Frechette, K. S., 136–60. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications.Google Scholar
IAEA. 1997. ‘Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (Information Circular)’. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
IAEA. 1998. ‘Technical, Institutional and Economic Factors Important for Developing a Multinational Radioactive Waste Repository’. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
IAEA, Euratom, FAO, IAEA, ILO, IMO, OECD-NEA, PAHO, UNEP, and WHO. 2006. ‘Fundamental Safety Principles’. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SF1. Vienna: A joint publication of Euratom, FAO, IAEA, ILO, IMO, OECD-NEA, PAHO, UNEP, WHO.Google Scholar
ICRP. 1977. ‘Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection’. Publication 26. Vol. 1 (3). Ann. ICRP. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 103. Vol. 37 (2–4). Ann. ICRP. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
KASAM. 1988. ‘Ethical Aspects of Nuclear Waste’. Report No. 29. Stockholm: National Council for Nuclear Waste (KASAM-SKN), Sweden.Google Scholar
KASAM. 2005. ‘Nuclear Waste State-of-the-Art Reports 2004’. SOU 2004:67. Stockholm: National Council for Nuclear Waste (KASAM), Sweden.Google Scholar
KASAM. 2007. ‘Nuclear Waste State-of-the-Art Report 2007 – Responsibility of Current Generation, Freedom of Future Generations’. SOU 2004:67. Stockholm: National Council for Nuclear Waste (KASAM), Sweden.Google Scholar
Kermisch, C. 2016. ‘Specifying the Concept of Future Generations for Addressing Issues Related to High-Level Radioactive Waste’. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (6): 1797–1811.Google Scholar
Kermisch, C., Depaus, C., and Labeau, P. E. A.. 2016. ‘A Contribution to the Analysis of Equity Associated with High-Level Radioactive Waste Management’. Progress in Nuclear Energy, no. 92: 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermisch, C., and Taebi, B.. 2017. ‘Sustainability, Ethics and Nuclear Energy: Escaping the Dichotomy’. Sustainability 9 (3): 446.Google Scholar
Kneese, A. V. 1973. ‘The Faustian Bargain’. Resources 44: 1–5.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S., and Golding, D., eds. 1992. Social Theories of Risk. Westport: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Löfquist, L. 2008. ‘Ethics beyond Finitude, Responsibilities towards Future Generations and Nuclear Waste Management’ (PhD diss.). Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Möller, N. 2012. ‘The Concepts of Risk and Safety’. In Handbook of Risk Theory. Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk, edited by Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R, Sandin, P, and Peterson, M, 55–85. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
NEA-OECD. 1995. ‘The Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal of Long-Lived Radioactive Wastes: A Collective Opinion of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the Nuclear Energy Agency’. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Nihlén Fahlquist, J., and Roeser, S.. 2015. ‘Nuclear Energy, Responsible Risk Communication and Moral Emotions: A Three Level Framework’. Journal of Risk Research 18 (3): 333–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.940594.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2001. Upheavals of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NWMO. 2005. ‘Choosing a Way Forward; The Future Management of Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel (Final Study)’. Ottawa (Ontario), Canada: Nuclear Waste Management Organization. www.nwmo.ca/studyreport.Google Scholar
Oughton, D., and Hansson, S. O.. 2013. Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. 2003. Emotions: An Essay in Aid of Moral Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeser, S. 2006. ‘The Role of Emotions in Judging the Moral Acceptability of Risks’. Safety Science 44 (8): 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.02.001.Google Scholar
Roeser, S. 2007. ‘Ethical Intuitions about Risk’. Safety Science Monitor 11 (3): 1–30.Google Scholar
Roeser, S. 2011a. Moral Emotions and Intuitions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeser, S. 2011b. ‘Nuclear Energy, Risk, and Emotions’. Philosophy & Technology 24: 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeser, S. 2018. Risk, Technology, and Moral Emotions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P, and Peterson, M, eds. 2012. Handbook of Risk Theory. Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Routley, R., and Routley, V.. 1979. ‘Against the Inevitability of Human Chauvinism’. In Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century, edited by Goodpaster, K. E. and Sayre, K. M., 36–59. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Salzer, P., Pritrsky, J., Mrskova, A, and Richardson, P. 2012. ‘The Status of Multinational Waste Management Solutions’. Deliverable 3.3. of the IPPA (Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal).Google Scholar
Scarce, K. 2016. ‘Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report’. Adelaide: Government of South Australia. http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/system/NFCRC_Final_Report_Web.pdf.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1980. Nuclear Power and Public Policy: The Social and Ethical Problems of Fission Technology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K., ed. 1991. Nuclear Energy and Ethics. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1993. Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1994. ‘Equity and Nuclear Waste Disposal’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (2): 133–56.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2000. ‘Duties to Future Generations, Proxy Consent, Intra- and Inter-generational Equity: The Case of Nuclear Waste’. Risk Analysis 20 (6): 771–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2011. What Will Work: Fighting Climate Change with Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. 2000. The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. 2010. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2005. ‘Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment’. Ethics 115: 351–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taebi, B. 2010. Nuclear Power and Justice between Generations. A Moral Analysis of Fuel Cycles (PhD diss.). Vol. V. Simon Stevin Series in the Ethics of Technology. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Taebi, B. 2011. ‘The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production’. Philosophy & Technology 24 (2): 169–92.Google Scholar
Taebi, B. 2012. ‘Multinational Nuclear Waste Repositories and Their Complex Issues of Justice’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 15 (1): 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taebi, B. 2017. ‘Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability’. Risk Analysis 37 (10): 1817–27.Google Scholar
Taebi, B., and Kloosterman, J. L. 2008. ‘To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles’. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (2): 177–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taebi, B, and Kloosterman, J L 2015. ‘Design for Values in Nuclear Technology’. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, edited by Van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., and Van de Poel, I., 805–29. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Taebi, B., and Mayer, M. 2017. ‘By Accident or by Design? Pushing Global Governance of Nuclear Safety’. Progress in Nuclear Energy 99: 19–25.Google Scholar
Taebi, B., and Roeser, S. 2015a. ‘The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: An Introduction’. In The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era, edited by Taebi, B and Roeser, S, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taebi, B, and Roeser, Seds. 2015b. The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taebi, B., Roeser, S and Van de Poel, I. 2012. ‘The Ethics of Nuclear Power: Social Experiments, Intergenerational Justice, and Emotions’. Energy Policy, no. 51: 202–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taebi, B., and Van de Poel, I., eds. 2015. ‘Socio-Technical Challenges of Nuclear Power Production and Waste Disposal in the Post-Fukushima Era: Editors’. Overview 18 (3): 267–72.Google Scholar
Wigley, D., C. and Shrader-Frechette, K. 1996. ‘Environmental Justice: A Louisiana Case Study’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9 (1): 61–82.Google Scholar
Wilson, L. 2000. Nuclear Waste: Exploring the Ethical Dilemmas. Toronto: United Church Publishing House.Google Scholar
Anderson, K., Peters, G., 2016. ‘The trouble with negative emissions’. Science 354, 182–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckerman, W., 1956. ‘The Economist as a Modern Missionary’ Econ. J. 66, 108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2227407Google Scholar
Fuss, S., Canadell, J.G., Peters, G.P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R.M., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Jones, C.D., Kraxner, F., Nakicenovic, N., Others, , 2014. ‘Betting on negative emissions’. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, J.C., 2009. Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. UIT Cambridge Ltd.Google Scholar
Taebi, B., Kloosterman, J.L., 2015. Design for Values in Nuclear Technology, in: Van den, Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., Van de, Poel, I. (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains. Springer, Dordrecht, 805–829.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×