planned for construction as well as those at proposal stage. However, the ethics of nuclear power is increasingly under challenge due to the incidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants, and concerns over radioactive discharges, safe management of radioactive waste and lack of an operational repository for spent nuclear fuel. Central to these concerns is the perceived unique radiological risk of nuclear power. But in a world where Climate Change presents a threat to the entire planet, is nuclear power and the associated radiological risk not ethical? Exploring the interplay between climate change ethics and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)’s System of Radiological Protection, we consider the major contribution that new nuclear power stations can make to climate change mitigation, through decarbonisation of power systems, and finally unpick the case for nuclear power in this new world of climate change ethics.

Keywords: Nuclear Power, Radiation Protection Ethics, Perceived Risk

The threat from climate change is real and growing. In order to reach net zero emissions by 2050,^1,2 we are in desperate need of a ‘just’ energy transition. To achieve this energy transition, we need to consider all forms of available low-carbon technology and we need to judge each technology fairly and evenly. One such option for the low carbon energy transition is nuclear power. Currently, there are more than 100 nuclear power reactors, representing a total gross capacity of 120,000 MWe, on order or planned worldwide.

The contours of the nuclear regulatory landscape are shaped by the International Commission of Radiological Protection’s System of Radiological Protection, as set out in ICRP Publication 103.³ This system contains within it three guiding principles for radiological protection which include justification, optimisation, and application of dose limits. It is through the analysis of these principles that we propose to explore the ethical case for new nuclear builds and subsequently understand the interplay between public perception of radiological risk and the current regulatory approach. In the next section, we will outline the ethical obligations that climate change generates. We will then explore how these obligations relate to development of new nuclear power stations. Furthermore, we will proceed by exploring the role of other technologies in the mitigation of climate change. In the section that follows, we will seek to understand the regulatory principles that undergird all current approaches to radiological protection. In additions, we will apply these principles to the context of new nuclear build projects, considering their interaction with the wider field of climate change ethics. Finally, we will outline the case for new nuclear build projects in the context of climate change and radiological protection ethics.

Ethics, climate change, and the energy transition

Climate change is increasingly understood as an intractably wicked problem,⁴ representing a broad church of negative social and ecological impacts. Increasingly, it is becoming clear that disadvantaged and vulnerable communities are disproportionately exposed to climate risks.² This implies that there is an increased likelihood of severe and traumatic weather events in the medium-to-long-term⁵ and that current systemic injustices are likely to be perpetuated.⁶ Thus, climate change threatens to destabilise our current social and political systems, whilst amplifying inequality and severely impacting the most vulnerable on our planet. It is through this conceptualisation of climate change that we derive the imperative to halt its progression and work to minimise its impacts. In order to do this, whilst also ensuring that our approaches remain equitable and fair, we need to navigate the complex technological and political challenges that climate change prevention entails.

Ethics is the practice of judging right from wrong.⁷ In the context of climate change, this field of practice can clarify our obligations to act or not to,⁸ challenge our understandings of risk-imposition-permissibility,⁹ and provide a toolkit with which to navigate a world of competing technologies and climate solutions.^8,10 In short, ethics, as a field of practice, provides a framework for achieving an equitable outcome to some of the most difficult challenges of our time. To halt the progress of climate change, whilst minimising the risk imposed on the Earth’s populations, we are faced with two options, that is, mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation involves the prevention of dangerous anthropogenic interference¹¹ so as to limit the increase of global average surface temperature to 2^o C and, hopefully, keep the warming well-below 1.5^o C.¹² This would help to avoid the worst impacts of anthropogenic climate change.²

Adaptation, on the other hand, is an approach to managing the increased risks that are generated by climate change, some of which we are already committed to under current levels of warming, which could include everything from protecting coastlines from rising sea levels, through innovative engineering approaches, to changing current approaches to insurance. In order to reduce the overall risk imposed on the Earth’s populations, both adaptation and mitigation are required to effectively tackle climate change. In order to assess the viability of different technologies, it is, however, helpful to understand approaches to mitigation and adaptation independently. In this paper, we will explore the decarbonisation of the energy system, as a form of mitigation in depth. Decarbonisation often requires a large scale energy transition. In the United Kingdom, for example, 25.6% of emissions in 2019 came from energy supply,¹³ a large majority of these emissions represented by emissions from gas-fired power stations.¹³ In order to meet net zero emissions by 2050, the United Kingdom government would need to commit to moving away from high carbon technologies and installing new low carbon generation on the grid. The options for this kind of transformation include wind, solar, gas or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydropower or nuclear. In order to adopt any of these technologies, as Jamieson¹⁴ explains, we are going to need to accept that, no matter what choices we make, there will be costs and benefits to the path that we choose. Ethical frameworks provide us with a means of navigating these trade-offs, hopefully, in the long run, allowing us to achieve a more equitable world for all. First though, what role can different technologies play in our race to net zero?

