U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has urged nuclear power advocates to
engage fully in the debate on issues related to nuclear energy expansion
and safety and to "aggressively" build the case for a resurgence of this
type of energy.

In January 14 remarks to an international nuclear energy forum in
Washington, Abraham said advocates must emphasize that, without a major
increase in nuclear energy, the world will be less likely to meet its
growing demand for electricity and to slow increases in pollution and
greenhouse gases at the same time.

He said that nuclear power has long-term potential to bring clean and
cost-effective energy to the developing world as well as to help
industrialized nations increase their energy security and help both groups
to address pressing environmental challenges.

Abraham said that renewable energy, promoted by the administration as
part of its energy plan, would not be a viable alternative to nuclear
energy for years to come.� He added that current renewable technologies
alone could not produce the vast quantities of electricity needed to meet
the growing global energy demand.

"Of all the forms of emission-free energy available today, only nuclear
power can deliver large blocks of dispatchable electricity regardless of
the weather, time of day or geographic location," he said.

Abraham said that the United States wants to reemphasize the role of
nuclear power in its energy mix.� While the United States has been trying
to address major impediments to constructions of new nuclear power plants
-- the current regulatory environment, low cost-effectiveness of nuclear
power generation, and public opposition to nuclear energy -- some other
countries such as France, Japan, South Korea and China have been
"aggressively" advancing significant nuclear energy programs, he said.

He said that his department has undertaken initiatives to improve
nuclear power's safety, cost-effectiveness and reliability, and is working
with utilities and industrial companies to set the stage for construction
of new nuclear plants.

Abraham said the administration's plans address two major concerns of
the general public: the safety of nuclear power plants and the disposal of
nuclear waste.� He said that the safety has dramatically improved over the
past 25 years and designs for future plants emphasize further improvements
in safety and cost-effectiveness.

Abraham welcomed the completion of international negotiations on the
world's first legally binding agreement for the development of advanced
nuclear technologies, which he expects to be signed in the next few weeks.

Following is the text of his remarks as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

Department of Energy

January 14, 2005

Generation IV International Forum

Remarks of Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham

National Press Club

It is a pleasure to be here today, to welcome the representatives of the
Generation IV International Forum to their first Washington, D.C.,
meeting.� Very early in my tenure as U.S. Secretary of Energy, I took part
in the formation of the Generation IV initiative, and the signing of the
organization's charter ・ which provided the framework for international
cooperative research on advanced nuclear energy systems that are safe,
reliable, economical and proliferation resistant ・to help ensure that
nuclear power has a vital and viable role in the world's energy future.

I last met with the Generation IV International Forum two years ago in
Tokyo, Japan, and since that time, it has made tremendous progress.� In
fact, in its meeting this week, the Generation IV delegates completed
negotiations on the world's first legally binding multilateral agreement
for the development of advanced nuclear energy technologies.� I look
forward to seeing this groundbreaking agreement signed in the next few
weeks. Congratulations to everyone who has helped make this historic
achievement possible.

These early years of the 21st century mark a pivotal time for our world
in terms of peace and security, economic growth, and protection of the
environment for future generations.� And at the center of each of these
important issues is energy.

Energy is the lifeblood of our modern society.� It drives the
technologies that lift people out of poverty and enhance our quality of
life ・ technologies that have led our progress through the industrial age
and into the era of global telecommunications, medical marvels, instant
information processing, and the exploration of space.

As technology advances and populations grow, the worldwide demand for
energy increases at the same rapid pace.� The International Energy Agency
[IEA] predicts that global demand for energy will rise by about 60 percent
over the next 25 years, and that two-thirds of the increase will come from
developing countries such as China and India.� Economic expansion in these
developing nations is already accelerating the need for additional energy
to fuel their booming industrial and transportation sectors, and to
electrify vast rural regions.

The IEA's energy outlook, issued this past October, envisions a 1.6
percent annual increase in the need for oil ・ to about 121 million
barrels a day by the year 2030 from the current 82 million barrels a day.�
It also estimates a 1.5 percent increase every year in the demand for
coal, and that the use of natural gas will double over the same period of
time.� Other energy organizations have similar predictions.� The
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration sees world
electricity demand increasing nearly 75 percent by 2025 and, during the
same time, natural gas demand climbing by 67 percent.

