Pope Francis and Nuclear Power

Before his election, Pope Francis had an interesting vocation for a Jesuit. In many respects his life style is closer to a Franciscan monk than a Jesuit. Franciscans are noted for their simple lifestyles and for their commitment to the poor while Jesuits are more committed to education and often hobnobbed with members of the elite. The nature of the Franciscan vocation is such that a Franciscan could loose sight of an important issue with respect  to the poor. That is, the ultimate service to the poor is to provide the poor with the means by which they can exit poverty. In this regard, the Jesuit vocation has contributed more to transforming the lives of the poor than the Franciscan vocation.

The Roman Catholic church is committed to the education of the children of its' members as well as the children of the poor. In this respect, the Roman Catholic church provides a great service to the poor because it provides a path out of poverty. I know this from personal experience because a friend of mine Kim B. came from a poor inner city family and was educated in Catholic schools and at a Catholic University. She has obtained middle class status as have some of her brothers and sisters. This is quite admirable and a pope who has dedicated his life to the well being of the poor and has a strong identification with the poor and is also a Jesuit is quite likely to continue the Churches' path to end poverty through education. As far as I know, Pope Francis has taken no stand on nuclear power, but he should, given the contribution nuclear power could make to improving the lot of the poor.

India and China have found that the use of nuclear power is consistent with improving the lives of their poor. Many critics of nuclear power complain that nuclear power is too expensive and thus would be removed from the grasp of the poor. In fact, both India and China have demonstrated that nuclear power can produce electricity at a cost that will bring it to the poor. American nuclear power is far more expensive than Indian and Chinese nuclear power for a variety of reasons, but the cost of nuclear power can be reduced quite substantially granted current technology and even more if generation four technology is introduced.

Much of the cost of nuclear power plants is due to federal regulations and safety requirements that are growing increasingly unnecessary. Advances in nuclear generation three plus safety technology makes some federal requirements unnecessary and some generation four technologies, including pebble bed reactors and molten salt reactors, make most current safety regulations unnecessary especially if reactors are buried underground. This in turn should make nuclear power costs substantially lower, placing nuclear generated electricity into the lives of the world's poor at very modest costs. This cannot be said with absolute certainty, but the amount of certainty we have is enough to make generation four reactor technology exploration a very worthwhile endeavor.

If our expectations on the cost lowering capacity of Molten Salt Reactors is fulfilled, then the world's poor stand to benefit. The Catholic Church should look at the relationship between the needs of the poor, including the need to leave poverty, in the context of the potential of nuclear power to fulfill those needs. Given Pope Francis' commitment to the well being of the poor and his presumed commitment as a Jesuit to their education, the increase and spread of Post Carbon energy should be part of the Church's agenda.