Nuclear PowerMagazine Excerpts — Volume 8, 1963
In this first issue of the New Year, 1963, Nuclear Power again presents a Buyers Guide to the British Nuclear Industry, containing the names, addresses, services, and products of some fourteen hundred companies concerned with or interested in this field of engineering.
How many of these are actually devoting at least some part of their business activities to work in the nuclear field? This is the question that most probably arises in the minds of many readers, and, it is regretted to say, the answer would surprise them — or would it?
Over the last decade the nuclear industry in this country has flourished — not without reason, but, as with any new venture, the initial flush brings with it a certain amount of disappointment and disillusion. Cost estimation in a new field in which research and development must play a major part is invariably a tricky business, and, as must always be expected, many lost heart and fell by the wayside.
On the other hand, a large number of companies, although themselves incurring quite considerable set–backs, persevered to maintain this country’s lead and prestige — with the object, of course, of eventually making the business profitable. Due to a certain lack of support from the Government, many of these companies will have to wait several years before recouping some of their losses. Notwithstanding, it is pleasing to see that in quite a few concerns nuclear work is now of prime importance, interests in other more conventional fields having been decreased or, in some cases, completely abandoned.
Admittedly there are also many instances where the strain of waiting is beginning to tell, and nuclear activities are being abandoned — let us be honest, shareholders cannot wait for ever — but in the majority of these cases other conventional interests were always of more importance than the nuclear side of the business.
Why has this position been allowed to develop, and what can be done about it? Industry, on a national scale such as nuclear energy now is, cannot progress and plan for the future without some reasonably decisive program. Once again, thereofre, industry must suffer because of indecision on the part of the Government. This present lengthy period of indecision, although it must be admitted that the decisions are major ones and require careful consideration, is doing more to lower the prestige of Britain’s nuclear industry than anything else has done, now or in the past. Coming as it does at a time when Britain is attempting to equate herself with the remainder of Europe, one begins to wonder.
Many hundreds of highly–qualified men are on the point of redundancy — due to a certain extent to the lack of decision on the part of the authorities rather than premeditation. With a little forethought, the reorganization of Britain’s nuclear porgram could have been orientated so that private industry would be in a position to absorb at least some of these redundancies. In the present state of things, industry itself is now overflowing with specialist nuclear staff — and no work to give them.
In order to redeem the prestige of this country’s nuclear industry in the world today, it would appear that the overseas market is the only resort — the home market being virtually extinct. The probably advent into the Common Market will undoubtedly give a boost where it is needed, but what happens in relation to other countries outside the Market? A recent example is worth recalling — that in which a foreign country wished to purchase from a well–known supplier in this country. The participants were both fully agreed on all aspects, but the deal could not go through because of certain restrictions imposed by petty financial regulations of a national nature. Is this in keeping with what is recognized throughout the world as British tradition?
Has not the time come for all, particularly those whose decision is awaited, to realize that nuclear power is now,
and always will be an established fact ; that, given its rightful chance, it will be a competitive source of
electricity generation, and not another groundnuts
scheme.
The British Nuclear Industry is now in very serious danger of losing its rightful position as a leader in the world — the remedy lies mainly in the hands of the Government — but the industry itself can also help.
The Broken Promise
The generation of cheap nuclear–source electricity in this country has recently been referred to as a
broken promise
.
Without commenting too deeply, it would be interesting to all, no doubt, to learn when this promise was made, who made it, and, in particular, when it was broken and who broke it.
Circuitry
SIR : During a recent visit to Yugoslavia I came across a new technique which could be useful in instrumentation. This was at the Boris Kidrich Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, where Mr S.D. Muzdeka has designed coincidence and anti–coincidence circuits in which the Geiger counters themselves are used as switching elements to provide the time discrimination (Yugoslav patent application 297/62) as well as radiation detectors. The result is a simplification of the circuitry (no valves or transistors being necessary), and, for anti–coincidence circuits for low background counting, the new circuits appear to give an equivalent performance to the conventional arrangements.
B.J. Kovac, S.D. Muzdeka and M.V. Sobajic are publishing a full account of the work in Nuclear Instruments
and Methods
.
—DR DENIS TAYLOR, The Plessey Co (UK) Ltd, Ilford, Essex
Maximum credible accidents
SIR : Mr Wootton’s telling reply (Nuclear Power, November 1962) agrees the points which make the reactor pressure vessel more liable to burst than a boiler drum, but he says they are equally or more true of pressure tubes. Now the pressure vessel is no longer Caesar’s wife but merely less likely to prove frail than one of the Vestals ; the rupture of a reactor pressure vessel is as credible to him as to every other honest engineer.
Radiation brittleness and hydrogen attack which affect the steels of pressure vessels do not worry cool pressure tubes made of aluminium alloy.
The analogy with bursting boiler tubes is false because the pressure tubes do not have to transfer radiant and convective heat from red hot fuel and incandescent gases, often still burning in the tube nest, and there are none of the vagaries of two phase flow in the coolant of a steam–cooled reactor to give a final cause of burn–out.
