A methodology for the assessment of nuclear power development scenario

Taking as basic premises a foreseeable growth in the world's energy demand, a marked trend towards more electricity in power generation, and an increasingly substantial share for nuclear power in electricity generation, the paper examines the role developing countries may play in the process as both determining factors and subjects. Demography, resources, the natural drive for improved economic performance and living standards, as well as the desire to assert themselves on the international scene, and awareness of the disparities in these regards between themselves and the developed countries are major incentives for the developing countries' to seek enhanced access to nuclear power technology in the decades to come. Flaws in infrastructure, finance, average educational standards, and management capabilities are, on the other hand, inhibiting factors, while a prolonged world economic recession and the uncertainties introduced by the current world–wide political changes in conjunction with the intrinsically dual nature of the nuclear technology further compound the situation. It is argued that internationally concerted monitoring and assistance involving cooperative donors and acceptors is, probably, the only way of ensuring an orderly, economically sound and politically safe expansion of nuclear power technology in the developing world. The role in this process of international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency is emphasized.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) is to help ensure that nuclear energy is available to contribute to meeting global energy needs of the 21st century in a sustainable manner. The INPRO task titled “Global scenarios” is to develop global and regional nuclear energy scenarios that lead to a global vision of sustainable nuclear energy in the 21st century. Results of multiple studies show that the criteria for developing sustainable nuclear energy cannot be met without innovations in reactor and nuclear fuel cycle technologies. Combining different reactor types and associated fuel chains creates a multiplicity of nuclear energy system arrangements potentially contributing to global sustainability of nuclear energy. In this, cooperation among countries having different policy regarding fuel cycle back end would be essential to bring sustainability benefits from innovations in technology to all interested users. INPRO has developed heterogeneous global model to capture countries’ different policies regarding the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle in regional and global scenarios of nuclear energy evolution and applied in a number of studies performed by participants of the project. This paper will highlight the model and major conclusions obtained in the studies.

Each week seems to bring further evidence that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than previously estimated. Pressure is building to replace power sources that emit carbon dioxide with those tha...

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) was established in 2000 with the goal to ensure a sustainable nuclear energy supply to meet the global energy needs in the 21st century. The INPRO activities on global and regional nuclear energy scenarios provide newcomers and mature nuclear countries alike with better understanding of options for making a collaborative transition to future sustainable nuclear energy systems. Collaborative project GAINS (Global Architecture of Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems Based on Thermal and Fast Reactors Including a Closed Fuel Cycle) developed an internationally verified analytical framework for assessing such transition scenarios. The framework (hereafter, GAINS framework) is a part of the integrated services provided by IAEA to Member States considering initial development or expansion of their nuclear energy programmes. The paper presents major elements of the analytical framework and selected results of its application, including: • Long-term nuclear energy demand scenarios based on the IAEA Member States’ high and low estimations of nuclear power deployment until 2030 and expected trends until 2050 and on forecasts of competent international energy organizations; • Heterogeneous world model comprised of groups of non-personified non-geographical countries (NGs) with different policy regarding nuclear fuel cycle back end; • Architectures of nuclear energy systems; • Metrics and tools for the assessment of dynamic nuclear energy system evolution scenarios regarding sustainability, including a set of key indicators and evaluation parameters; • An internationally verified database with best estimate material flow and economic characteristics of existing and advanced nuclear reactors and associated nuclear fuel cycles needed for material flow analysis and comparative economic analysis, extending the previously developed IAEA databases and taking into account preferences of different countries; • Selected results of sample analysis for scenarios involving transition from the present fleets of nuclear reactors and fuel cycles to future sustainable nuclear energy system architectures involving innovative technological solutions.

