How can we apply moral philosophy to technological reality?

1. How can we apply moral philosophy to technological reality? The desirable nuclear power Behnam Taebi Department of Philosophy Delft University of Technology KIVI NIRIA Utrecht May 19, 2010

2. Should we go nuclear? • Is nuclear power sustainable? • Should we deploy/expand nuclear power? • Is nuclear power socially/ethically desirable? • Even though extremely relevant questions • Beyond the scope of this work • Before answering this question • We first need to narrow the focus on its production methods • … and future technologies

3. Objective of this paper • In assessing the desirability of energy systems • …we should include the interest of future generations • Why emphasizing the interest of posterity • How to include the interest of posterity • How to relate it to technological reality • How to address intergenerational conflicts

4. Why emphasizing the interest of posterity? • We are in a beneficiary position • We can influence their interest and impose costs on them • Certain goods are distributed over generations • Activities with these goods create a problem of justice • This is called The Pure Intergenerational Problem (Gardiner) • It is an exacerbated Prisoner’s dilemma • This creates a moral obligation • To include the interest of posterity in current decisions • Particularly in decisions about desirable energy systems • Another reason in energy discussion is the waste/emission

5. How to contemplate justice to posterity? • Barry’s egalitarian approach to distributive justice: • We should respect future generations’ equal opportunity • With nuclear power production and consumption 1) We are depleting a non-renewable resource, i.e. uranium • …thus the opportunity for welfare (that rely on resources) • Inappropriate disposal of waste endangers future safety • …which is a condition for posterity to enjoy equal opportunity

6. Intergenerational problem creates obligations • PIP requires a commitment from contemporaries (1) … to ensure future well-being and (2) … to avoid future harm • Intergenerational justice and waste management • We should avoid “undue burdens” for future generations… • …hence using geological repositories for final disposal (IAEA)

7. Moral pluralism & prima facie duties • Morality cannot be captured in one principle • E.g. monist views like utilitarianism • Moral rules are not always strict (e.g. Kant) • Two duties could be conflicting • The question how to act depend on the context • David Ross proposes Prima Facie Duties (PFD) • As conditional duties that we have moral reasons to follow • Our actual duties are then all-things-considered duties…

8. Temporal prima facie duties • The intergenerational problem compels us • To ensure future well-being • Not to harm future people • We have at least these conditional moral duties • Unless a more compelling duty overrides them • Examining the moral stringency of (i) and (ii) • Internal conflicts between these two duties • Intergenerational conflicts (with interest of contemporaries)

9. Open and closed nuclear fuel cycles • Open fuel cycles (the American method) • Uses uranium once in a reactor (once-through strategy) • Remaining spent fuel will be radiotoxic for 200,000 years • Closed fuel cycle (the European method) • Recycles spent fuel (Reprocessing) • Reuses fissile materials (uranium & plutonium) • Waste life-time is reduced to 5,000 – 10,000 years

10. Existing fuel cycles: open & close

11. Special feature of uranium • Natural uranium consist of different constituents • We call them isotopes • Two relevant isotopes are • Minor 235U: fissile, but present in less than 1% • Major 238U: not fissile and present for more than 99% • Deploying uranium in existing thermal reactors • We need to increase concentration of fissile 235U (enrichment)

12. Fast reactors as breeders • Fast reactors can also use non-fissile materials • To breed (make) plutonium from major non-fissile 238U • They make more fuel than they consume Clementine, New Mexico Phènix, France

13. Fast reactors as burners (transmuters) • Fast reactors can get rid of troublesome isotopes • With a long life-time • Partitioning & Transmutation (P&T) • To partition (separate) long-living materials from spent fuel • … and transmute (eliminate) them in fast reactors • Waste life-time will be reduced to 500-1000 years

14. Partitioning & Transmutation U Uranium Pu Plutonium FP Fission Products MA Minor actinides Cm Curium Np Neptunium Am Americium

15. Prima Facie Duty (i) Sustaining Future well-being

16. Sustaining future well-being • A cornerstones of intergenerational justice • Appropriate consumption of non-renewable resources • What is appropriate? • Leaving the same amounts of goods for our descendants • Future people can’t be held responsible for their situation • …therefore we need to compensate (Barry) • 4 technologies for compensation in nuclear option

17. Nuclear compensation • Reprocessing and reusing spent fuel • Applying nuclear breeders to deploy 238U • Extracting more U from phosphate and seawater • Deploying naturally more abundant thorium (Th)

18. Challenges to nuclear compensation • Nuclear energy should continue for a long time • These compensations won’t make sense otherwise • Pessimistic about future of other technologies • Nuclear fission remains indispensable in the future • Not only to bridge the “energy gap” that is approaching • Is there a necessity to provide compensation? • … if we assume that uranium is only a “temporary solution”

19. In defense of nuclear compensation • Nuclear fission has a remarkable feature • It could be deployed substantially more efficiently • Therefore it is worth to consider its potential and impediments • Other things being equal • A technology is acceptable that forecloses fewer future option • However, no need to compensate with nuclear

20. Prima Facie Duty (ii) Avoid future harm

21. Duty not to harm future people • Non-maleficence and no harm principle • Goes back to ancient Greek and Hippocratic oath • Precautionary principle is a derivative of this principle • Leaving behind as few as possible future burdens • No “undue burdens” on future in waste management (IAEA) • P&T reduce waste life-time substantially

22. Two types of conflicting between duties • Internal conflicts between prima facie duties • Which of these duties is more compelling? • Intergenerational conflicts • To what extent are current burdens justified?

23. Which technology is acceptable? • “No harm duty” is presumably more compelling • Preferring negative duties to positive ones (Rawls) and (Ross) • First duty rests on assumptions of nuclear continuation • A strong case could be made for P&T • It also increases future benefits, as reprocessing is a precondition • Let us focus now on this technology and its consequences

24. P&T at what moral costs for contemporaries? • Environmental burdens/ public safety • Reprocessing is a chemical process with waste • Transport of spent fuel to reprocessing plants and FR • Reactor operation and decommissioning • Security burdens (proliferation and sabotage) • Reprocessing involves separation of Pu • More nuclear undertaking and transport involve more risks • Economic burdens • Further developing this scientifically feasible technology • Building reprocessing plants and fast reactors

25. A few challenges to temporal duties • Who among contemporaries will bear burdens? • Nuclear power & environmental injustice (Shrader-Frechette) • If so, should we increase this present injustice? • More security concerns are highly undesirable • For both the present and future generations • Intergenerational justice demands early disposal of waste to avoid such security harm (Gosseries) • More costs challenge the competitiveness of nuclear • Should that be our primary concerns in a moral analysis?

26. Conclusions • Assuming that nuclear power gives rise to PIP • We have moral prima facie duties PFD (i) To sustain future well-being (understood as resources) PFD (ii) To avoid future harm (as a result of waste disposal) • Moral stringency of PFDs • The “no harm” duty seems more compelling • That supports the application of P&T • Extent of moral stringency of this temporal duty • Depends on current burdens and distributions/justifications

27. Thank you for your attention Comments are appreciated! now or later by email B.Taebi@tudelft.nl