As we look ahead to meeting this ever-greater demand, we face a
dilemma.� The same energy that has transformed our world in so many
positive ways ・ and will help lift the fortunes of the developing world
in the coming years -- also could have implications for the environment
and, potentially, for future economic growth.

This is the case because the energy we use today comes mainly from
fossil fuels ・ oil, coal and natural gas.� While we have enough of these
fossil fuels to last many decades into the future, they are becoming more
expensive to find and produce and ・ particularly in the case of oil ・
they can be concentrated in politically unstable parts of the world.� This
makes the prospect of rising energy prices and greater price volatility a
major concern in the years ahead.

And, as we know, fossil fuels ・ the way we use them now ・ cause
pollution.� This pollution includes sulfur dioxide, which leads to acid
rain ・nitrogen oxides, which form smog and ground-level ozone pollution ・
greenhouse gases・and other potentially harmful substances such as
mercury.

The pollution problem is particularly evident in parts of the developing
world.� When you visit rapidly growing cities in these countries, you are
surrounded by construction projects ・new buildings, roads and other
infrastructure.� New factories and skyscrapers are popping up everywhere,
the sidewalks are teeming with people, and the streets are choked with
traffic.� And as a result of all this growth and progress, the air is
often thick with smog.� You can see people walking around with masks over
their faces to filter out the dirty air.

Unless we make significant changes in the way we produce and use energy,
such as using more advanced technologies such as clean coal, these
problems will intensify and ・ within the next few decades ・ could indeed
pose serious issues.� People will demand that their governments do
something about the health and environmental problems ・either real or
perceived -- that could result.� This, in turn, might prompt policy
actions that constrain further development of energy supplies or expansion
of infrastructure ・leading to the types of economic problems that could
result from shortages of energy.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he saw this looming energy
challenge as a top priority.� One of his first actions as President was to
put together a National Energy Policy addressing the long-term issues
related to ensuring our nation's energy security well into the 21st
century.

A central element of this policy was the plan for a diverse mix of
energy sources for the 21st century economy, including traditional fuels
like oil, natural gas and coal ・along with hydropower and other
renewables ・and new sources like hydrogen.� And, of course, a very
important component of that diverse fuel mix is nuclear energy -・which
produces about 20 percent of America's electricity today.

While recent outlooks by the International Energy Agency, the Energy
Information Administration and other organizations predict significant
increases in the use of oil, coal and natural gas around the world over
the next quarter century, they estimate only a very slight increase in the
growth of nuclear power.� They predict just a tiny up-tick in nuclear
energy for the booming economies of Asia.� They predict a decrease for
nuclear energy in Europe.� And they see no growth at all for nuclear power
anywhere else ・including the United States.

If none of America's new generation capacity is nuclear, its percentage
of the U.S. electricity mix would drop from 20 percent to about 14 percent
by 2025 ・and then down to 8 and to 5, and so on toward zero by the middle
of this century.� This is both astonishing and alarming, given the unique
benefits that nuclear energy offers ・ benefits that no other major energy
source available today can provide.

Foremost among these benefits is the fact that nuclear power emits none
of the pollutants associated with the burning of fossil fuels.� Indeed,
nuclear plants in the eastern part of the United States have made it
possible for many states to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air
Act.� Since the mid-1970s, in fact, nuclear energy has enabled the United
States to avoid emitting more than 80 million tons of sulfur dioxide and
about 40 million tons of nitrogen oxides.

Also important is nuclear power's ability to supply electricity with no
greenhouse gas emissions.� About 440 nuclear reactors around the world
produce electricity today, displacing about 2.5 billion tons of carbon
dioxide every year that would have been emitted using coal-fired
generation.� That's an extremely significant number when you consider that
coal-fired power generation around the world emits 5.8 billion tons of CO2
per year.

