DOE begins rationing helium-3

This week, two watchdog groups asked a federal judge to halt construction of two new biosafety level 3 labs, claiming that the Department of Energy (DOE) hasn9t conducted adequate environmental and nonproliferation studies. But DOE says that its existing studies are adequate and have shown that the labs will have minimal impact.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Exascale Computing Project (ECP) has fostered and strengthened the use of modern software engineering practices for developing applications and libraries, and this effort has resulted in the coordinated and interoperable E4S1 and xSDK2 ecosystems. Although this approach is cost-effective, it relies on robust programming systems and tools (PST) as the underlying foundation for our HPC software. At present, our primary PST stack consists of traditional high-performance computing (HPC) languages, namely Fortran, C, C++, and the popular Python language for data analysis and AI workflows. These languages support various programming frameworks and run-time abstractions that enable parallelism and concurrency across multiple node architectures and thousands of nodes through a variety of interconnect systems. However, to accommodate users’ diverse needs, certain aspects of the HPC ecosystem are delegated to vendor-specific or third-party implementations that extend beyond a particular scientific domain. This broader scope results in a multitude of specifications and variations, which leads to a complex orchestration of many-ecosystems. Unfortunately, this complexity in the ecosystem imposes additional overhead costs on consumers during the latter stages of the development cycle. In addition to the software ecosystem challenge, the upcoming conclusion of the ECP by December 2023 has raised significant concerns within the HPC programming systems community, from both the economic and social perspectives. The ECP has implemented a management structure for software development and funding decisions across all ECP participants by following a conventional hierarchical and centralized approach. However, this structure has prompted certain considerations within the community, particularly in anticipation of the Software Sustainability initiative by the DOE’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program (ASCR). For the success of this new initiative, it is of utmost importance to secure consistent funding and foster close engagement with researchers and core developers of existing programming-system products. This collaboration is vital to maintaining the critical capabilities of the current software during the transition phase while proactively adapting to future technology and workforce trends. The community recognizes the significance of adapting to emerging trends and is aware of the inherent fragility of the HPC software ecosystem, particularly in relation to programming systems that cater to all users. The ability to adapt and evolve is essential to staying relevant and effectively addressing these technical, economic, and social challenges. The S4PST team, which represents one of the six ASCR Software Sustainability seedling projects, is dedicated to tackling these challenges through community-based approaches that go beyond the scope of the DOE. This involves collaboration between national laboratories with academia, non-DOE institutions, hardware and system vendors, and international partners. By fostering these partnerships, we aim to create a robust and sustainable HPC software ecosystem that can effectively meet the needs of the community. This new community effort, driven by the eight DOE labs, will take on the responsibility of guiding funding decisions for programming-systems development and maintenance with transparency and consistency across all decisions. Additionally, the team will offer common technical services to the programming systems community, irrespective of their funding situations, and facilitate community-wide incubation to proactively nurture the software ecosystem. By actively engaging with stakeholders and employing a collaborative approach, we can collectively shape the future of programming systems and ensure a robust and thriving HPC software landscape. On May 11–12, 2023, the S4PST team conducted its inaugural kick-off workshop at the Innovative Computing Laboratory (ICL) in the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, hosted by Hartwig Anzt. The workshop encompassed various sessions dedicated to presentations and discussions, with the aim of comprehending the team members’ perspectives on the vision of software sustainability. Additionally, the workshop aimed to identify the technical, economic, and social requirements for sustaining the programming-systems community in the field of HPC. This report provides a summary of the S4PST effort by highlighting five major thrust areas discussed during the workshop: (i) community, (ii) technical support, (iii) training and diversity, (iv) verification, validation and correctness, and (v) emerging technologies. It also encompasses an overview of the presentations and discussions held throughout the event, our views and potential synergies with other seedling efforts, along with the outcomes and key takeaways from our initial discussions.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has given the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project approval to begin Title I design of the proposed facility to be built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). During the conceptual design phase of the SNS project, the target station bulk-biological shield was characterized and the activation of the major target station components was calculated. Shielding requirements were assessed with respect to weight, space, and dose-rate constraints for operating, shutdown, and accident conditions utilizing the SNS shield design criteria, DOE Order 5480.25, and requirements specified in 10 CFR 835. Since completion of the conceptual design phase, there have been major design changes to the target station as a result of the initial shielding and activation analyses, modifications brought about due to engineering concerns, and feedback from numerous external review committees. These design changes have impacted the results of the conceptual design analyses, and consequently, have required a re-investigation of the new design. Furthermore, the conceptual design shielding analysis did not address many of the details associated with the engineering design of the target station. In this paper, some of the proposed SNS target station preliminary Title I shielding design analyses will be presented. The SNS facility (with emphasis on the target station), shielding design requirements, calculational strategy, and source terms used in the analyses will be described. Preliminary results and conclusions, along with recommendations for additional analyses, will also be presented.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has given the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project approval to begin Title I design of the proposed facility to be built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and construction is scheduled to commence in FY01. The SNS initially will consist of an accelerator system capable of delivering an approximately 0.5 microsecond pulse of 1 GeV protons, at a 60 Hz frequency, with 1 MW of beam power, into a single target station. The SNS will eventually be upgraded to a 2 MW facility with two target stations (a 60 Hz station and a 10 Hz station). The radiation transport analysis, which includes the neutronic, shielding, activation, and safety analyses, is critical to the design of an intense high-energy accelerator facility like the proposed SNS, and the Monte Carlo method is the cornerstone of the radiation transport analyses.KeywordsTarget StationDiscrete OrdinateSpallation Neutron SourceDrift Tube LinacSingle Target StationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preparations for characterizing the energy spectrum of the LANSCE neutron source have been made. The spallation neutron source at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) produces a white spectrum of neutrons with energies between about 100 keV to greater than 600 MeV. Recently, an effort to radiograph dense objects has been stood up at the Weapons Neutron Research (WNR) facility at LANSCE. However, the spallation process as well as some target-cooling techniques can create high gamma fluxes. The gamma- and neutron-energy spectrum of the source influence the quality of the radiographs that can be made with the source. Additionally, models of the source are essential to interpreting radiographs made with it, and experimental constraints on the gamma- and neutron-energy spectrum of the source will greatly increase the fidelity of these models. The gamma- and neutron-energy spectrum of the LANSCE source can be constrained in the ~10-MeV to ~100-MeV range through measurements of threshold reactions on bismuth foils. The decay of the activation products of the (n,Xn) and (γ,Xn) reactions can be measured, and, using the known cross sections for these reactions, the spectral content of the beam can be inferred. Many of these activation products decay via γ-ray emission, so measuring these decays requires High-Purity Germanium (HPGe) detectors.

The Canadian Electricity Association (CEA) identified a need and contracted the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) to create and maintain an information clearinghouse on global research and development activities related to mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utilities. With the support of CEA, the Center for Air Toxic Metals{reg_sign} (CATM{reg_sign}) Affiliates, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the EERC developed comprehensive quarterly information updates that provide a detailed assessment of developments in the various areas of mercury monitoring, control, policy, and research. A total of eight topical reports were completed and are summarized and updated in this final CEA quarterly report. The original quarterly reports can be viewed at the CEA Web site (www.ceamercuryprogram.ca). In addition to a comprehensive update of previous mercury-related topics, a review of results from the CEA Mercury Program is provided. Members of Canada's coal-fired electricity generation sector (ATCO Power, EPCOR, Manitoba Hydro, New Brunswick Power, Nova Scotia Power Inc., Ontario Power Generation, SaskPower, and TransAlta) and CEA, have compiled an extensive database of information from stack-, coal-, and ash-sampling activities. Data from this effort are also available at the CEA Web site and have provided critical information for establishing and reviewing a mercury standard for Canada that is protective of environment and public health and is cost-effective. Specific goals outlined for the CEA mercury program included the following: (1) Improve emission inventories and develop management options through an intensive 2-year coal-, ash-, and stack-sampling program; (2) Promote effective stack testing through the development of guidance material and the support of on-site training on the Ontario Hydro method for employees, government representatives, and contractors on an as-needed basis; (3) Strengthen laboratory analytical capabilities through analysis and quality assurance programs; and (4) Create and maintain an information clearinghouse to ensure that all parties can keep informed on global mercury research and development activities.

This report provides relevant information and analysis to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that will assist DHS in determining how to meet the requirements of federal technology transfer legislation. These legal requirements are grouped into five categories: (1) establishing an Office of Research and Technology Applications, or providing the functions thereof; (2) information management; (3) enabling agreements with non-federal partners; (4) royalty sharing; and (5) invention ownership/obligations. These five categories provide the organizing framework for this study, which benchmarks other federal agencies/laboratories engaged in technology transfer/transition Four key agencies--the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Defense (DoD)--and several of their laboratories have been surveyed. An analysis of DHS's mission needs for commercializing R&D compared to those agencies/laboratories is presented with implications and next steps for DHS's consideration. Federal technology transfer legislation, requirements, and practices have evolved over the decades as agencies and laboratories have grown more knowledgeable and sophisticated in their efforts to conduct technology transfer and as needs and opinions in the federal sector have changed with regards to what is appropriate. The need to address requirements in a fairly thorough manner has, therefore, resulted in a lengthy paper. There are two ways to find summary information. Each chapter concludes with a summary, and there is an overall ''Summary and Next Steps'' chapter on pages 57-60. For those readers who are unable to read the entire document, we recommend referring to these pages.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) refers to a set of technologies that can greatly reduce carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) emissions from new and existing coal- and gas-fired power plants, industrial processes, and other stationary sources of CO{sub 2}. In its application to electricity generation, CCS could play an important role in achieving national and global greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. However, widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available and a supportive national policy framework is in place. In keeping with that objective, on February 3, 2010, President Obama established an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage composed of 14 Executive Departments and Federal Agencies. The Task Force, co-chaired by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was charged with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within ten years, with a goal of bringing five to ten commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. Composed of more than 100 Federal employees, the Task Force examined challenges facing early CCS projects as well as factors that could inhibit widespread commercial deployment of CCS. In developing the findings and recommendations outlined in this report, the Task Force relied on published literature and individual input from more than 100 experts and stakeholders, as well as public comments submitted to the Task Force. The Task Force also held a large public meeting and several targeted stakeholder briefings. While CCS can be applied to a variety of stationary sources of CO{sub 2}, its application to coal-fired power plant emissions offers the greatest potential for GHG reductions. Coal has served as an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy for decades, and the coal industry has provided stable and quality high-paying jobs for American workers. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and coal combustion accounts for 40 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) emissions from the consumption of energy. EPA and Energy Information Administration (EIA) assessments of recent climate and energy legislative proposals show that, if available on a cost-effective basis, CCS can over time play a large role in reducing the overall cost of meeting domestic emissions reduction targets. By playing a leadership role in efforts to develop and deploy CCS technologies to reduce GHG emissions, the United States can preserve the option of using an affordable, abundant, and domestic energy resource, help improve national security, help to maximize production from existing oil fields through enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and assist in the creation of new technologies for export. While there are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional, regulatory or other barriers that prevent CCS from playing a role in reducing GHG emissions, early CCS projects face economic challenges related to climate policy uncertainty, first-of-a-kind technology risks, and the current high cost of CCS relative to other technologies. Administration analyses of proposed climate change legislation suggest that CCS technologies will not be widely deployed in the next two decades absent financial incentives that supplement projected carbon prices. In addition to the challenges associated with cost, these projects will need to meet regulatory requirements that are currently under development. Long-standing regulatory programs are being adapted to meet the circumstances of CCS, but limited experience and institutional capacity at the Federal and State level may hinder implementation of CCS-specific requirements. Key legal issues, such as long-term liability and property rights, also need resolution. A climate policy designed to reduce our Nation's GHG emissions is the most important step for commercial deployment of low-carbon technologies such as CCS, because it will create a stable, long-term framework for private investments. A concerted effort to properly address financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, and social barriers will enable CCS to be a viable climate change mitigation option that can over time play an important role in reducing the overall cost of meeting domestic and global emissions reduction targets. Federal and State agencies can use existing authorities and programs to begin addressing these barriers while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the environment and public health and safety.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Bachmann electronic corp. will collaborate on the development of a software application to be used on an existing aftermarket Bachmann controller, utilizing and existing Bachmann software platform, which will be used on the General Electric (GE) 1.5 ESS wind turbine. This retrofit will significantly enhance NREL’s ability to control experiments it is planning to conduct on the GE 1.5 wind turbine as part of the Gearbox Reliability Collaborative, Atmosphere to Electrons and other future R&D. The proposed work is leveraging ongoing Department of Energy (DOE) Annual Operating Plan activities on the GE 1.5 ESS wind turbine at the National Wind Technology Center.

Cleanup following a terrorism incident involving a radiological dispersal device (RDD) or improvised nuclear device (IND) is likely to be technically challenging, costly, and politically charged. Lessons learned from the Top Officials 2 exercise and the increased threat of terrorist use of an RDD or IND have driven federal officials to push for an agreed-upon process for determining appropriate cleanup levels. State and local authorities generally have the ultimate responsibility for final public health decisions in their jurisdictions. In response to terrorist attacks, local authorities are likely to request federal assistance in assessing the risk and establishing appropriate cleanup levels. It is realistic to expect local and state requests for significant federal assistance in planning and implementing recovery operations. State and local authorities may desire "shared accountability" with the federal government in setting the appropriate cleanup levels. Government officials at all levels will face pressure to say how clean is clean enough and how quickly people can re-enter affected areas. Issues arising include (1) the nature of the relationship between the federal, state, and local leadership involved in the recovery efforts and (2) where the funding for recovery comes from. Many agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have long been involved in cleanup activities involving radioactive materials. These agencies have recognized the need for a participatory process and realize the need to remain flexible when faced with possible unprecedented environmental challenges following a terrorist attack. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security has a committee process underway, with participation of the EPA, NRC, DOE, and other federal agencies, to try to resolve these issues and to begin engaging state, local, and tribal governments, and others as appropriate.

The authors analyzed the evolution of institutional and facility response to groups of abnormal incidents at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The analysis is divided into three stages: (1) the LANL response to severe accidents from 1994 to 1996, (2) the LANL response to facility-specific clusters of low-consequence incidents from 1997 to 1999, and (3) the ongoing development of and response to a Laboratory-wide trending and analysis program. The first stage is characterized by five severe accidents at LANL--a shooting fatality, a forklift accident, two electrical shock incidents, and an explosion in a nuclear facility. Each accident caused LANL and the Department of Energy (DOE) to launch in-depth investigations. A recurrent theme of the investigations was the failure of LANL and DOE to identify and act on precursor or low-consequence events that preceded the severe accidents. The second stage is characterized by LANL response to precursor or low-consequence incidents over a two-year period. In this stage, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility, the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility, and the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center responded to an increase in low-consequence events by standing down their facilities. During the restart process, each facility collectively analyzed the low-consequence events and developed systemic corrective actions. The third stage is characterized by the development of a Laboratory-wide trending and analysis program, which involves proactive division-level analysis of incidents and development of systemic actions. The authors conclude that, while the stages show an encouraging evolution, the facility standdowns and restarts are overly costly and that the institutional trending and analysis program is underutilized. The authors therefore recommend the implementation of an institutional, mentored program of trending and analysis that identifies clusters of related low-consequence events, analyzes those events, and develops systemic actions to avoid both severe accidents and standdowns.

A mercury target vessel, designed to simulate some aspects of the eventual target design for the proposed Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to be built in Oak Ridge by the Department of Energy, was used in a test at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) to study the strain induced from thermal shock of bombarding protons. In the SNS, intense thermal shock loads are expected to cause an enormous rate of temperature rise ({approximately}10{sup 7} K/s), with resulting pressure waves in the mercury that may lead to large stresses on the thin walls of the mercury target. To guide the mercury target design and to benchmark the computer design codes, transient strain was measured using fiber optic Fabry-Perot sensors. Twenty strain sensors were attached in various axial and transverse orientations to a cylindrical stainless steel target vessel containing mercury. The vessel was 10 cm in diameter, about 15 cm long, and with a 5-cm radius hemispherical shell welded to the forward end. The test was done at the LANSCE Weapons Neutron Research (WNR) beam facility on 30-31 January 1999. The sensors were attached with gauge lengths of about two centimeters, and were located in pairs in most areas, for redundancy and facilitation of data analysis. The 800-MeV proton deposition of 0.5--2.3 x 10{sup 13} over a full-width at half maximum beam size of {approximately}25 mm, produced axial strains peaking at a few microstrains, with transverse (hoop) strains more than an order of magnitude higher. We describe the experiments, including the sensors and measurement configuration, and discuss the strain data analysis.

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

Review of active interrogation techniques

In support of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has performed independent analyses of two advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (LMR) concepts. The designs, sponsored by the US Department of Energy (DOE), the Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module (PRISM) (Berglund, 1987) and the Sodium Advanced Fast Reactor (SAFR) (Baumeister, 1987), were developed primarily by General Electric (GE) and Rockwell International (RI), respectively. Technical support was provided to DOE, RI, and GE, by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), particularly with respect to the characteristics of the metal fuels. There are several examples in both PRISM and SAFR where inherent or passive systems provide for a safe response to off-normal conditions. This is in contrast to the engineered safety systems utilized on current US Light Water Reactor (LWR) designs. One important design inherency in the LMRs is the inherent shutdown'', which refers to the tendency of the reactor to transition to a much lower power level whenever temperatures rise significantly. This type of behavior was demonstrated in a series of unscrammed tests at EBR-II (NED, 1986). The second key design feature is the passive air cooling of the vessel to remove decay heat. These systems, designated RVACS in PRISM and RACS in SAFR, always operate and are believed to be able to prevent core damage in the event that no other means of heat removal is available. 27 refs., 78 figs., 3 tabs.