Pressure tube bursts are not of the familiar balloon type, which is due to high temperature plastic flow of the boiler tube wall ; the pressure tube is immersed in cold water which will damp the effects of the burst. Fission products have to penetrate the fuel can and barrier tube as well as the pressure tube before they can get into the water in the calandira. They are then still inside the reflectors and shielding and would not raise the level of radioactivity even in the reactor compartment.
Unlike Mr Wootton, I have seen many cracked boiler drums, luckily detected when not under steam. During World War I the failure of destroyer water drums killed boiler room crews. The Manhattan boiler accident in 1962 which killed twenty–three people does not sound like a tube burst. Thickness and weight of steel increase segregations, inhomogeneity of compositional fibre, and grain, internal stress due to manufacturing temperature changes, gradients and radiation, and brittleness, all tending toward sudden failure.
In the Integral BWR or PWR, finest flower of Maginot philosophy, all the primary circuit is crammed into a huge massive pot. Safety is sought through weight of steel. HMS Indomitable disproved this when one of her boilers was destroyed by a slab of steel from her own side armour.
The safety of the good solid pressure vessel
is illusory.
—CAPT. H.F. ATKINS, Vickers Nuclear Engineering Ltd, London SW1
No Sir!
SIR : In his comment in your December issue (page 63), Gracchus takes the Institution to taks for suggesting that in the event of a run–down of defence work, the Government should have plans ready for additional nuclear work on the civil side, and/or alternative non–nuclear research and development work. But the Institutition is not alone in this. Assurances have been given in the past by both the Government and the Authority that a run–down in Weapons Group work would be met by increasing civil work ; and the Authority accepts that if sufficient civil work cannot be found for this purpose, then suitable non–nuclear research and development work should be brought in.
And what is wrong with that? Is Gracchus seriously suggesting that the scientists and engineers at Aldermaston are incapable of doing any other work than that on which they are now employed ; or that none of the facilities at Aldermaston is capable of use, either directly or after adaptation, on other work? I am sure he is not, whatever impression his comments make. The fact is that while Aldermaston is not equipped to do any other work (and no one is suggesting for a moment that it is), it is quite capable of doing a range of alternative work, whether it be civil nuclear, civil non–nuclear, or non–nuclear defence work, and of doing it very well.
It is time, in the Institution’s view, for a change in attitude towards the organisational framework in which research and development work is done. Compartmentalisation has gone far enough. Research and development establishments are initially set up for specific purposes it is true ; but it is no longer good enough for them to be left to fall into disuse, a blot on the landscape, simply because the work they were originally set up to do has been exhausted. They must all be regarded as being available, in general, in the public field at least, for any other research and development work for which their facilities are suitable. That this means the Minister of Science should have a general responsibility for all research and development work is true, and this will surely occur before many more years pass.
No Sir, I feel it is Gracchus who is lagging behind the times, not the Institution.
—T.H. PROFITT, Deputy General Secretary, Institution of Professional Civil Servants, Northumberland Street, London WC2
GRACCHUS replies : I stand behind what I wrote in the December issue. I still disagree with the suggestion that the UKAEA should do non–nuclear research and development work. I also think that for the IPCS on the one hand to criticize the AEA for loss of impetus and direction, and on the other to say that the Authority should be given more work, is inconsistent. Mr Profitt suggests that I think Aldermaston scientists and engineers are not capable of doing other work than that on which they are now engaged. No such suggestion was made or implied.
In an untypical but understandably quiet way, the US State Department has put forward a policy which will permit the
bypassing of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards system.
The hazy US attitude to the safeguards system was fully brought out when the Indians decided on an American reactor for the
Taraput project.
The question in my mind then was whether the sale was to be more important than a principle ; whether, in fact,
the Americans would insist upon Agency control of fissionable materials suitable for military purposes or whether the previous
policy of relying on a bilateral agreement with American inspection rights would be followed.
At the annual meeting of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Harlan Cleveland, Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs, stated that the international safeguards system was definitely to be preferred to bilateral
supervision (the italics are mine).
However, he added that it was unwise to lay down any hard and fast rules.
A further explanation by State Department officials indicated that the US will now not insist upon Agency controls for the
Tarapur reactor though it will tell the Indian government that it will prefer to see that the IAEA has this power.
But should the Indians oppose Agency safeguards (and from their previous statements it hardly appears that they will welcome
controls), the US will not stop the sale of the reactor.
I gather that a justification put forward for this arrangement
is that in the long run more progress could be made
by persuasion than by imposition of controls.
I should have thought that the result of such a decision would make other states reluctant to have Agency supervision.
Certainly, it will make one ofthe principal aims of the Agency — that of assuring that fissionable materials
produced in reactors are not diverted to nuclear weapons — a dead letter… if it wasn’t that already.
It’s worth adding here the remarks made by Dr Sigvard Eklund, IAEA Director General, when he presented the
Agency’s annual report to the UN.
He warned the General Assembly that difficulties against putting safeguards into operation were increasing because of the
expected increase in nuclear power plants throughout the world.
The next year or two, while the number of installations is small and the growth rate slow, will be crucial to developing
and testing an international safeguards system
, he added.
An old boys’ meeting was the description given to Sir Leonard Owen’s lecture to the British Nuclear
Energy Society on the first 10 years of nuclear engineering in the UK, and it was a very apt one.
The use of first names during the discussion gave the meeting an informal air.
But I did hear some of the younger members murmur that it would have been better had some of the members been properly
identified.
It was a pity, too, that Sir Leonard, who apparently is an advocate of the calculated risk, would not enlarge upon his
statement that there could be no greater fallacy than the belief that all problems could be resolved before starting on a
new project.
He was also asked to expand upon his statement that we could not afford to neglect water cooled and moderated reactors
.
No response.
What about ship propulsion?
No information of definite projects.
Not even a mention of the Integral Boiling Water Reactor.
It is things like this that make me wish there was a true forum instead of an old boys’ meeting
once a month.
While the late emphasis on a fast reactor program by the US (see Worldview this issue) is indirectly a
boost for British plans, certain reservations have been expressed.
Basically, the USAEC report to the President, requested last March, differs little from that recommended by the Commission
in 1953.
At first glance, it does look to be stating the obvious.
Its significance, in fact, is likely to be more political than technical.
I am told that the report will have the effect, it is hoped, of changing the Administration’s attitude to nuclear power.
This has been somewhat sceptical in view of the nation’s large reserves of conventional fuels.
To combat this, the AEC has pointed out that the supply of fossil fuels is not unlimited and that nuclear energy can make
an important contribution towards meeting our long–term energy requirements
.
By estabishing long–term objectives which could be endorsed by the Administration, it is thought that the Bureau of
Budget, equivalent to our Treasury, would regard the AEC’s requests for money for development less harshly.
On Record
…just stop and think how frustrated we would feel today if President Kennedy had not authorized the resumption of
the testing of nuclear weapons…
—Dr Robert E Wilson, Commissioner, USAEC, at the dedication of new plutonium facilities of the Nuclear Materials
and Equipment Corporation, Pennsylvania, October 29.
Looking back, the MacMahon Act was probably one of the best things that happened to the technologists of the British
Atomic Energy Project, as it made us work and think for ourselves along independent lines.
—Sir Leonard Owen, chairman, The British Nuclear Energy Society, at the Society’s meeting on November 29.
Where would we be without the nuclear weapon?
—Sir H Legge–Bourke, MP, Isle of Ely, speaking during the House of Commons debate on nuclear tests,
November 19.
…there can be no large–scale civil demand for enriched uranium for some years to come.
—Mr Denzil Freeth, Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in an adjournment debate on Capenhurst, November 19.
Since the establishment of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission in 1956 great strides have been taken towards the
development of nuclear energy in Japan.
Lively interest and investment on the part of both the Government and private industry have been to a great extent responsible
for the rise in status of Japan as one of the major nuclear
countries.
At the present time there are thirteen reactors in this country, seven of them in operation, and the remainder under construction. In this latter category are included two power reactors — the 166 MWe gas–cooled, graphite–moderated natural uranium reactor, and the 11·7 MWe boiling water reactor JPDR, both situated at Tokai–Mura. A second large power reactor is also planned to be built at Tsuruga Spot — the type has still to be decided, but it is expected to be of either Westinghose or International General Electric design. Both Tokai–Mura and Tsuruga Spot are Japan Atomic Power Company projects.
The Long Range Nuclear Power Development Program of February 1961 called for a total planned output of one million kW by the end of 1970. It has been stated that the achievement of this figure is extremely important, and, subject to certain financial assistance from the Government, three of the larger electric power companies, Tokyo, Chubu, and Kansai have stated that they are prepared to develop third, fourth, and fifth nuclear power stations to meet this target. Of the total electrical power generated by the nine private power companies, some 110 488 million kWh in 1961, approximately 65% is produced by these three companies.
In view of the fact that only one large–scale power plant, Tokai–mura, is at present under construction, and also that it has been agreed that the public utilities should undertake all risks involved in the construction and operation, private industry is now looking for some financial stimulus from the Government, in order that the 1970 target can be attained. The Government has therefore decided, in the 1963 budget, to plan direct grants and subsidies to private industry for research and development in the power reactor field, so that, as well as the domestic manufacture of overseas–designed reactor systems, Japanese–designed systems can also be fully developed and incorporated in the whole program.
With this end in view, the Atomic Energy Commission recently set up a new committee to find out the type of reactor most suitable for development from the experimental stage to actual incorporation in the power program. This development will be carried out by JAERI, together with the full co–operation of private industry and all other organisations concerned with nuclear power. The 1963 budget allocates the sum of approximately £55 000 for the completion of the preliminary design. Alongside this work, JAERI are also undertaking the development of a commercial fast reactor which is now in the stage of basic research.
A development program is now under way for the building of a nuclear–powered surface vessel, and some £110 000 have been allocated for this purpose in the 1963 budget. Many considerations were debated in the selection of the actual type to build, the final decision being a non–commercial oceanographic ship of 6000 tons, planned for completion between 1968 and 1970.
An interesting point in connexion with the nuclear ship program is the formation of a separate new organisation to be responsible for the co–ordination of all aspects of the program, particularly between the Government and private industry. The proportion of the funds provided by industry will be in the region of 10%. An interesting feature of this organisation, so for unprecedented in Japan, is that it will be dissolved in eight or nine years time when the experimental operation of the ship is completed. The ship will then be handed over to a Government department such as the Maritime Safety Agency.