Nuclear energy's benefits are even more pronounced when you consider its
potential role in the developing world.� There are 2 billion people in
developing countries who currently have no electric service, but will
strive to obtain it in coming decades.� For that reason, it's estimated
that electricity use in the developing world will increase 125 percent by
2025.� If that amount of new generation were supplied by coal, it could
mean 5 billion tons of additional CO2 emissions each year.� If it were all
supplied by an equal mixture of coal and natural gas, emissions would be
about 3.4 billion tons.� And even if all such new generation were
gas-fired using the latest technologies, the carbon emissions would still
be about 1.7 billion tons.

Because of its long-term potential to bring clean and cost-effective
energy to the developing world, to help industrialized nations increase
their energy security, and to help all nations deal with some of our most
pressing environmental challenges, the advantages of nuclear power are
strikingly clear.

Without nuclear energy ・ in fact, without a major increase in nuclear
energy ・ we are much less likely to be able to affordably meet the
world's growing demand for electricity.� And we absolutely would not be
able to produce all that electricity without accompanying increases in
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

That's why President Bush's National Energy Policy recommends more
nuclear energy in the United States ・ where no new commercial reactors
have been ordered since the 1970s.� As part of the President's plan, the
Department of Energy has undertaken a number of initiatives to improve
nuclear power's safety, cost-effectiveness and reliability to help ensure
its future viability in this country and throughout the world.

One of the most important efforts, of course, is the Generation IV
International Forum and its development of advanced nuclear technology for
future decades, including plants that produce new products like hydrogen
in addition to electricity.� Large-scale hydrogen production, as
envisioned in the Department of Energy's Generation IV program, would be
instrumental in strengthening our nation's energy security if
hydrogen-fueled vehicles someday replace the cars and trucks that
currently run on gasoline.

Another key U.S. initiative is the Nuclear Power 2010 program, an effort
to make sure our nation is ready to resume nuclear plant construction by
the end of this decade.� Nuclear Power 2010 involves the government and
the private sector working closely together, and it includes demonstration
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "one-step" licensing process that
will be crucial to increasing regulatory certainty and removing a major
risk of investing in new nuclear power plants.

This work is well under way.� The Energy Department is working with
utilities and industrial companies nationwide to set the stage for new
nuclear power plants to enter service in the United States.� Already, we
have three sites in the U.S. now undergoing review by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to confirm that they are qualified places to build
the next plants.� And just two months ago, we selected two large industry
consortia to proceed with the regulatory steps that could lead to the
first U.S. nuclear plants in more than 30 years.

But even the most ardent supporter of nuclear power understands that we
must move forward in dealing with spent nuclear fuel.� I was pleased to be
Secretary of Energy when, after years of debate with no firm action, the
United States moved ahead with a clear plan to deal with high-level
nuclear waste.� While some critics said that disposal of this waste is too
hard or too controversial to be accomplished, we are well on our way
toward fulfilling the government's obligation to the commercial nuclear
power industry.� Doing so will remove what has been a major impediment to
the construction of new nuclear plants in this country.� I am proud of our
role in helping the United States deal effectively with high-level nuclear
waste, and I believe we are on the right path ・ a path that is based on
sound science and a path that I believe will successfully meet the
regulatory tests ahead.

Someday, it may be possible for science to find new ways to deal with
nuclear waste, and another Department of Energy program, the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative, is working with experts in countries such as France and
Japan to find it.� This effort has the goal of developing
proliferation-resistant fuel treatments and transmutation technologies
that will enable a transition from the current once-through nuclear fuel
cycle to a sustainable, closed fuel cycle for the future.� Developing
these technologies will reduce the cost of geologic fuel disposal, help
the future spent fuel repository operate more effectively, and support
many of the new systems being developed under the Generation IV program.

While we in the United States have been working to address the
impediments to nuclear construction in our own nation, a number of other
countries have been moving aggressively forward with significant nuclear
energy programs.� A few nations, most notably France, already derive the
majority of their electricity from nuclear plants.� Nuclear power is also
a major contributor to the electricity needs of Japan, Sweden, South Korea
and several other nations.� Finland has recently begun adding new nuclear
capacity ・ the first new reactor construction in Western Europe in 15
years ・ which will boost nuclear power's share of Finland's electricity
production to 35 percent.

The largest nuclear programs are under way in the developing nations,
where China has become the world's second-largest generator of electricity
from all sources.� And, with electricity demand expected to double within
20 years, China also has become the fastest-growing market in the world
for nuclear power generation equipment.� China has eight nuclear plants
now under construction and plans to build at least eight more reactors by
early in the next decade.