Nuclear power and other technologies

In order to meet the 2050 net zero emissions ambition¹⁵ we are going to need to see the rapid decarbonisation of all sectors, including the energy sector. As we begin to electrify transport and heating this challenge will increase, with an estimated doubling of electricity demand by 2050.¹⁶ The majority of this electricity will need to come from low carbon sources. This means that we not only need to replace existing carbon-intensive forms of electricity generation, but that we also need to deploy a low carbon fleet that is large enough to meet increasing demand for electricity. The need to ensure that we move away from fossil fuel-dependent forms of electricity generation, like gas and coal, and move towards low carbon energy sources is clear.  

Making the choice between these technologies is not an easy task, as each has something different to offer. Their purported benefits range from increased grid stability to low, or even negative, carbon emissions to long-term job prospects. The adoption of one technology does not, however, have to be to the exclusion of other technologies. In fact, the Committee on Climate Change has suggested that a large suite of technologies will be needed to achieve ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050.¹⁶ Alongside renewables, nuclear power can act as a key enabler of the low carbon transition. In reality the primary resistance to new nuclear can be grouped into two broad categories: those local concerns which are applicable to any large infrastructure such as the disruption created during the construction and the sight of the infrastructure following construction; and those concerns that are unique to nuclear power, which are strongly associated with radiation-phobia and radioactive waste management. Despite negative local concerns, we are still seeing the large-scale deployment of wind, solar, and BECCS (bioenergy with CCS) technologies.²⁰ Although addressing local concerns is a crucial part of ensuring the viability and equitability of any large infrastructure project, the unique concerns surrounding nuclear require specific focus as they are playing a significant role in limiting the deployment of new nuclear power.

There is no doubt that historical events such as the accidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants have played a role in the negative perception of radioactivity. But is the level of concern and fear a fair reflection of the risk of radioactivity compared to the other day to day risks we come across such as crossing the road or driving a car? And does this level of concern and resistance provide an ethical argument for not pursuing nuclear power despite its obvious benefits? To understand this, we need to look at the current approach to radiation protection, and consider whether these questions are adequately covered.

System of radiological protection

In order to ensure adequate protection from radiation for the public and workers, the International Commission on Radiological Protection has established a ‘System of Radiological Protection’³ that sets out three core principles for radiological protection: the principles of justification, optimisation, and application of dose limits. Through these principles the international and domestic regulatory framework for radiological protection is established.

1. Justification

The first principle, justification, establishes the idea of doing “more good than harm”.³ In this, the ICRP introduces the idea that “one should achieve sufficient individual or societal benefit to offset the detriment that the exposure situation causes”.³ By this, we can understand that although the creation of a new exposure situation may not be ideal, it can be justified if it brings about sufficient benefits, both social and economic.

The ICRP advises that the issue of justification should be a consideration of governments or national authorities so as to “ensure an overall benefit in the broadest sense to society”³ is achieved. Further, the Commission understands that “radiological protection considerations will serve as one input to the broader decision process”.³ In its broadest sense this principle strongly aligns with the definition of ethics, in that it requires a judgement to be made between what is “right and wrong”, but recognising that this is not black and white, and cannot be determined by any one factor on its own.

2. Optimisation

The second principle, the principle of optimisation, establishes the idea that “the likelihood of incurring exposures, the number of people exposed, and the magnitude of their individual doses should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable”.³ On top of this, the ICRP has reasserted the need to take into account “economic and societal factors”³ as part of the optimisation process. By this, the ICRP means to ensure that the ethical argument does not stop with whether the practice, such as nuclear power, is justifiable, but whether the level of exposure to ionising radiation, and therefore potential health detriment, is also “ethical”. In this the ICRP aims to ensure that the decision making process, to determine the optimised level of exposure or risk, identifies the “right” outcome. However, determining this optimal level has its challenges and the desire to pursue lower and lower exposures, if left unchallenged, can lead to the “wrong” outcome by putting a greater emphasis on radiation, compared to other factors, such as non-radiological hazards or the societal impact.