Only one other similar type of organisation has been formed in Japan — that for the domestic production
of the turbo–prop YS–11 passenger aircraft — and the Association for Nuclear Ship Development
,
as the organisation will probably be named, can expect to look forward to the same success.
In this issue of Nuclear Power, a series of short articles written by several leading personalities
concerned with atomic energy and its development in Japan, together with a progress report of the construction of the
Tokai–mura nuclear power plant, are produced to give an indication of some of the problems met and overcome in raising
the status of Japan as one of the major nuclear
countries.
Considering their unenviable background of being the only country in the world to suffer the ravages and devastation caused
by the atomic bombs, their recovery and enterprise in the peaceful uses of atomic energy merit worldwide applaud.
After some preliminary bickering behind the scenes over the date of submission of the Wylfa A1 and A2 tenders, I hear that these have now been placed before the Central Electricity Generating Board. At the moment, both tenders are at Risley where AEA specialists are in the process of completing an evaluation. At the time of writing, this was expected to be completed by January 18. Some information on Wylfa A2 is given by English Electric in its annual review of activities. This states that if the tender for Wylfa A2 is satisfactory (Wylfa A1 is to be built by UPC), the Group will begin work in September 1963. The Group in this case is the English Electric, Babcock & Wilcox and Taylor Woodrow Consortium which, with due respect to the companies just mentioned, is a tediously long name. And just in case anyone is interested, the title when abbreviated reads EEB&WTWC.
The storm in 1960 over the gas centrifuge method of isotope separation soon caused a clamp down on information.
But little dribs and drabs continue to seep through.
In the Netherlands, for instance, work there has passed from the basic research stage to what is described as a more
technological phase
.
Within the next three years, the Dutch hope to find out if it will be economical to use the centrifuge method for separating
U235 and U238 on an industrial scale.
Should the results of this work be promising, then a pilot plant will be built.
In Britain, the UKAEA decided in 1960–61, after the publicity given in 1960 to the centrifuge method, to review work
on this and subsequently started a small development program.
Studies continued in 1961–62.
The method was, of course, investigated by the Ministry of Supply until late 1951 when it was agreed that the diffusion plant
at Capenhurst should be built.
If I were asked to name a reactor project which had more than its fair share of troubles, I think the American
Enrico Fermi fast breeder would come high on my list.
The latest in a long line of incidents is an attempt by American unions to have the operating license hearing on January 3
postponed.
Their reason was that during pre–operational testing of the reactor it was alleged that a sodium–water reaction
occurred causing a substantial, accidental release of energy
.
This request has been turned down by the AEC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board who agreed with the Power Reactor Development
Company that the incident had not caused any danger to the public.
PRDC added that there would not have been any dangerous release of fissionable materials had there been any fuel in the
reactor at the time of the reaction.
In addition, the leak of sodium on December 12 occurred in one of the separate and independent secondary sodium loops and
neither the primary sodium system nor either of the two steam generators or secondary sodium loops was affected.
At present, the steam generator unit is being disassembled and it is expected that the cause of the leak will be evaluated
before the six month period of low power nuclear test operations is completed.
Sir Christopher Hinton, in the second of his two lectures in Japan (the first is reported in Worldview),
makes two comments which I think are singularly interesting.
Discussing the charge/discharge machines for magnox reactors, he stated : I have great confidence in all the
reactors that we are building but, if I wished to worry about any aspect of them, it would be, I think, the charge and
discharge machines.
The Calder reactors which have worked so reliably and well do their fuel element changes off load and, although our reactors
at Berkeley and Bradwell are now working, we have not as yet experience of changing fuel elements under load.
There are certain problems which arise in on load fuel element change which do not arise when this operation is done off load
and I think great care will be necessary in establishing the new technique.
Earlier in his lecture, he had referred to difficulties met in some of the heavy mechanical construction work on reactors
mainly owing to trouble in welding.
He added : I believe that to some extent the troubles that we have met have been psychological ;
constructional workers in England are naturally men of a nomadic type who like a physically hard and active life.
Welding, with its monotony, its physical rstriction, its need for close and constant care and attention to detail,
is not the sort of work which appeals to the man who is typically attracted to construction work and I believe that this
is the factor which, in spite of high rates of pay, has led to the discontent among the welding force at the early stations
and a failure uniformly to achieve the highest possible standard of work.
The occasional defects in welding which have resulted show up in X–ray examination and are cut out for repairs
but this leads to delays and failure to keep up the program.
The French announcement that they are going to use beryllium clad fuel in their EL–4 225 MWt heavy water reactor has inevitably given rise to speculation as to whether the UKAEA was right, in the long term, to drop its own beryllium plans for the AGR. Apparently, the French envisage the first loading of EL–4 to be of slightly enriched uranium clad in stainless steel but plan to have later loadings consisting of unenriched UO2 clad in beryllium. Their reasons are that favourable research and development results indicate that the technical problems of beryllium use can be solved. New refining techniques, keeping the proposed EL–4’s CO2 extremely dry and using new metallurgical techniques have been mentioned. As the Americans generally seem to support the British view that beryllium is not a practicable short–term cladding material, the French belief may well cause UK and US to take a look at their beryllium work again.