By the year 2020, China plans to boost its nuclear electric generating
capacity to 36,000 megawatts ・ up substantially from the 7,000 megawatts
of nuclear capacity it has today.� That would mean building nearly 30 new
reactors over the next 15 years, which puts China squarely at the
forefront of nuclear power development in the world.� The chairman of
China's Atomic Energy Authority (Zhang Huazhu) said recently that "nuclear
energy will become one of the pillars of the power structure" in his
country, especially in the fast-growing coastal areas.

As China, Finland and these other countries clearly recognize, the case
for nuclear energy is compelling.� And their governments' decisions to
pursue nuclear power programs are validated by a number of recent studies
・all of which emphasize the importance of nuclear energy.

-- A study by University of Chicago Department of Economics cites the
impediment that high financing costs poses for nuclear construction in the
United States, but it concludes that nuclear power plants can become
cost-competitive with electricity produced by coal and natural gas -- once
the extra costs associated with building the first plants are absorbed.�
The study further notes that nuclear energy would become even more
competitive with fossil fuels as emission restrictions are imposed on the
generating sector.

-- Another independent study, by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, focuses on nuclear power's benefits in helping control the
growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and calls for government support in
conducting research on next-generation reactors -- such as we are pursuing
in Generation IV.� This study also envisions increasing the world's
nuclear energy capacity to 1,000 reactors by 2050.

-- A third study, released this past August by Princeton University,
advocates doubling the world's current nuclear power capacity as a way to
help combat greenhouse emissions growth.

These studies confirm the advantages of nuclear power, including its
potential role in helping achieve the President's goal of reducing
America's greenhouse-gas intensity.� So the question arises: If nuclear
power makes sense for China, France, Finland and all these other
countries, why isn't it also moving forward in the United States?

The primary reasons, as we all know, are cost considerations and
political opposition.� And these two factors are closely related.� While
high costs in the early phases of new nuclear construction will result
from implementing first-time designs and construction processes, the
greater cost constraint is uncertainty -- particularly regulatory
uncertainty.� This uncertainty stems from the belief that political
opposition to nuclear energy could bring about costly rule changes and/or
actions, which significantly delay projects in such a fashion as to make
project costs unacceptable.� Thus, for nuclear power to move ahead in
America, these issues must be addressed.

Political opposition to nuclear power in the United States and other
countries may represent a minority viewpoint, but it is deep-seated and
intense.� And, importantly, nuclear opponents have successfully persuaded
large numbers of Americans of the validity of their concerns, especially
as to the safety of nuclear power.� Despite the industry's excellent
overall safety record, too many people still think nuclear plants are
extremely dangerous and unreliable.

The fact is, though, that U.S. nuclear plants are safer today than they
have ever been, and their safety performance continues to improve.� Back
in 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported more than 200 "unusual
events" ・ the term used to describe incidents, even minor things like
unlocked doors, that could have safety implications ・ each year at U.S.
nuclear power plants.� Today, there are only about 20 such incidents per
year ・a reduction of 90 percent.� And today's nuclear plants have far
fewer incidents of safety violations or employee injuries than other types
of power plants or industrial facilities.

Furthermore, the new designs for nuclear reactors rely on natural forces
such as gravity, rather than the performance of mechanical devices, to
safeguard plants from accidents.� In addition, these new designs also make
nuclear plants more economical to build and operate.

In addition to safety, nuclear energy's critics often cite environmental
concerns.� But let's look at the environmental impact of not having
nuclear energy.� Without nuclear energy, the vast amounts of electricity
the world will need in the future will be produced largely by coal and
other fossil fuels.� The increases in pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions from this additional generation capacity would be huge, easily
surpassing any hoped-for reductions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Indeed, I think it interesting that the strongest backers of Kyoto [the
Kyoto protocol on climate change] and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
-- who oppose coal as well as other fossil fuels -- are often the same
people who also oppose nuclear power.