3. Application of dose limits

The third principle relates to the application of dose limits, namely that the “total dose to any individual from regulated sources in planned exposure situations other than medical exposure of patients should not exceed the appropriate limits recommended by the Commission.” By setting these limits the ICRP are aiming to ensure that under planned conditions, an adequate level of protection is ensured and that individuals are not exposed to an unnecessarily high amount of ionising radiation. On this basis exceeding a dose limit is contrary to regulations in most countries. However, it is important to note that these cannot be applied in isolation and work in combination with the principles of justification and optimisation.

Application of principles

The three principles represented in the ICRP’s System for Radiological Protection offer a means of differentiating “right” from “wrong”, in the context of radiological exposure and risk. When pairing these principles with the obligations that the ethics of climate change establish, the need to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to ensure that mitigation approaches are fair and equitable, we can begin to discern whether the development of new nuclear power stations is “right” or “wrong”.

One may ask: do new nuclear build projects meet the obligations established through the ethics of climate change? Nuclear power represents a massive opportunity to reduce the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. Once constructed, nuclear power stations effectively produce zero carbon emissions. Further, a new build programme represents a huge boost to local economies, both through job creation and tertiary benefits.²¹ Beyond this, recent proposals have shown that nuclear power has the potential to produce benefits that are auxiliary to low carbon electricity generation. These benefits may include the production of low carbon hydrogen or could even include the development of direct air capture (DAC).²⁴ So, nuclear power may not only produce low carbon energy but could also provide a set of resources that could accelerate transition to a low carbon economy.

Some may be concerned about the emissions produced during construction; however, the lifecycle emissions of a nuclear power station are competitive with those seen in renewable technologies.²⁵ Similarly, some may be concerned that the expansion of new nuclear power might displace other cheaper forms of low carbon energy. Whilst a valid concern, it has been shown that new nuclear power could work in tandem with new renewable power, providing baseload power when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, to provide grid stability, and it may actually work to reduce overall system costs²⁶ therefore representing a win for the consumer. As such, it is clear that new nuclear build projects meet the obligations established through the ethics of climate change.

Furthermore, we can ask ourselves whether new nuclear build projects meet the standards established through the ICRP or not. radiological health detriment, radioactive waste, environmental detriment, safety, security and safeguards. The the case for new nuclear power is “justified by its economic, social and other benefits in relation to the health detriments it may cause”.²⁷ In essence, the benefits are judged to outweigh any negatives, and the decision to pursue new nuclear power was deemed to be “right”, on the basis of its ability to “secure energy supply, helping decarbonise and meet legal low-carbon obligations and benefiting the economy more widely”.²⁷ When contemplating the principle of optimisation, it is instructive to consider whether it would be “right” to spend £100 million on reducing the radiation exposure from routine discharges from a New. So, as long as the use of nuclear power is justified, and the levels of exposure suitably optimised, is nuclear power ethical? And should new nuclear build projects be pursued? Public concern represents a significant barrier to the ethical deployment of new nuclear power stations. This concern may be driven by a combination of a lack of information, by the memory of past nuclear incidents, and by risks being misrepresented to the public. If concern, as a result of misrepresentation of or misinformation on risk, is resulting in unnecessary stress and fatigue, then it cannot be said that the needs of local communities are being met. As such, this issue needs to be addressed in order to ensure the ethical viability of new nuclear power.

The application of the principle of optimisation, in this context, may hold the solution and has been previously discussed in several international workshops hosted by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and French Society for Radiological Protection (SFRP) in February 2017 and October 2018. The output of the workshops is captured in Bryant et al.²⁹ and Lecomte et al.³⁰ and emphasised the importance of:

1. a holistic view of optimisation taking into account all hazards, not only radiation;
2. development and implementation of structured approaches and “tools’ to pursue ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA);
3. engagement with all stakeholders involved in the exposure and decision-makers involved in the optimisation process; and
4. a commitment from all those involved in the process, or as it is more commonly known radiation safety culture.

