When Nuclear Power Feels Close to Home: Salience, Risk Information, and Public Acceptance

Walking the Wall

Acceptance in progress: Navigating the transition of nuclear power perception from a long-term study in China

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...

In comparison to fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases, nuclear power plants are a cleaner energy source that could help to mitigate the problems of climate change. Despite this, the general public often associates nuclear energy with risks that include nuclear accidents, nuclear waste contamination, nuclear weapons proliferation, and many others. People’s experience with the 1979 Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine have caused a sharp decline in public support for nuclear energy over the past few decades. In addition, media images of the 2011 Fukushima-Daichii nuclear accident are still fresh in the minds of the public. These now iconic media images and portrayals have perpetuated a perception of nuclear energy as a risky technology. Against these backdrops, scientists, communication practitioners and other key stakeholders increasingly face an uphill struggle to communicate about nuclear energy as a possible strategy for addressing climate change. Though the general public may reluctantly accept nuclear energy for climate change mitigation, research suggests that messages emphasizing the benefits of nuclear power for energy security and economic growth appear to have greater impact on public acceptance of the technology. Furthermore, public perception of nuclear energy is shaped by a host of other factors such as trust in nuclear governing institutions, knowledge, political inclinations, geographical proximity, and socio-demographic variables. At the same time, nuclear experts and the general public differ in their perceptions of risk, in nature and strength, relative to nuclear energy. Understanding these key differences between the experts and the public, and how beliefs, values, and perceptions influence public acceptance of nuclear energy is necessary to formulate effective public communication and engagement strategies.

An analysis of environmental and economic efficiency, risks, and prospects for the development of energy based on various types of energy carriers, starting from the 1960s, is carried out. It is shown that the decline in the share of nuclear power in the global energy balance cannot yet be compensated by renewable energy sources and leads to an increase in the use of fossil energy carriers. It is concluded that in order to achieve sustainable development of non-carbon energy, it is necessary to develop renewable and nuclear energy where the risks of environmental consequences of energy production are minimal. The purpose of this work is to identify and compare the role of nuclear power plants (NPPs) and various types of renewable energy sources (RES) in the formation of a non-carbon energy system, the growth of ecological and economic efficiency and to analyze the risks and prospects for the development of multipolar energy. Based on statistical and analytical data, this article examines the dynamics of global non-carbon energy development in the second half of the year XX—the beginning XXI V., comparative assessment of trends and patterns of development, correlation of nuclear power development with changes in environmental parameters and environmental efficiency of various types of energy. Comparative estimates of the economic efficiency of energy based on various energy sources are presented, with a discussion of uncertainties and risks in relation to nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources and their impact on the prospects for the development of energy based on non-carbon energy sources. A comparative assessment of the economic and environmental-economic parameters of nuclear and RES power plants indicates the continued high competitiveness of nuclear power plants both in the economic sense and in terms of minimizing environmental damage. The identified trends and analysis of environmental and economic indicators indicate that nuclear energy is a necessary component, along with renewable energy, of the process of transition to a non-carbon regime and reducing risks to the environment. Analysis of data from the last 50–55 years and current trends indicates the feasibility of developing both renewable and nuclear energy on the basis of mutual complementarity rather than confrontation.KeywordsEnergy policyRenewable energy sourcesTechnological innovationsNuclear energy

This study aims to present a more balanced perspective of risk acceptability through integrating economic individualism and social constructivism and examining the impact of trust in the national and local government on citizens’ attitudes toward risk and nuclear power plants, respectively. The data were gathered from surveys of local residents engaged in fierce debates on whether they agreed to accept a nuclear power plant in their local area, the city of Samcheok in South Korea. To capture the causal links among the determinants of risk acceptability of a nuclear power plant and their relationships, the authors utilized a structural equation model. Demonstrating that a shared worry about nuclear stigmatization has both a positive impact on risk perception but also a negative impact on trust in local government, our findings emphasize that risk studies of nuclear energy should pay attention to the social, cultural, and historical contexts of nuclear energy as well as its economic aspects when examining the determinants of risk acceptability. This study also enriches our understanding that national and local governments can play different roles in promoting citizens’ risk acceptability of a nuclear power plant. Thus, this study contributes towards presenting a better specified causal model of risk acceptability and offers practical implications of how to promote the public’s risk acceptability of nuclear power facilities.

Introduction:Interest in nuclear power as a cleaner and alternative energy source is increasing in many countries. Despite the relative safety of nuclear power, large-scale disasters such as the Fukushima Daiichi (Japan) and Chernobyl (Ukraine) meltdowns are a reminder that emergency preparedness and safety should be a priority. In an emergency situation, there is a need to balance the tension between a rapid response, preventing harm, protecting communities, and safeguarding workers and responders. The first line of defense for workers and responders is personal protective equipment (PPE), but the needs vary by situation and location. Better understanding this is vital to inform PPE needs for workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies.Study Objective:The aim of this study was to identify and describe the PPE used by different categories of workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies.Methods:A systematic literature review format following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines was utilized. Databases SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, INSPEC, and Web of Science were used to retrieve articles that examined the PPE recommended or utilized by responders to nuclear radiological disasters at nuclear power plants (NPPs).Results:The search terms yielded 6,682 publications. After removal of duplicates, 5,587 sources continued through the systematic review process. This yielded 23 total articles for review, and five articles were added manually for a total of 28 articles reviewed in this study. Plant workers, decontamination or decommissioning workers, paramedics, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), emergency medical technicians, military, and support staff were the categories of responders identified for this type of disaster. Literature revealed that protective suits were the most common item of PPE required or recommended, followed by respirators and gloves (among others). However, adherence issues, human errors, and physiological factors frequently emerged as hinderances to the efficacy of these equipment in preventing contamination or efficiency of these responders.Conclusion:If worn correctly and consistently, PPE will reduce exposure to ionizing radiation during a nuclear and radiological accident or disaster. For the best results, standardization of equipment recommendations, clear guidelines, and adequate training in its use is paramount. As fields related to nuclear power and nuclear medicine expand, responder safety should be at the forefront of emergency preparedness and response planning.

Risk perceptions of nuclear energy, climate change, and earthquake: How are they correlated and differentiated by ideologies?

Since 2000, swathes of energy experts, government officials, industry representatives and journalists have predicted the emergence of a global ‘nuclear renaissance.’ Nuclear energy was said to be on the precipice of a new era of development, characterised by widespread construction of new nuclear reactors and a concomitant increase in global nuclear capacity. Despite this expectation, there is little evidence to date which suggests that a revival of nuclear power has taken place in the regions of Western Europe and North America in the way that the rhetoric depicted. This thesis therefore seeks to firstly establish that there is a disjuncture between the rhetoric and reality of the nuclear renaissance in Western Europe and North America, and secondly, to explain why this disjuncture exists. Academic and journalistic debate over recent developments in civil nuclear energy policy has tended to focus on two key reasons for why there has not been a widespread expansion of nuclear energy in these regions. Firstly, that the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011 reignited concerns over nuclear safety, thereby eroding public and political support for nuclear new build. Secondly, that the economic problems facing nuclear development continued to act as a major disincentive to the construction of new nuclear power plants. However, the global applicability of these two issues means that neither of these explanations can explain why the nuclear renaissance appears to have failed in Western Europe and North America, while nuclear new build is expanding in other parts of the world. Moreover, the revival of safety concerns post-Fukushima fails to explain why there was little evidence of a nuclear renaissance taking place prior to March 2011. This thesis provides a contribution to knowledge by adopting a more holistic and inductive approach for understanding why there is a disjuncture between the expectation and reality of the nuclear renaissance in Western Europe and North America. It challenges existing explanations for the failure of the nuclear renaissance as being simplistic, mono-causal and a-historical. This thesis disputes the idea that the absence of a widespread expansion of nuclear energy and the apparent failure of the nuclear renaissance can be attributed to any one problem or event. Instead, it embraces the simple premise that a broad range of contextual factors must be explored in order to fully understand why the rhetoric of a nuclear renaissance has not become a reality. An extensive analysis of government, industry and media documents published from 1945 onwards, as well as interviews with experts in nuclear energy policy, was undertaken in order to establish a better understanding of how and why nuclear energy development changes over time. Through this process, it became clear that the reasons typically cited for explaining changes in nuclear development are ‘nuclear-specific factors’. That is, factors relating directly to the construction and operation of nuclear power plants – such as the economics of nuclear energy, the safety of nuclear power plants, and the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. While these factors undeniably play an important role in influencing nuclear new build, focusing solely on these nuclear-specific factors obscures the impact of broader social, political, and contextual changes on nuclear energy development. This thesis draws upon political science literature to argue that the changing trajectory of nuclear energy development has also been influenced by broader contextual shifts in the post-war era. The impact of four ‘contextual factors’ on nuclear power are examined: the rise of environmentalism, the decline in public trust in government, changes in risk perception, and the rise of neoliberalism. Each of these contextual shifts have changed the way in which agents think about and respond to the issue of nuclear power. Consequently, this thesis argues that both nuclear-specific factors and contextual factors are important in explaining change in civil nuclear energy development. All of these factors are dynamic and interactive, mutually shaping and influencing one another. Moreover, both of these groups of factors have contributed to the failure of the nuclear renaissance in Western Europe and North America. The ongoing presence of these challenges will continue to hamper the future success of civil nuclear energy development, and prevent a nuclear renaissance from taking place.

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

Recently, trust has been in vogue in the social sciences. However, in risk studies, there have been few causal models of trust. This study proposes and tests a causal model of trust in which (1) source credibility influences trust and (2) two kinds of trust—i.e., trust in government and trust in regulation—affect the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear energy. Based on survey data with a sample of 1014 local residents living near a nuclear power station, we tested a causal model using structural equation modeling. As for the results of the analysis: first, we confirmed the validity of the proposed causal model of trust. Second, on the causal path, credibility directly influenced trust in government and trust in regulation and indirectly affected the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power. Third, the two kinds of trust had (in)direct impacts on perceived risk and acceptance. Trust in regulation had more power to explain perceived risks and acceptance than trust in government. Trust is important, but the kind of trust is more important.

There are several risk-sensitive industries-like air traffic, nuclear power generation, dangerous chemical processes, etc. The technical solutions used are usually well approved and widely known; the occasional problems usually originate from the not-careful-enough design, the insufficient risk assessment, the unsatisfactory training and mismanagement. With proper operation and waste management the nuclear fission power is one of the clearest and cheapest energy sources: no gases are emitted during the energy generation and other related preparatory etc. processes. The upcoming nuclear-fusion-based power plants are even more promising; all contamination in these plants will be decayed practically to nil in less than 100 years. Renewable energy sources can play an important, but only a supplementary role, at least for the foreseeable future. Due to historical reasons, the public approval of the fission-based nuclear power is rather low in many countries. On the other hand, we still have to wait for the appearance of significant fusion power at least several decades; and closing this gap the construction of a new generation of NPPs (nuclear power plants) seems to be unavoidable. Construction on the large scale of carbon dioxide emitting conventional power plants operating on fossil fuel seems to be the worst solution, anyway. Even ignoring the CO 2 -related problems, the growing energy needs of the developing Asian countries cannot be satisfied alone with the oil or gas available on the markets. Therefore there are several NPPs already under construction and more contracts are to come. Meanwhile, all over in the USA and Europe the operation of old NPPs are going to be prolonged for another 20-30 years. Slowly, even in Europe the construction of new nuclear power plants are considered, too. The first such Generation 3+ NPP is already under construction in Finland. In all cases, simulation studies and the use of simulators is essential. It is a well known fact and it is widely approved by many scientists and engineers that direct evaluation of different technical designs above a certain complexity level is unthinkable. Careful modelling, model integration, verification and validation is necessary to build the simulation tools and computer codes for the design and real-time simulators are even better for testing and validation of complex industrial processes. The average lifetime of a big nuclear or other power plant exceeds that of its instrumentation and control (I&C) systems several times. Computer based such systems are prone to even faster moral exhaustion.Without extensive simulation the replacement of such systems would cause long-lasting outages resulting in great financial losses. In the paper first I would like to give a survey on the present state of energy production and consumption in the world and after that I would like to summarize the results and practice we used at Paks NPP in Hungary: first in the evaluation of safety studies, then in the working-out of new state-of-art operational procedures, and finally, during reconstruction of the reactor safety system and other I&C Systems, the replacement of which-thanks to the extensive testing and tuning performed using the full-scope replica simulator-was completed during the regular re-fuelling outage of the NPP units.

Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems

Just past its 50th birthday, commercial nuclear energy is experiencing a tentative rejuvenation that could result in a greater role as a global source of electricity. Skeptics still harbor many of the objections that have slowed or stopped the construction of new nuclear power plants, but rising concerns about the cost and security of energy supplies and global climate change have reframed the debate in terms more favorable for nuclear power advocates. As a result, the question of whether governments should encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants is no longer off the table in developed countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For other developed countries such as France and Japan, and for countries with fast-growing economies such as China and India, nuclear energy has remained a central component of energy policy. For example, to achieve its goal of generating 4% of electricity from nuclear power, China plans to add more than 30 new nuclear plants by 2020 to the 11 currently in operation or under construction. India’s goal is to supply 25% of its electricity from nuclear power by 2050. Worldwide there are now 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries and producing a combined capacity of 367 gigawatts electric, or about 16% of the world’s supply of electricity. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the agency of the United Nations chartered to promote cooperation on nuclear issues—estimates that at least 60 new nuclear plants will be constructed in the next 15 years. Given the world’s growing demand for electricity, however, this added capacity will still account for only 17% of global electricity use.

Climate change: Will the parties unite or divide?