These critics usually point to renewable energy as the better
alternative.� Renewable sources are important, and our Administration is
actively promoting the expansion and further development of energy sources
like solar and wind power as part of a diverse energy portfolio.� But
current renewable technology alone cannot produce the vast quantities of
electricity needed to meet the growing energy demand.� Of all the forms of
emission-free energy available today, only nuclear power can deliver large
blocks of dispatchable electricity regardless of the weather, time of day
or geographic location.

As the demand for energy rises around the world ・ and the desire to
meet various pollution and greenhouse gas targets continues growing ・ the
advantages of nuclear power are more pronounced than ever before.� Without
nuclear energy, countries will most likely have to choose between having
enough electricity to maintain strong economic growth or cutting back on
power production to control emissions.� I think we can expect that the
nations of the world are not prepared to lower their standards of living
in order to keep emissions down.

That's why I believe it is essential that those who are concerned about
pollution and the buildup of greenhouse gases join the discussion about
nuclear power.� Shouldn't nuclear energy's ability to meet our growing
electricity needs, without producing nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
mercury or CO2, make it a key part of the debate?� Doesn't it make sense
for all sides to address nuclear energy's issues and challenges?

And just as the opponents of nuclear power need to consider nuclear
power in the context of the broader world energy and environmental
picture, so too must nuclear energy's supporters begin re-thinking their
role in the debate.� For too long now, some of those who should be among
nuclear power's most vocal proponents have been putting qualifications and
conditions on their support.

Many of nuclear energy's supporters have been focusing elsewhere during
the past years, and I have heard some of them say they're ready to become
more engaged advocates ・ but "if only."� If only the cost issues could be
dealt with ・if only the waste disposal questions could be answered・if
only there were more regulatory certainty ・if only the public fears could
be overcome.

I believe the time for action has arrived.� Today, it is time to stop
saying "if only."� Today, it's time for nuclear power advocates to much
more fully engage in this debate and aggressively build the case for
nuclear power as well as to comprehensively address the public's concerns.

In short, it's time for rational people on all sides of the nuclear
debate to come together and attempt to find an acceptable way to ensure
that the advantages of nuclear energy are part of our energy and
environmental solutions.� All sides in the debate need to address the
fundamental questions and issues that are critical to laying the
foundation for nuclear energy's future ・ questions and issues concerning
safety, cost, regulatory certainty, and siting.

These questions include:

-- What needs to be done to adequately address issues of safety and
security at nuclear power facilities ・ to make the public comfortable and
confident with nuclear energy?

-- How do we deal with the cost issues of nuclear plant construction,
particularly the high costs of the first few new units -- which will be
the first nuclear plants built in this country since the early 1970s?

-- What must we do to bring about the regulatory certainty needed to
attract sufficient investment capital into the nuclear energy sector?

-- What is the best way to spur the evolution from today's light water
reactor technology to Generation IV systems?

-- And how do we make sure that the nations of the world -- particularly
the developing countries -- have access to the enormous benefits of the
latest, safest, cleanest, most secure and most cost-effective nuclear
energy technologies?

I know that taking on all these issues is a tall order.� But the
economic and environmental challenges the world faces in the coming years
demand that this dialogue take place, and that these issues be addressed
by all interested parties.

When the age of nuclear power dawned more than 50 years ago, the world
had great hopes for the peaceful and constructive use of this amazing new
source of energy.� Since that time, we have seen the enormous
contributions that nuclear science has made to our lives, including
medical imaging devices and wondrous new treatments for cancer and other
diseases, and advances that have revolutionized industrial processes and
enhanced our understanding of matter and the universe.

As we enter the second half of the first nuclear century, I am reminded
of President Dwight Eisenhower's call in 1953 to use "the miraculous
inventiveness of man" to harness nuclear energy "to serve the peaceful
pursuits of mankind."

In his famous "Atoms for Peace" speech, Eisenhower foresaw nuclear
energy's ability to "serve the needs of agriculture, medicine and other
peaceful activities," and he said that "a special purpose would be to
provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the
world."� We have a historic opportunity today to help transform that early
vision into reality.

Working together, we can advance the development of new nuclear
technologies, we can overcome the political opposition -- and even convert
some opponents into supporters -- and we can usher in a new age of energy
and economic security ・that enhances the quality of life for people
around the world.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN