I N T E R N A T I O N A L

Nuclear Power Nears Competitiveness As plant construction programs take shape, experts predict it will be cheapest source of power by 1980s'

"There have been no startling scien­tific breakthroughs revealed at this conference. What Geneva-1964 [the Third International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy] has done is to make atomic power one of the accepted, normal sources of en­ergy. Nuclear power has now be­come conventional. There is nothing sacred, magical, or different about it. Oyster Creek was a turning point."

These words were used by an Inter­national Atomic Energy Agency spokesman to sum up die nuclear power sessions of the Geneva confer­ence. In citing Oyster Creek as a turning point, he was referring to the Oyster Creek nuclear power station being built by Jersey Central Power & Light Co. The company expects it to produce electricity for less than 4 mills per kilowatt-hour, which would be less than that for electricity pro­duced from fossil fuels.

Current competitiveness, or ap­proaching competitiveness of nuclear power, was the theme of speaker after speaker at the Geneva conference. A member of the U.S. delegation said: "We've done what we talked about in 1958 [year of the last ICPUAE]."

"The important point now is that we can get firm bids on nuclear power plants with guarantees on fuel," stated Louis H. Roddis, Jr., president of Pennsylvania Electric Co., at a Ge­neva press conference.

And, said A, M. Petrosyants, head of the U.S.S.R. State Committee for Utilization of Atomic Energy: "We can't understand nuclear power sepa­rately from our over-all power pro­gram."

A general session on energy needs in coming years and the role of nuclear power in meeting these needs and a later technical session pretty well summed up the present nuclear power situation throughout the world.

Picture Bright in U.S. In the U.S., nuclear power will be competitive with fossil fuels in generating electric power in at least 60% of the country

France's Gaston Palewski Convinced that cost of nuclear power

in Europe will be competitive

by 1968, according to Mr. Roddis and Dr. Emerson Jones, a consultant with Consumers Public Power District, Nebraska. They base their prediction on estimated Oyster Creek costs: a capital cost of $138 per kilowatt and total annual costs of 3.5 mills per kilo­watt-hour. A comparable fossil-fuel-based plant at Oyster Creek would in­volve capital costs of $118 per kilo­watt but total annual energy costs of 4.34 mills per kilowatt-hour, say Mr. Roddis and Dr. Jones. The estimates are based on, among other things, a 620-mw(e), boiling-water reactor, without government subsidy; opera­tion in the 1974-78 period; and an interest rate of 4.25%. Although some delegates at the conference seemed to question the Oyster Creek figures, a U.S. AEC representative says that AEC confirms the figures and feels they are realistic.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commissioner Gerald F . Tape foresees that nuclear power may supply about half of the electricity in the U.S. by the year 2000. At the 1958 Geneva confer­ence, the U.S. had only one 60-mw(e) civilian power plant. This year, total nuclear power capacity tied into grids reached almost 1000 m w ( e ) . By the

end of 1968, plans call for about 4500 mw(e) of installed nuclear capacity. And by 1970, at least 6000 mw(e) seems likely, Mr. Tape said. Accord­ing to AEC estimates, nuclear power may supply 23.3% of total U.S. en­ergy requirements in the year 2000 vs. 3 % in 1980 and 1.4% in 1975. In 1963, nuclear power supplied 0 .1% of the total.

U.K. Forges Ahead. "During the 1970's and 1980's, nuclear energy should become the cheapest source of power over a steadily widening field," Sir William Penney, head of Britain's Atomic Energy Authority (AEA), de­clares.

In Britain, completion of the current commercial nuclear power program is scheduled for 1969 with total in­stalled power of 5000 mw(e) or more. Britain, a leader in power already, has three commercial nuclear stations with a total capacity of 875 m w ( e ) . Two other AEA prototype stations have 385 mw(e) capacity. This year Brit­ain's commercial nuclear stations should supply 5% of total power for the U.K. Electricity Boards. "By 1969," Sir William says, "nuclear power should be supplying about 12% of total -electricity produced in the U.K."

"I conclude. . . that we must be pre­pared to meet economically a U.K. de­mand for nuclear power to supply per­haps 100 million tons of coal equiva­lent by the mid-1980's. . .perhaps 250 million tons by the end of the cen­tury," Sir William says. But " . . . a really major expansion of low-cost nu­clear power will depend on the suc­cessful development of fast reactors." The U.K/s AEA is now devoting the main part of its development effort to fast reactors.

French Effort Fruitful. In France, too, nuclear power is moving toward competitiveness with "conventional" power. Electricit 6 de France (EDF) now operates two nuclear power sta­tions: EDF-1 [70 m w ( e ) ] and EDF-2 [200 m w ( e j ] at Chinon on the

68 C&EN SEPT. 28, 1964

HOMEWORK Give your Shell Chemical repre­sentative a problem and he sticks with it till it's solved. For example:

The Shell man in the picture might be studying any one of many subjects.

Perhaps tomorrow he has to explain alcohol tax regulations to a customer and recommend the best alcohol to use

from the standpoint of cost, permits, record keeping, etc.

Or maybe he's looking over a lab report that will help his presentation to a customer tomorrow—showing how the advantages of a particular Shell chemical can be realized more fully.

There are cases where thoughtful review by Shell representatives helps

develop new products to do the work of existing ones at a big saving. Exam­ple: Shell's development of a special printing ink solvent. Remember this when you have sticky technical prob­lems.

And remember, Shell representa­tives are not only skilled technologists. They also take orders.

Shell Chemical Company

Shell Chemical Company Industrial Chemicals Div. 110 West 51st Street New York, N. Y. 10020 CEN-928 I would like to talk with a Shell representative about a tech­nical problem I have been having with

Name Company Address City _State_

C & E N 69

SHELL SOLVENTS Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Epichlorohydrin Acetone Normal Butyl Acetate Ethyl Chloride Diacetone Alcohol Normal Butyl Alcohol Glycerine Ethyl Alcohol PENToXOL® Solvent P-Tert-Butyl Toluene Ethyl Amyl Ketone PENToXONE® Solvent P-Tert-Butylbenzoic Acid Hexylene Glycol Secondary Butyl Alcohol Sodium Sulfonates, Refined Isobutyl Acetate Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Styrene Isobutyl Alcohol ,„„„„„.„„ PEROXIOES Isopropyl Alcohol INTERMEDIATES Di-Tertiary-Butyl Peroxide

(Anhydrous) ACRITE® 100 REACTANT H y d r o g e n P e r o x i d e

Isopropyl Ether Acrolein «nimm»« Mesjtyl Oxide Allylamines INHIBITOR* Methyl Amyl Acetate Allyl Alcohol , o n o 1® Antioxidant Methyl Ethyl Ketone Allyl Chloride *ono]®CP Antioxidant Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol CARDURA® E SULFUR

Loire River. A third reactor—EDF-3 [480 m w ( e ) ] is now going up at Chinon and is scheduled for operation in 1965. And EDF-4, also 480 mw(e ) , is also under construction, at Saint Laurent des Eaux. These four reactors are all natural-uranium, graphite-gas types. In addition, the French are building an experimental heavy-water-moderated reactor, EL-4, at Brennilis in Brittany with a power of 8 0 m w ( e ) .

According to Gaston Palewski, French Minister of State for Scientific Research and Atomic Energy and Space Affairs, "The EDF-3 station, for which nearly all the necessary orders have now been placed, provides us with a solid basis for economic esti­mates. . . . the balance sheet for a sta­tion of the EDF-4 type appears still more favorable, and we are positive that such a station in France can op­erate on a competitive basis with con­ventional stations."

Speaking of natural vs. enriched uranium, Mr. Palewski said: "As re­gards investment costs, a strict analy­sis of the cost of an enriched-uranium station under European conditions, taking into account the first fuel charge, will not give this type of sta­tion an advantage of such decisive na­ture as is sometimes implied. On the other hand, it is well known that the fuel cycle cost is clearly higher in the case of enriched uranium. In short, we are convinced that in Europe the cost of the nuclear kilowatt-hour pro­duced by the natural uranium reactor systems can perfectly compete with the cost entailed in the enriched-ura­nium system, and without involving the obligations tied up with the use of this fuel,"

Soviet Plans. The U.S.S.R., too, is pushing its nuclear power program. The Soviets commissioned their first nuclear power plant in 1954; capacity was 5 m w ( e ) . By the end of this year, capacity will exceed 900 m w ( e ) . By 1970, "several million kilowatts" are planned, B. B. Baturov told the Geneva conference. And by 1980, to­tal nuclear power capacity "can be estimated" at "tens of millions of kilo­watts ( e ) . "

Although Russia has enough hydro­electric potential and organic fuel re­sources to cover power needs "for a long period of time, , , there are some districts—in the European part of the U.S.S.R., for example—where uneven distribution of fossil fuel ups power costs. Nuclear power may be compet­

itive in such areas, Mr. Baturov says. Russia's current program involves

three water-moderated, water-cooled, and uranium-graphite power reactors: a 100-mw(e) unit at Beloyarsk; a 210-mw(e) plant at Novovozonezh; and a 600-mw(e) plant in Siberia. A sec­ond 200-mw(e) unit at Beloyarsk and an additional 365-mw(e) plant at Novovozonezh are under construction.

