nuclear-sermon.html

---
layout: default
title: Nuclear Sermon
category: blog
description: A sermon about nuclear energy
author: rachel
byline: true
date: 2010-06-09
---
<div class="col-md-8">
  <img
    class="float-end img-fluid rounded w-50"
    src="/img/Preaching_June2010.jpg"
    alt="Rachel preaching a nuclear sermon"
    title="Rachel preaching a nuclear sermon."
  >

  <p>
    On June 6, 2010, a young nuclear engineering Ph.D. student studying neutron
    transport methods named Rachel Slaybaugh gave an invited sermon at the
    McMaster United Methodist Church outside Pittsburgh about environmental
    stewardship, focusing on nuclear energy. Here, we feature the full text of
    this singular event, as well as a recording for your listening pleasure.
    <br>
    <br>
    <a href="/assets/Rachel-sermon-nuclear.mp3"
      >Click here for the audio of the sermon [MP3]</a
    >
  </p>

  <h1>The text of the sermon</h1>
  <h2>Introduction</h2>
  <p>
    Good morning. My name is Rachel Slaybaugh and I&rsquo;m a graduate student
    at the University of Wisconsin, though I&rsquo;m originally from
    Pennsylvania and did my undergraduate studies at Penn State. I&rsquo;m
    living in Pittsburgh for the summer because I&rsquo;m doing an internship at
    Bettis Atomic Power Lab. I&rsquo;m a nuclear engineer.
  </p>

  <p>
    Nuclear engineering is not necessarily a common career choice. I
    didn&rsquo;t grow up knowing that I wanted to be any kind of engineer, let
    alone a nuclear one. But, I did grow up building a value system based on
    ideals like compassion, responsibility, good stewardship, and loving your
    neighbor. Values such as these led me to choose nuclear engineering as a
    career path. The focus of my message today is about why values I found in
    the church inspired me to choose this field.
  </p>

  <p>
    Being a good steward of the earth is something that fits clearly into a good
    value system. Using resources responsibly so that there will be enough for
    everyone is an intuitively a positive thing. Being responsible with the
    Earth God has provided to us is an excellent way to honor God. I came to
    this conclusion early on and have therefore been concerned about taking care
    of the environment for most of my life.
  </p>

  <p>
    Improving the quality of life of people around the world also fits clearly
    into a good value system. By improving quality of life I mean two things.
    The first is avoiding or reducing conflict, which is an obvious way to
    improve life for both those fighting and for those living in regions
    experiencing conflict. Peace is always a worthy goal, and so this too has
    been a concern of mine.
  </p>

  <p>
    The second idea I will address is about improving life from a more
    traditional &quot;moving out of poverty&quot; standpoint. By this I mean
    things like: access to electricity; having clean and safe water; access to
    medical care; availability of education, etc. All of these things that many
    of us in United States have and many others are working to obtain. These
    three ideas are inter-related, but I tend to group the environment and
    conflict ideas in one challenge category and reducing poverty in another, as
    I&rsquo;ll describe later.
  </p>

  <p>
    When I was growing up I always said that I wanted to save the world. I
    wanted to find a career path that would be able to address the issues I just
    mentioned. And then I found one. Energy.
  </p>

  <h2>Environmental Responsibility</h2>

  <p>
    Energy impacts many many facets of our lives. The way we choose to make and
    use energy affects the environment and the environment affects us. This is
    true in developed and developing nations alike. Air pollution is a good
    example. Air pollution can come from many energy sources such as burning
    coal or natural gas to make electricity, exhaust from driving vehicles or
    riding in planes, emissions from burning fuel for indoor cooking and heating
    -- be it wood, kerosene, or something else.
  </p>

  <p>
    Such air pollution can have large negative impacts. There used to be huge
    problems with acid rain in the US, Canada, and Europe that resulted from
    sulfur and nitrogen oxides in the air. Air quality in various parts of China
    is horrible causing premature death. Numerous people in India have breathing
    issues and shortened life spans as a result of breathing fumes from the
    kerosene lamps they use for light.
  </p>

  <p>
    Air pollution is only one problem resulting from the way we currently
    produce energy. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an example of how our
    energy needs are impacting the environment. The ongoing underground fire in
    Centralia is a one people around here know. The recent mining disaster in
    West Virginia is another example. And there are many others.
  </p>

