Coal - Atomic Energy and the Electric Utilities in the West

Why and how the nuclear industry entered the electric power generation business is discussed in terms that nuclear energy was an undoubtedly additional energy resource and that it had promise of becoming a virtually inexhaustible generating power if breeder reactors could be devised. The growth of nuclear power, its total generation capacity, are related to the need of increasing energy requirements. The use of atomic energy for power generation will grow if it can compete economically with other fuels. The rate of growth, the time scale and direction of technical development is dependent on ore supplies. It is predicted that by 1980, 50% of all new power installations will be nuclear stations. INTRODUCTION Ten years ago, the nuclear industry was virtually unborn, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 had just been signed, and peaceful applications of atomic power was little more than a phrase. Serious discussion of the practical application of nuclear energy to electric utility installations in the West was highly unlikely. The questions: Why and how did the nuclear industry enter the electric power generation business at all?; What is the predicted growth of nuclear power?; What technological changes do we predict?; How will the above changes affect the utilities? will in part be answered by this paper. WHY NUCLEAR POWER? The only justification for the West as for any other section of the country for atomic power is economics. Whatever energy source will provide the lowest generation cost will prevail; the only electric utilities which have shown an interest in nuclear power are those to whom it means lower generation costs. It is true that the Government sponsored the development of this technology long before there was any evidence of better economics; but a Government must take a very long-range view and it is the only type of organization that can afford to look more than twenty or thirty years into the future. The Government looked at projections such as shown in Fig. 1, which shows various rates of energy consumption, and matched these against estimates of fossil fuel resources. This showed that we will exhaust our low-cost fossil fuel supplies within 75 to 100 years and our total known fuel supplies within 150 to 200 years. The decision to invest in nuclear energy rested, therefore, on two arguments: a) It was undoubtedly an additional energy resource; and b) It has promise of becoming a virtually inex-haustable resource if breeder reactors could be devised if, while generating power, the reactors would produce more fissile materials than they consumed. This decision produced an unexpected bonus: nuclear power became competitive with fossil power much earlier than had been expected and, as shown in Fig. 2, forced the coal industry to take a hard look at its own position. I believe that the drop of coal prices shown here is the direct result of the entry of nuclear power into the energy supply business. At this point, it ought to be explained why and under what conditions nuclear power can be cheaper than fossil power. Fossil fuel cost to the utility is composed of two factors: a) Mining; and b) Transportation. As a result, the cost of fossil fuel to the utilities varies from 126, 106 Btu to 306, 106 Btu and higher. Nuclear energy is highly concentrated and the transportation factor becomes insignificant. Today the cost of nuclear fuel to the utility ranges between 156