This paper presents the IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). It defines its rationale, key objectives and specifies the organizational structure. The IAEA General Conference (2000) has invited “all interested Member States to combine their efforts under the aegis of the Agency in considering the issues of the nuclear fuel cycle, in particular by examining innovative and proliferation-resistant nuclear technology” (GC(44)/RES/21) and invited Member States to consider to contribute to a task force on innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycle (GC(44)/RES/22). In response to this invitation, the IAEA initiated an “International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles”, INPRO. The Terms of Reference for INPRO were adopted at a preparatory meeting in November 2000, and the project was finally launched by the INPRO Steering Committee in May 2001. At the General Conference in 2001, first progress was reported, and the General Conference adopted a resolution on “Agency Activities in the Development of Innovative Nuclear Technology” [GC(45)/RES/12, Tab F], giving INPRO a broad basis of support. The resolution recognized the “unique role that the Agency can play in international collaboration in the nuclear field”. It invited both “interested Member States to contribute to innovative nuclear technology activities” at the Agency as well as the Agency itself “to continue it’s efforts in these areas”. Additional endorsement came in a UN General Assembly resolution in December 2001 (UN GA 2001, A/RES/56/94), that again emphasized “the unique role that the Agency can play in developing user requirements and in addressing safeguards, safety and environmental questions for innovative reactors and their fuel cycles” and stressed “the need for international collaboration in the development of innovative nuclear technology”. As of February 2002, the following countries or entities have become members of INPRO: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey and the European Commission. In total, 15 cost-free experts have been nominated by their respective governments or international organizations. The objective of INPRO is to support the safe, sustainable, economic and proliferation resistant use of nuclear technology to meet the global energy needs of the 21st century. Phase I of INPRO was initiated in May 2001. During Phase I, work is subdivided in two subphases: Phase IA (in progress): Selection of criteria and development of methodologies and guidelines for the comparison of different concepts and approaches, taking into account the compilation and review of such concepts and approaches, and determination of user requirements. Phase IB (to be started after Phase IA is completed): Examination of innovative nuclear energy technologies made available by Member States against criteria and requirements. This examination will be co-ordinated by the Agency and performed with participatio of Member States on the basis of the user requirements and methodologies established in Phase IA. In the first phase, six subject groups were established: Resources, Demand and User requirements for Economics; User requirements for the Environment, Fuel cycle and Waste; User requirements for Safety; User requirements for Non-proliferation; User requirements for crosscutting issues; Criteria and Methodology.

IntroductionThe six-party talks have been suspended since North Korea's withdrawal in April 2009 to protest the UN Security Council's condemnation of l ong-range missile launches in presidential statement. To solve North Korea's nuclear problem, the deadlock in the negotiations with the North should first be broken in the near future. Once the six-party talks resume, the primary discussion could focus on how to denuclearize the North. In order to achieve such an objective, it will be essential to disDepartmentmantle its nuclear weapons program in complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. In addition to removing the nuclear material and infrastructure, irreversible dismantling of the North's nuclear weapons program would require redirection of the North's nuclear workers to other civilian occupations.While dealing with the North's nuclear problem, it will be important to assure the North of sustainable energy supply for supporting its economic growth. In the present context, nuclear energy is the single huge, economical, and reliable energy source. A constant supply of nuclear energy without proliferation risk would help to eradicate the necessity and false excuses of its indigenous nuclear development program. However, the international society will hesitate to do this because the North has previously attempted to mislead them into believing that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.Therefore, revisiting 1994's Agreed Framework between the U.S. and North Korea could be considered. However, it has several weaknesses: First, it cannot resolve serious concern regarding the North's intention to divert the spent nuclear fuel discharged from the nuclear power plants, since they are located in the North; second, the North cannot effectively handle the central issue related to the irreversible dismantlement of its nuclear program, which is the diversion of its nuclear workers to other civilian occupations; third, such an approach will involve heavy financial burden on only three countries (Korea, the U.S., and Japan) that took part in the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization; and fourth, it is not clear whether the approach would be acceptable to the North. The North Korean Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which Kang proposed as way to redirect the North's nuclear workers, could also be considered.1 However, Kang's proposal is not comprehensive approach to the North's nuclear problem, since it simply focused on the relocation of the nuclear workers.Hence, new comprehensive approach is needed that allows the North an opportunity to reap the benefits of its nuclear energy program according to Article IV of the Nonproliferation Treaty but prevents the North's nuclear workers from conducting clandestine nuclear activities. To achieve such an objective, an approach similar to the approach to the nuclear fuel could be solution. The multilateral approach to the nuclear fuel cycle has been proposed and widely discussed since Mohamed El-Baradei, the former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), called for the creation of a new mechanism that will assure supplies of nuclear fuel and reactors to countries which want them, while strengthening nonproliferation through better controls over the sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. This paper reviews the previous proposals of the multilateral approach to the nuclear fuel cycle which have been recommended since 2003 and proposes comprehensive multilateral approach to solve North Korea's nuclear problem.Multilateral Approach to the Nuclear Fuel CycleThe anticipated increase in global energy demand would result in the expansion of nuclear energy use worldwide, mainly due to the construction of nuclear power plants in countries that do not currently have established nuclear industries. This could result in the worldwide dissemination of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies because most countries would aim for local development of these sensitive technologies. …