This shows that engaging with all stakeholders involved in the exposure, including the public, presents an opportunity to reduce concern and ensure individuals can come to their own informed decision on what is the optimised level and why that is ethical. This process of participation represents a way of navigating negative public perception such that an ethical outcome may be ultimately attained.

Furthermore, and despite the ALARA Principle that is established through the Principle of Optimisation, the nuclear industry is often seen as trying to achieve minimum dose. This is in spite of the impact that this pursuit is having on the viability of a new nuclear build programme: increasing costs, and driving public misperception that the normal running of a nuclear power station produces a significant radiological risk. This ultimately threatens the long-term viability of new nuclear power, both ethically and economically.

Although we have been unable to cover all details of this thorny issue in-depth, we have begun to uncover the complexity that surrounds the development of new nuclear power stations. In particular, we have shown that nuclear power may not only present the “right” thing to do, in the context of climate change, but also that it is viable within the bounds of the ICRP’s System for Radiological Protection. In doing so, we have also highlighted the impact of political and social factor, including public misperception of risk, in limiting the useful deployment of new nuclear power. Nuclear power represents a potentially important part of achieving ‘net zero’ emissions. Thus, it would not only be remiss to limit its inclusion in our suite of potential solutions, it would also be “wrong” to exclude it out of hand.

None.

None.

1. Committee on Climate Change, 2019. Net Zero Technical Report. 2020.
2. IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte V, et al. (eds.)]. In Press.
3. ICRP, 2007. ICRP Publication 107. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. 2020.
4. Lazarus RJ. Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell L Rev. 2008;94:1153.
5. Seneviratne SI, N Nicholls, D Easterling, et al. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field CB, et al. (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 2012;pp. 109–230.
6. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, CB, et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014;p.6.
7. Miller C. The ethics of energy transitions. In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering. 2014;1–5.
8. Jamieson D. Energy, ethics and the transformation of nature. The Ethics of Global Climate Change. 2011;16–37.
9. Barry C, Cullity G. Offsetting and Risk-Imposition. King’s College London, unpublished. 2020.
10. Sovacool BK, Heffron RJ, McCauley D, et al. Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy. 2016;1(5):1–6.
11. United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1992. FCC/INFORMAL/84/Rev.1
12. UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. 2015. Report No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1.
13. BEIS. 2019 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Provisional Figures. 2020.
14. Jamieson D. Energy, ethics and the transformation of nature. The Ethics of Global Climate Change. 2011;16–37.
15. Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019.
16. Committee on Climate Change. Net Zero, The UK’s Contribution to Stopping Global Warming. 2019.
17. EDF Energy. Nuclear Power. 2020.
18. BEIS. The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. 2020.
19. HM Treasury. National Infrastructure Strategy. 2020.
20. O’Beirne P, Battersby, Mallett A, et al. The UK net-zero target: Insights into procedural justice for greenhouse gas removal. Environmental Science & Policy. 2020;112:264–274.
21. Deloitte Report for Foratom, 2020. Impact Report – Vision to 2050.
22. HPC. Hinkley Point C: Realising the Socio-economic Benefits 2020.
23. EDF Energy. New figures show evidence of Sizewell C’s boost for jobs in Suffolk. 2020.
24. EDF Energy. Sizewell C seeks partners to develop Hydrogen and Direct Air Capture. 2020.
25. AEA report for EDF. Life Cycle Assessment of the carbon footprint of the planned Hinkley Point C power station. AEAT/ENV/R/ED56902. 2011.
26. Brook BW, Alonso A, Meneley DA, et al. Why nuclear energy is sustainable and has to be part of the energy mix. Sustainable Materials and Technolgies. 2014;1(2):8–16.
27. Department of Energy & Climate Change. The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004. 2010.
28. WNA. Plans for New Reactors Worldwide. 2020.
29. Bryant PA, Cole P, Croft J, et al. Integration of risks from multiple hazards into a holistic ALARA/ALARP demonstration. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38:81.
30. Lecomte A, Bannon Y, Billarand P, et al. Summary of SFRP-IRPA workshops on the reasonableness in the practical implementation of the ALARA principle. Radioprotection. 2019;54.