On Record
Negotiations about the (Hunterston) contract… have made progress but no estimate of the final cost has
yet been agreed.
—Rt Hon M. Noble, Secretary of State for Scotland, in a written answer in the House of Commons, December 19, 1962
There is little doubt that by the mid–1970s an appreciable expansion of the (British) nuclear program will
be necessary and in order to achieve this we must assure that… it is possible to use less severe siting criteria
with safety.
The operational availability of the Calder reactors has been so good that I am a little doubtful whether if we were
designing reactors of the size of those at Berkeley and Bradwell today without regard to their development to larger sizes,
we should have used on load fuel element changing.
—Sir Christopher Hinton in a lecture given in Osaka, Japan, November 30, 1962.
The efficient integration of the entire nuclear industry in Sweden has been organized to such a high standard as to be a model to many other countries. It is pleasing to see the excellent degree of co–operation achieved througout the industry, which includes the responsible Government departments, the Universities, the Atomic Energy Company (Aktiebolaget Atomenergi), the State Power Board, the private electricity–producing companies, and the individual industrial manufacturing companies.
This close collaboration between all interested parties has to some extent been achieved because of the very constitution of the Atomic Energy Company (the Swedish equivalent of the UKAEA). The company was established in 1947 with a share capital of £1 million ; 4/7ths of the shares are held by the Government and 3/7ths are divided between some 70 private enterprises. Amongst the shareholders many types of private industries and public utilities are represented, such as mechanical and electrical manufacturing concerns, the ship–building industry, the mining industry, the automotive industries, the power–producing industries and public utilities, financial and insurance companies, etc. All running expenses are paid by the Government.
Another important reason for the integrated porgram was the early realization that electricity generation by nuclear power was to be not an experimental possibilty but a national necessity.
Several important criteria were apparent in reaching this decision — the almost negligible resources of coal, oil and natural gas in Sweden, the high fuel import figures with its resulting heavy load on foreign currency reserves, the imminent full exploitation of hydro–power sources (contributing at the present time 95% of the total electricity produced), and the extensive but low–content uranium resources in Sweden.
The last factor was in favour of developing a reactor type using natural or very slightly–enriched uranium (the enrichment being possibly replaced at a later date by plutonium cycling). At the same time the existence of the 400 kV transmission system permitted the choice of a reactor system with the best economy obtained from very large units.
These and other factors favoured the choice of heavy water as moderator, and, with its merits of low fuel costs due to fairly cheap canning materials of low neutron absorption, it was also decided to use heavy water as the coolant. This also gave excellent development possibilities toward direct–cycle boiling reactors and integral superheating.
The need for a nuclear power program and the selection of the heavy water reactor have therefore led to the setting up of a well–knit nuclear industry in which research and development, design, manufacture, and the university training of nuclear engineers and physicists all play a part of equal importance. The Atomic Energy Committtee, originally set up by the Government in 1945, now serves as a research council supporting different kinds of fundamental research in the field of nuclear energy at the Universities and various institutes.
The largest electricty producer is the Swedish State Power Board, who now have thier own Atomic Energy Department. Some of the largest private power producers have also set up a group for nuclear energy study, known as the AKK Atomic Power Group.
Many of the major industrial companies have also started separate divisions dealing with nuclear energy, the foremost of these being ASEA, Bofors, Johnsons, NOHAB, Uddeholm–Deggerfors, and Svenska Maskinverken. The Swedish Shipbuilding Research Foundation, SSF, is also studying the problems of nuclear energy in connexion with ship propulsion.
The considerable work that has gone into the organization and integration of the Swedish nuclear energy industry is expected to show dividends when the full commercial program is put into operation.
A further step in the growing co–operation between the USA and Germany in fast reactor development is the proposed visit in March–April to Karlsruhe of a small US delegation. The purpose of the trip will be an exchange of information or, in non–official terms, how to get on better. Last November, a West German delegation went to Washington to discuss participation in US breeder work. The offer the Germans made was not revealed though I presume it must have included some form of cost–sharing arrangement in addition to the usual exchange of information and personnel. A figure of $3·5 million has been mentioned as the offered West German contribution. However, as Euratom is believed to be negotiating a fast reactor agreement with Germany, there has been some holding back by the AEC as the Community will, under the agreement, take part in any joint German–US program. Another factor was that the AEC had not then decided whether to build an experimental fast ceramic reactor as proposed by US General Electric or to take part in a concept put forward by Argonne National Laboratory.
I see that the Duke of Edinburgh is to carry out the formal opening ceremony for Berkeley nuclear power station on April 5. the last time he was concerned with dedicating a reactor was at Aldermaston Court. The reactor was the now shut–down MERLIN. The thought that does occur to me is what the Duke will think when, after he has performed the opening ceremony, he reads that the station has been shut–down for refuelling. I believe that this is likely to happen before the summer.
One of the difficulties facing supporters of Vice–Admiral Rickover, better known here as the father of the US
nuclear submarine fleet, is how to keep him in his present post after February 1, 1964.
That is the date on which he has to retire from the Navy unless the US Congress intervenes with a special Act
to keep him in uniform.
His supporters say that Admiral Rickover’s experience is particularly needed at this time when there are increasing
amounts of radioactive materials to handle from the fleet and the problem of maintaining and refuelling the nuclear fleet
still remains to be solved.
During a hearing before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy aboard the nuclear powered carrier, USS Enterprise,
the chairman of the JCAE, Chet Holifield said to Admiral Rickover :
I am concerned about your personal future in this (nuclear propulsion) program.
It is important that you stay on.
I am also concerned about the fututre of your headquarters group and the future of the program if you leave it.
I would not want anything to destroy what you have built up.
A more disturbing feature of Admiral Rickover’s possible retirement is, in his own words :
The more reactors there are in operation, the greater the possibility of an accident.
We have to be doubly sure where nuclear safety is involved.
We are constantly being harassed with attempts to reduce training, to use people we don’t think are qualified,
or to put people in to the program for short periods of time so they can get nuclear power on their record,
because this will help with their chance for promotion…
I am concerned that ultimately this traning and the selection will be downgraded and then, look out for trouble —
I mean real trouble.
This is an alarming thought when one notes that the US Navy has more than 43 reactors under its control.
I hope that Rickover does stay, perhaps in a civilian capacity, and take heart from the statement at the same hearing by
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Kenneth Belieu who said :
Anywhere within my authority, anyone I catch violating the law, whether by design or contempt of Congress,
I will grab him by the back of the neck, if I can.
If anyone thinks it’s simple to get information from the Atomic Energy Authority, they should think again
and read a classic piece of avoidance
published in the Dorset Evening Echo of January 29.
The story itself deals with the possibility of the AEA’s proposed steam generating heavy water reactor
being built at Winfrith.
Referring to talks being in London on the possible reactor, the Echo report goes on :
The talks are so shrouded in secrecy that a highly placed Authority spokesman (my italics), speaking over the
telephone from London refused to reveal who is taking part or who will make the final decision.
He would refer only to the
Government
as having the final say–so.
“Pressed further he said : The decision will be taken finally by the Minister
!
“Which Minister? I cannot say.
“Is it possible to find out? It is a matter of Government procedure which I am not prepared to discuss.
“Will Parliament ever discuss the spending of this money?
I imagine that if it is approved it will come before Parliament in the estimates but not as a particular item.
A Japanese observation team has been in the UK studying the latest magnox developments, taking particular
interest in the concrete pressure vessel, as well as discussing the Tokai–mura nuclear power station.
The six–man group comes from three of the member companies of the First Atomic Power Industry Group,
one of the five Japanese nuclear consortia.
These companies are Fuji Electric Manufacturing Company, Shimizue Construction Company and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd.
I gather that more than passing interest has been expressed in another magnox station for Japan even though current opinion
there in in favour of a CANDU–type reactor after their second power reactor, an American PWR or BWR is built.
Other visitors due to come to Britain include an Italian scientific delegation which is expected to discuss
the possibility of closer links with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority.
Chances are, I am told, that there will be room in Italy’s nuclear power program for another magnox station.
Tailpiece
Dissension exists in the Atomic Energy Authority over a Risley committee decision
to standardize the type of toilet paper used in AEA establishments.
This retrograde move has met with surprising opposition.
At the AEA’s London headquarters, some 70 complaints have already been made ; the unions have been called in
and an appeal is being considered to the Master of the Rolls.
However, I believe it is unlikely to be discussed at the next sitting of the Privy Council.
On Record
Trying to analyze coal and purchase it is every bit as complicated as this problem of trying to buy irradiated
fissionable materal of one kind or another.
—L.H. Roddis, president, Philadelphia Electric Company, at the US Atomic Industrial Forum conference, 1962.
Powercut
It is indeed regrettable, after the recent period of inclement weather during which the phrase power cut
became almost as notorious as the phrase nuclear ship
, that we must inform our readers of an even more serious
cessation of power — the demise of Nuclear Power.
Since the first issue of this journal was published in May 1956, the editorial policy throughout has been to maintain as high a technical standard as possible.
This issue, April 1963, exactly seven years later, will be the last to appear under the name of Nuclear Power. Nuclear Engineering has taken over the journal, and, under the title Nuclear Engineering incorporating Nuclear Power, will combine the two with the object of providing a better and more comprehensive British nuclear journal. It is felt that a greater service and wider coverage will be provided by this move.
Regular subscribers to Nuclear Power will of course automatically receive, commencing with the May issue, all future issues of the combined journal.
I and my colleagues wish every success for the new enterprise in the years ahead.
On behalf of the entire staff of Nuclear Power I would express our sincerest thanks to all our readers, contributors, correspondents, consultants and advertisers, for their most valuable and continual support througout the past seven years, and hope that htis support will be similarly continued in respect of the combined journal.
—THE EDITOR
Treasury Island!
SIR : Almost every other Nation in the World is dimly aware, and some even actively conscious, of the impacts
and economic benefits that result from harnessing the brainpowers
of modern sciences and technologies to aid the
progress and welfare of its citizens.
In an era of competitive technology and expanding scientific horizons, no head–scratching or puzzlement need bewilder our economists or politicians as to the causes of the doldrums which now afflict our industries.
The Treasury — the main source of all economic policies in Britain today — remains detached
in archaic isolation impervious to the wind of technological fact and change
.
It is really a simple equation.