Nuclear power technologies at the stage of sustainable nuclear power development

In times of high fossil fuel prices and climate change concerns, more and more countries evaluate nuclear energy as a sustainable addition to their energy portfolio. But increased interest in nuclear power also leads to increased concerns about the risk of diversion of nuclear materials or technologies for covert weapons programs. As a result, proliferation resistance of future nuclear fuel cycles is one of the key discussion points of current initiatives such as Generation IV International Forum (GIF), the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Proliferation resistance has both intrinsic and extrinsic components. Intrinsic components refer to the design of the facilities and the types, chemical composition and physical characteristics of the materials used. Extrinsic features include the institutional barriers and the application of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, including the measurement methods and technologies employed in that context. Development of new safeguards instrumentation is critical for the IAEA to cope not only with technical issues (emergence of new technologies and the inevitable obsolescence of system components) but also to support policy-related advances, including safeguards policies, new approaches to safeguarding of excess material, and the introduction of new types of facilities to be safeguarded. These development projects usually involve IAEA staff and Member States and their Support Programs (MSSP) as well as research and development institutions and the private sector. Without a closely coordinated cooperation between all parties, the challenging task of timely developing, fielding, and maintaining new safeguards inspection tools over their complete lifecycle would not be possible. The role of the private sector is certainly focused on providing instrumentation and related services solutions, either developed by research and development institutions and then commercialized by industrial partners or developed within the private sector directly. Only rarely can the safeguards community rely on commercially or industrially developed solutions directly; generally, at least some custom development effort to meet safeguards requirements is needed. The instrumentation applied for safeguards varies broadly to cover different needs of safeguards authorities. The traditional safeguards instrumentation supports IAEA inspectors in their mission to verify the correctness of information about declared materials and facilities and includes measures to verify material composition and inventory as well as equipment that help establishing Continuity of Knowledge about non-diversion at safeguarded installations. With the implementation of the Additional Protocol (AP), the IAEA was further tasked to verify the completeness of declarations to ensure that safeguarded countries do not pursue covert nuclear weapons programs using undeclared nuclear materials and installations. Safeguards instrumentation used in the context of the AP has quite different requirements as it is not installed at declared installations but needs to be portable for inspector visit to undeclared sites. It also needs to be selected in the broader context of other safeguards measures used under the AP such as satellite imagery, open source analysis, etc. Use of safeguards instrumentation to accomplish the IAEA's verification mission is not new. The "traditional" measurement technologies for detection of declared materials consist of nondestructive analysis methods (NDA), which include primarily gamma and neutron measurement methods, unattended radiation monitoring systems (UMS), other measurement and monitoring systems, and containment and surveillance techniques. In this paper we will first outline the traditional Safeguards instrumentation approach and efforts that aim at verifying the correctness of information about declared nuclear materials and facilities, mainly including materials accountancy, materials composition measurements, and containment verification. We will discuss examples of why some of these methods have evolved into their present status. Some of the challenges to applying the present state of the art solutions will be highlighted. We will also discuss general requirements of safeguards instrumentation used for AP inspections and present a select number of technologies applicable to this field. Finally, we will conclude with our vision of what is needed for additional development in the near term. In particular, we will present the case of how the use of a building block approach developed by the industry (instrumentation and nuclear facility specialists) in cooperation with the safeguards community can make these next generation safeguards instruments and systems very cost effective to install and deploy.

This paper outlines a range of scenarios describing what the world’s energy system might look like in the middle of the century, and what nuclear energy’s most profitable role might be. The starting point is the 40 non-greenhouse-gas-mitigation scenarios in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2000). Given their international authorship and comprehensive review by governments and scientific experts, the SRES scenarios are the state of the art in long-term energy scenarios. However, they do not present the underlying energy system structures in enough detail for specific energy technology and infrastructure analyses. This paper therefore describes initial steps within INPRO (the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles of the International Atomic Energy Agency) to translate the SRES results into a range of possible nuclear energy technology requirements for mid-century. The paper summarizes the four SRES scenarios that will be used in INPRO and the reasons for their selection. It provides illustrative examples of the sort of additional detail that is being developed about the overall energy system implied by each scenario, and about specific scenario features particularly relevant to nuclear energy. As recommended in SRES, the selected scenarios cover all four SRES “storyline families.” The energy system translations being developed in INPRO are intended to indicate how energy services may be provided in mid-century and to delineate likely technology and infrastructure implications. They will indicate answers to questions like the following. The list is illustrative, not comprehensive. • What kind of nuclear power plants will best fit the mid-century energy system? • What energy forms and other products and services provided by nuclear reactors will best fit the mid-century energy system? • What would be their market shares? • How difficult will it be to site new nuclear facilities? • Which are nuclear energy’s biggest competitors? • Which non-nuclear technologies can nuclear power complement? • What is the range of potential demand growth for new capacity? • How is demand growth distributed geographically around the world? Different scenarios imply different answers, which are then the starting point for estimating what future reactor users might require of reactor and fuel cycle designs around mid-century. These user requirements — in terms of economics, safety, proliferation resistance, waste, and environmental impacts — are intended to help establish key directions in which to encourage innovation. They are intended as a useful input to managers designing R&D strategies targeted on the anticipated energy system needs, and other relevant needs, of mid-century.

Nuclear power development in market conditions with use of multi-purpose modular fast reactors SVBR-75/100

There are two categories of requirements: (i) user requirements that need to be met by the designers and manufacturers of innovative reactors and fuel cycles, and (ii) a wide spectrum of requirements that need to be met by countries, willing to successfully deploy innovative nuclear reactors for energy production. This part of the International Project on Innovative Reactors and Fuel Cycles will mainly deal with the second category of requirements. Both categories of requirements will vary depending on the institutional development, infrastructure availability and social attitude in any given country. Out of the need for sustainable development requirements will also more specific in the future. Over a 50-year time frame both categories of requirements will evolve with social and economic development as nuclear technology develops further. For example, the deployment of innovative reactors in countries with marginal or non-existing nuclear infrastructures would be possible only if the reactors are built, owned and operated by an international nuclear utility or if they are inherently safe and can be delivered as a “black box - nuclear battery”. A number of issues will need to be addressed and conditions and requirements developed if this is going to become a reality. One general requirement for wider utilization of innovative nuclear power will be the public and environmental considerations, which will play a role in the decision making processes. Five main clusters of topics will be handled: • Infrastuctural aspects, typology and consequences for nuclear development. • Industrial requirements for the different innovative concepts. • Institutional developments and requirements for future deployment of nuclear energy. (National as well as international). • Socio-political aspects, a.o. public acceptance and role of governments. • Sustainability: requirements following the need for sustainability. Analysis will be made of the evolution of national and international social, institutional and infrastructure requirements for the deployment of innovative nuclear technology through 2050 and beyond and requirements will be identified following the need for.

This paper takes nuclear power as the example to propose a comprehensive evaluation model for new energy project investment in China. The nuclear power technology is a power generation technology with very high uncertainty, according to the introduction of the nuclear power industry and technologies in China, this paper establishes an evaluation model for nuclear power project investment based on real options and Monte Carlo simulation. The risk and loss of nuclear power safety accidents will be included in the nuclear power valuation by the modeling of the probabilistic emergency. The model also takes into account a variety of uncertainties including nuclear power technology investment costs, operating costs, etc.

The IAEA Safety Standards Series include, in a hierarchical manner, the categories of Safety Fundamentals, Safety Requirements and Safety Guides, which define the elements necessary to ensure the safety of nuclear installations. In the same way as nuclear technology and scientific knowledge advance continuously, also safety requirements may change with these advances. Therefore, in the framework of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) one important aspect among others refers to user requirements on the safety of innovative nuclear installations, which may come into operation within the next fifty years. In this respect, the major objectives of the INPRO subtask “User Requirements and Nuclear Energy Development Criteria in the Area of Safety” have been: a. to overview existing national and international requirements in the safety area, b. to define high level user requirements in the area of safety of innovative nuclear technologies, c. to compile and to analyze existing innovative reactor and fuel cycle technology enhancement concepts and approaches intended to achieve a high degree of safety, and d. to identify the general areas of safety R&D needs for the establishment of these technologies. During the discussions it became evident that the application of the defence in depth strategy will continue to be the overriding approach for achieving the general safety objective in nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities, where the emphasis will be shifted from mitigation of accident consequences more towards prevention of accidents. In this context, four high level user requirements have been formulated for the safety of innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles. On this basis safety strategies for innovative reactor designs are highlighted in each of the five levels of defence in depth and specific requirements are discussed for the individual components of the fuel cycle.

Patent mining and diversity assessment of nuclear power technologies

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of