For the future, Soviet nuclear power experts are studying larger reactors— in the lOOO-mw(e) range. They are also looking at fast reactors—"the most promising direction" for large-scale nuclear power development. Accord­ing to Mr. Baturov, the U.S.S.R. re­cently decided to build BN-350, a fast reactor having a capacity of 300 to 350 m w ( e ) .

In another application, the Russians say the icebreaker Lenin has operated reliably since commissioning in 1959. The ship has three 90-mw(th) reac­tors. Reactor cores were replaced last year after three years of operation. The ship has doubled the period of Arctic navigation, say the Soviets. Two more icebreakers are now in the mill, the first scheduled for operation in 1971. Use of nuclear icebreakers, in effect, increases Soviet cargo capac­ity and the U.S.S.R. isn't yet consider­ing cargo ships of the U.S. Savannah type.

Canadian Developments. In Can­ada, " . . . nuclear power is more than holding its own with the competition," says W, B. Church, of Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories of Atomic En­ergy, Ltd. "Much larger reactors and generating units [than were planned in 1958] are now envisaged," he con­tinued. Cost estimates for a 457-m w ( e ) , heavy water-cooled reactor now show total costs of 3.83 mills (Canadian) per kilowatt-hour vs. 5.78 mills estimated in 1958 for a 200-mw(e) reactor.

Current Canadian estimates foresee 700 to 1200 mw(e) of nuclear capac­ity by 1971 out of 34,000 total, 2000 to 3000 mw(e) nuclear capacity out of 41,000 total in 1976, and 5000 to 7000 mw(e) nuclear out of 70,000 to 80,000 total in 1981. In Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime provinces after 1980, most of the new plants constructed should be nuclear, accord­ing to Mr. Church.

Developing Countries. But it's in the developing countries that nuclear power may hold the most immediate promise. In three quarters of India, for example, existing types of nuclear

plants are competitive in 200-mw(e) units, said India's Dr. Homi J. Bhabha, chairman of the session on energy needs.

"The underdeveloped regions of the world contain the bulk of the world's population (2.2 billion out of 3.1 bil­lion total, or about 72%) , but they consume only about 2 1 % of the energy produced and produce only 14.8 of the world's electricity," says Dr. Bhabha. Furthermore, he says, the world's underdeveloped areas are poorest in energy resources.

In India, Dr. Bhabha says, current estimates foresee 1200 mw(e) of in­stalled nuclear capacity by 1971 out of a total of 24,000 m w ( e ) ; 3000 mw(e) nuclear by 1976 out of 38,000 m w ( e ) ; and 18,000 to 20,000 mw(e) out of about 90,000 mw(e) in 1986.

Japan's Needs. In Japan, certainly not an underdeveloped country, but poor in energy resources, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) estimates that nuclear power cost will be competitive with oil-burning ther­mal stations by 1970. The country's current nuclear power program calls for a generating capacity of 1000 mw(e) by 1970, 6000 to 8500 mw(e) by 1980. During the 1960's foreign-developed reactors—either light water-cooled or graphite-moderated, gas-cooled reactors—will be built. Later, JAEC expects to develop new types of its own design.

BRIEFS

Farbwerke Hoechst, A.G., has formed a new firm in Australia known as Hoechst Chemicals (Australia), Ltd. Farbwerke Hoechst holds a 5 1 % in­terest in the new firm, which will build a plant in Altona, near Melbourne, Australia, to produce low-pressure-process polyethylene. Planned annual capacity of the plant is 12,000 tons. It is to be completed in 1966, Farb­werke Hoechst says it plans to register the shares of the new firm on the Aus­tralian stock exchange in a few years.

Sauerstoff Werke Gewerkschaft Sieg-tal, Euteneuen, Germany, is the new­est venture of Sulfrian Cryogenics, Inc. Sulfrian, Rahway, N.J.-, designs and makes low-temperature equipment. Sauerstoff Werke makes equipment for storing, handling, and transporting liquid helium, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.

70 C&EN SEPT. 28, 1964