Study American, French, German, and Italian methods — commercial miracles
? utter nonsense! —
they are the normal results of utilizing their best abilities, qualified knowledge and practical experience to serve sound
economic and political commonsense!
Organise our best scientific, technical and industrial brains to provide authoritative, impartial, and truly expert advice as a Standing Committee to the now–proposed Standing Economic Committees, or, create an autonomous Authority, Board, or a Ministry of Science and Technology with an independent vote. We can then urgently concentrate our efforts upon essential realities.
The creative enterprise of British research scientists, designers and skilled engineers can still lead the world, given the encouragement and opportunity.
—L SEFTON, Chairman and Managing Director, Premier Precision Ltd, Bracknell, Berks.
Fast Reactors
SIR : May I say how valuable I found your review (December 1962) of world programs for fast reactors. I feel sure your readers must have been glad to have such a comprehensive synopsis on these challenging developments. I can best show my appreciation by bringing to your notice a few facts which might supplement and perhaps correct your information in so far as it applies to the Member Countries of Euratom.
Belgium : In addition to the plutonium recycling in thermal reactors to which the work described actually refers, Belgium has had a long–standing interest in fast reactors. Belgo–Nucléaire has had an exchange contract with the ENRICO FERMI project since 1956 wihch has permitted the training of a relatively important nucleus of their engineers who contributed to the project. Practically the whole contribution in this field is carried out under contract for the CEA–Euratom association. This covers Belgo–Nucléaire work on the critical facility and the 2 kW source reactor installation for Cadarache, CEN neutron spectroscopy work, and work on the irradiation loop for a RAPSODIE pin in a thermal neutron shielded hole in BR–2.
Use of the BR–2 reactor for irradiating capsules from the future Karlsruhe–Euratom association is also being planned.
France : The RACHEL reactor mentioned does not in fact belong to the French civil program and is therefore not directly linked with the fast reactor porgram with which Euratom is associated.
As far as the extensive RAPSODIE full–scale mock–up testing is concerned, the dates reported are perhaps a little optimistic — the full–scale mock–up of the reactor vessel is now being built at Cadarache and should start operating in the summer of 1963. The essential part of the test should be concluded by the end of the year, but testing will continue for at least another year. Later on this vessel will be used for large core reactor studies. The 1 MW and 10 MW loop mock–ups started operating at Cadarache in 1962.
Concerning the Euratom contribution to the RAPSODIE project, I think it should be pointed out that the sum quoted (which, by the way, should be $33 million and not £33 million) refers not only to the RAPSODIE design, construction and operation, but also to a critical assembly (maximum core size 5000 litres) and a fast source reactor. The $73 million allowed in the Euratom second five–year plan covers all Euratom activities in the fast reactor field. These activities are in association with German, Italian and French programs RAPSODIE, critical assembly, and research and development of a large–size prototype.
Germany : There is a danger that the statement it is hoped that sufficient satisfactory progress will be
made on other coolants during the next two or three years to enable sodium to be discarded as a coolant
may be
misinterpreted by your readers.
Whilst it is true that a considerable amount of effort is being devoted to gas and steam cooling by the Karlsruhe research
team (which was attracted towards this solution because it appeared to avoid certain safety problems associated with sodium),
some sodium research effort will continue.
It should also be made clear that the association contract between Karlsruhe and Euratom will cover all Karlsruhe activities — not only the critical assembly to be built there.
Italy : The RAPTUS program, on which CNEN has decided to concentrate for the next five years, has been offered to Euratom as a suitable field for association. I am glad to be able to say that formal negotiations with CNEN are opening this week (February 4) in Brussels. The same broad terms as those already accepted by the French and soon to be accepted by the Germans apply, namely, an agreed defintion concerning programs, financing and management, and the assignation of joint working teams to the project.
—M MACIOTO, Scientific Secretary, Delegation of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, London.
Much appreciated… comment such as this is invaluable. In the introductory paragraphs to the survey we did not claim to be absolutely up–to–date with our facts, due to reticence in some quarters… Ed.
Correction
SIR : In the January issue of Nuclear Power you presented a discussion of the new research reactor being built in South Africa. The article gave a full description of the reactor ; however, two discrepancies occurred. The total core loading will be 3·604 kg of U–235, and the internal design temperature and pressure values were interchanged.
—MORTIMER P LOWENFELD, Physicist, Allis–Chalmers Mfg Co, Washington 11, DC
Apology
It is regretted that dure to lateness in receiving the article Marviken
(by P.H. Margen,
Nuclear Power, March 1963, pp37—39), editing was done without consultations with the Author, resulting
in incorrect illustrations being used for Figures 1 and 4.
Reprints of the article can be obtained with the correct illustrations substituted.
[Any assistance in obtaining one of these reprints would be greatly appreciated — M&A eds.]
Power reactor operating experience will be discussed at two major conferences this year.
The first will be held in May by the Canadian Nuclear Association.
One of the two main topics at this Montreal meeting will be operating experience and future developments of power reactors.
Of interest will be the Canadian contribution for as Mr Roy F Goss, general manager of the Association says : By the
time the conference opens, we’ll have had almost a full year’s operating experience with the NPD plant.
Worth noting also is the invitation by the CNA to the Soviet Union to take part in the conference.
This was re–confirmed by the CNA within a day of the Soviet Ambassador in Canada suggesting co–operation between
Canada and the USSR atomic energy.
The second conference to take in operating experience will be that held by the International Atomic Energy Agency in
Vienna from June 4–10.
Both should prove interesting but it is a pity they are scheduled so close to one another.
I see that the recent speech by Roger Vaughan of TNPG at the Latina commissioning ceremony has largely gone
unreported.
In what must necessarily be the last issue of Cross Section, by this writer
at least, I thought I would quote two extracts.
The first : Designs are now complete for reactors with high fuel ratings, approximately twice the Latina rating but
still using natural uranium fuel and the same basic details of construction.
These high ratings lead to unit generating costs well below the costs from conventional power stations in the South of
England.
In fact, the latest designs of gas cooled reactor will be competitive with modern coal fired power stations of comparable size
on the East Midlands coalfields.
The second : In Latina we have a power station which will operate with a lower fuel cost than any other source of
thermal power in Italy, for at least the next five years.
Some rapid recalculation of nuclear power economics in Great Britain is now underway.
This follows the bombshell dropped at the recent symposium on the Advanced Gas–Cooled Reactor that 7½% was the
rate of interest the Central Electricity Generating Board was thinking of for future stations.
For a reason you might look at paragraph 21 in the paper presented by D.R. Berridge, the CEGB Nuclear Plant Design Engineer,
at the Anglo–Japanese Nuclear Power Symposium.
You will find the following :
It might therefore be argued with some justification, particularly in circumstances of financial stringency,
that the extra capital expended in the purchase of nuclear plant should be required to earn an increased return.
We do not at present penalise nuclear power in this way but nevertheless it is apparent that in order to finance our continued
rapid expansion of generating capacity, the CEGB must increase the rate of return on its assets.
The resulting increase in capital charges will inevitably be to the disadvantage of nuclear plant.
for example, the effect of increasing capital charges (normally interest plus depreciation) from say 9% to 10½% would
increase the cost of conventional power by 0·015d/uso
and nuclear power by 0·06d/uso.
A point that may have escaped your notice is the recent decision by Consolidated Edison in the United States to have
slightly enriched uranium second and third cores for their Indian Point plant.
The plant was originally fuelled with a uranium–thorium core.
Con Edison say the reason for the change is quite simply a matter of price.
Having spent the money on building the plant, their primary concern is to keep the cost of a kilowatt hour as low as possible.
The company further explains that there were two basic reasons for choosing a uranium–thorium core back in 1955.
One was to investigate the characteristics of thorium in a core.
Thorium also had an appeal because of the world–wide fuel position at the time, particularly the known uranium reserves
in the USA and the unsettled conditions of the world oil market.
These economic factors have now changed and the price of uranium oxide has dropped sharply.
A uranium–thorium core just cannot now compete with a slightly enriched uranium core.
Points that bear watching in the future are the plans revealed by the USAEC at the recent 202
State of the
Nuclear Industry hearings.
this year the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy devoted the sessions to the recent AEC report to President
Kennedy on the civilian nuclear power program.
AEC chairman Glenn T Seaborg told the JCAE that conceptual design studies of a 1000 MW liquid–metal cooled fast
breeder and of a 200 MW prototype plant were to start this year.
The year 1970 was given as the likely date for the start–up of the first breeder prototypes.
Also mentioned was the possibility of a 200 MW superheat reactor prototype being built within a few years time.
A disappointment to many US nuclear mean was the statement by Mr J.B. Wiesner, the science adviser to President Kennedy.
He said the Administration was not yet ready to underwrite fully the 12 year program laid down in the AEC’s report
to the President.
A further setback was Wiesner’s announcement that the President had ordered a study of conventional energy sources
similar to that carried out by the AEC on nuclear power.
The study is to determine R&D programs that the Administration can profitably carry out to improve the use of fossil fuel
resources and to advance power technology.
If this is carried out, many feel that finance will be directed away from nuclear development work.
On Record
I feel sure that we are now entering a phase when the nuclear power industry must extend and broaden the technology
upon which it is based.
—R.V. Moore, speaking in his capacity as vice–president of The Nuclear Engineering Society,
at the 15th annual dinner of the Risley branch on February 19.
There are people who would advocate adventuring further with new and exciting designs of nuclear reactors but I am
not sure that this is wise from the point of view of the operator who only wants a cheap and reliable source of power.
For the present I believe more is to be gained by developing and improving upon systems of which we have already some
experience than by embarking on new concepts which call for supreme efforts from metallurgists and chemists.
—R.D. Vaughan, chief engineer, The Nuclear Power Group, at the Latina commissioning.
We may perhaps foresee a new generation of magnox stations using prestressed concrete pressure vessels, having
outputs of up to 150 MWe per reactor and using highly rated magnox fuel of up to 6 MWt per tonne peak output.
The fuel elements will be massive, cheap and of such endurance as to reduce the net fuelling costs for the reactors
in question to less than 0·1d per unit sent out.
—Paper by D.R.R. Fair, Nuclear Operations Engineer, CEGB, and N.L. Franklin, Nuclear Fuels Director, UKAEA,
at the Anglo–Japanese Nuclear Power Symposium.