  <p>
    Another aspect of environmental responsibility goes beyond immediate
    consequences to long-term impacts. I am sure that you have heard about the
    potential for global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
    Whether or not you think that we are causing global warming and that this
    could cause catastrophic changes to our planet, you must acknowledge that
    putting more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than has ever been there
    before may not be a responsible thing to do from a stewardship standpoint,
    particularly given the possible outcomes.
  </p>

  <p>
    But I digress. There are many other ways that energy choices can have a
    long-term impact. A portion of the excess CO2 in the air is absorbed by the
    ocean and creates carbonic acid. Ocean acidification could destroy much
    ocean life, including many coral reefs. Deforestation of tropical
    rainforests could drastically reduce the biodiversity of life on earth.
    Deforestation in other areas causes desertification, converting arable land
    into desert.
  </p>

  <p>
    How we choose to make and use energy affects the environment in which we
    live now and it will determine what our future world looks like.
  </p>

  <h2>Scarcity, Conflict, and Poverty</h2>

  <p>
    Okay, so it is pretty clear that energy use has environmental consequences
    and what we are choosing now has negative outcomes and may have large
    negative outcomes in the future. But what else? Another major concern when
    it comes to energy is resource scarcity.
  </p>

  <p>
    If we use up what we have, we won&rsquo;t have anything left for making
    energy in the same ways in the future. For example, if we simply use up all
    of our oil without developing reasonable alternatives for transportation
    fuel - we will have a hard time driving our cars. And I&rsquo;ll bet that
    those last several million gallons of gasoline will not be $2.79 a gallon.
  </p>

  <p>
    An important but perhaps more nuanced consequence of resource scarcity is
    the potential for future conflict. This conflict can come from two places:
    who controls resources that are scarce and actually running out of a
    resource. In terms of who controls the resources, you are likely familiar
    with the notion that our heavy reliance on oil has security implications for
    the United States because many of the countries rich in oil do not think of
    us favorably. We are reliant upon them for a scarce resource and as a result
    often end up either in conflict or attempting to avoid conflict in those
    regions.
  </p>

  <p>
    Many countries in the world are developing rapidly and the people in them
    want to have a higher quality of life - as well they should. This requires
    energy and means global demand for traditional energy resources such as oil,
    coal, and natural gas is growing. Unfortunately these fuels are of finite
    quantity and we are not making more of them on a relevant time scale.
  </p>

  <p>
    What do you think will happen when such fuels become truly scarce? If we are
    highly reliant on these materials there could be shortages, price shocks,
    large market instabilities. When something that affects the quality of
    people&rsquo;s lives is jeopardized, there is high potential for conflict. I
    see energy as one of the most important issues of our time in large part
    because of the conflict that could happen if we continue to use energy the
    way that we do now.
  </p>

  <p>
    I hope I have made it clear why I think that it is important to try to find
    sustainable ways to create and use energy. This brings me to my next point:
    why it is important have energy and to help increase the supply of energy
    around the world.
  </p>

  <p>
    Think of the things that differentiate those living in poverty from those
    living more comfortable lives; things like clean water, adequate food,
    shelter, medical treatment, education, and so on. The United Methodist
    Church in particular is great at doing mission work where we help others
    meet such basic needs. In general, you cannot have those things without an
    adequate supply of energy. If we are serious about improving the lives of
    people around the world then we have to be serious about energy.
  </p>

  <p>
    As an aside I&rsquo;d like to point out that people who have safe and stable
    lives do not often go to war. If you have the things you need to live: food,
    water, shelter, etc. you have more stability and security. If the quality of
    life were better in many places experiencing conflict, it is possible that
    the conflict would abate.
  </p>

  <p>
    So I have discussed that the way we choose to make energy is important and
    that what we are doing now is not sustainable. I also mentioned that we need
    to increase the availability of energy to help people move out of poverty.
    It may seem that those are two conflicting goals. I don&rsquo;t think they
    are, but meeting those goals at the same time certainly presents a large
    challenge.
  </p>

  <h2>Nuclear</h2>

  <p>
    From where will we get all of this energy if we can&rsquo;t keep using
    resources the way we are now? Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet and
    there isn&rsquo;t likely going to be one in the near term. Every single
    energy source that we can use has positives and negatives. That means we
    need a multi-faceted approach -- a diverse energy portfolio. I think nuclear
    should play a key role in that portfolio, and here&rsquo;s why.
  </p>

  <p>
    Nuclear energy is an existing, large scale, reliable, non-emitting energy
    source. What does that mean? Existing: this is an existing technology. We
    have it. We&rsquo;re using it right now. Large Scale: we can generate large
    amounts of electricity with nuclear fission. One fifth of electricity in the
    US and about one third in Pennsylvania comes from nuclear. Reliable: we turn
    on a nuclear plant and it stays on, usually for about 18 months at a time.
    It shuts down for 3 or 4 weeks, and then turns back on. Non-emitting:
    nuclear plants do not emit any air pollution. No greenhouse gases, no
    mercury, no materials that cause acid rain. That stuff that comes out of
    cooling towers is actually water vapor that has never touched anything
    remotely radioactive.
  </p>

  <p>
    However, remember how I said there are positives and negatives? There are
    challenges associated with nuclear energy. They are solvable, but they
    exist. What to do with spent fuel is a recognized challenge (spent fuel is
    what we call nuclear fuel once we don&rsquo;t want to use it for making
    electricity anymore. Most of you may know this as nuclear waste. I
    don&rsquo;t consider it waste but we&rsquo;ll get to that). Right now spent
    fuel is stored safely on site at the plants.
  </p>

  <p>
    There are a variety of ways to handle spent fuel in the long term. It can be
    buried under ground as it is and left there to decay until it is no longer
    radioactive. It can also be recycled. When fuel is removed from a reactor it
    still contains a large amount of energy. Right now we only use a small
    fraction of the available energy because it&rsquo;s easiest to do it that
    way.
  </p>

  <p>
    Recycling the fuel recovers much of the remaining energy and it reduces the
    amount of final waste. The remaining material remains radioactive for a much
    shorter period of time than if it weren&rsquo;t recycled. What is left will
    eventually be buried underground. We don&rsquo;t do this right now, but some
    other countries do.
  </p>

  <p>
    The other big challenge faced by nuclear energy is that it still consumes
    fuel, uranium. We can get much more energy out of nuclear fuel than fossil
    fuels, so we need much less of it (pinkie example). However, if we switched
    to all nuclear energy we would eventually end up with uranium a shortage.
    Fortunately, there are solutions to this as well. Recycling is one way to
    help. We also have a variety of different kinds of reactors with different
    characteristics that we could use to give us enough fuel for thousands of
    years -- which should be enough time for us to get fusion or something else
    working. Nuclear faces challenges, but there are solutions.
  </p>

  <h2>Conclusion</h2>

  <p>
    But, we need more than just nuclear. For many reasons we don&rsquo;t want to
    put all of our eggs in one basket. We need solar. We need wind. We need
    hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal. We even need oil, coal, and natural
    gas. But we need to make our choices wisely and responsibly. Every single
    source has challenges and drawbacks and we need to carefully address and
    balance them. I chose to study nuclear energy because I see it as a
    stepping-stone -- part of the picture to get us from the fossil fuel world
    of today to a sustainable tomorrow.
  </p>

  <p>
    Before I conclude I would like to take a moment to say that the fastest,
    cheapest and simplest things that can help solve the energy problem are
    conservation and efficiency improvements. There are easy choices you can
    make in your every day lives to help reduce the amount of energy resources
    you use, and save you money. Making sustainable energy choices in your life
    is the Christian thing to do.
  </p>

  <p>
    This discussion may seem to be a pretty far cry from Luke 7: 11-17, but I
    can see some relevance. Recall that Jesus brings a woman&rsquo;s only son
    back to life. I interpret this in two ways, both with the same punch line.
    One way is that the Earth itself is the son in the story; the other is that
    the people on Earth are the son.
  </p>

  <p>
    Fortunately for us the Earth is not dead, nor are all the people on it. In
    this interpretation, bringing the &quot;son&quot; back to life means healing
    the earth and improving the lives of those on it. God has given us the
    talent and ability to meet this challenge. Through us, the &quot;son&quot;
    in our story can be brought back to life.
  </p>

  <p>
    Thank you very much for your attention. I would like to go further into the
    details of both nuclear energy and other energy sources, but I am out of
    time. If anyone has questions or would like to discuss these issues please
    come find me afterwards and I would love to talk to you. Thank you.
  </p>
</div>