Atomic Energy— Applied JOHN J. GREBE, Dow Chemical Co.
A p p l y i n g atomic energy to the job of turning industry's wheels can b e a source of increasing productivity
J. HE world is now at a stage in nuclear energy history where the recent explorers have discovered a new continent, just as Columbus d i d in 1492. Its full impact cannot possibly be understood for many years to come. In the e n d , it does not matter whether t h e nation which developed and used atomic weapons will itself b e worthy of enjoying the fruits of the basic work. Now, as in t h e case of Spain in 1492, the contemporary explorers will bring "forth . . . a new nation," a new world, "conceived in liberty," and this time "dedicated" not only t o the dignity and freedom o f the individual, but, in addition, dedicated to the dignity and the understanding o f all that is best and noble in people "all over the world." H o w can w e be s o sure that such progress will be made? If we look beyond the multitude of influences that seem, superficially, to guide our lives, we will find that the underlying drive behind all human progress has been man's insatiable desire for truth and knowledge applied to creative production. History tells us this "when v i e w e d objectively. To perceive the future in broad perspective we must take an equally objective view. W e cannot ignore the social, political, and economic problems of the moment, but neither can w e permit them t o cloud or distort our vision. Gunpowder was the major spur tor a w h o l e field o f chemical development that has brought untold benefits to the human race. Fundamentally it was the eternal search for knowledge that brought us atomic energy. T h e exigency of war merely speeded its development and
4154
directed it, for the moment, toward destructivf rather than productive use. But man is essentially a productive being. His spasmodic destntctiveness is merely evidence that h e h a s learned less about living with his fellow beings than he has of many other things. Fortunately the eternal search for knowledge goes on. The conference in N e w York, with its hundreds of leaders in the field from all over the world, is a n example of that human urge in action. I am concerned with the creative rather than the destructive potentialities of atomic energy—specifically its possibilities as a source of productive power. Because it is a source of ultra light and abundant fuel, it can be a force for peace, progress, and expansion into vast new land and mineral resources for un ever growing population. In t h e ensuing fiow of progress the dross will b e left behind. After all, t h e most troublesome weeds grow only in depleted soils—to preserve t h e remaining values by their obnoxiousness. Atomic energy c a n revitalize depleted areas and good-will will follow. Economic Aspects A thorough study of the economic aspects of atomic power made b y the Cowles Commission, and reported in the hook "Economic Aspects of Atomic Power," by Sclmrr and Marschak, holds out a gain of 1 % in productivity o f our American industry d u e to saving in fuel. This may seem small, but if you look back many years you will find that the productivity per man in this country increased
CHEMICAL
roughly a t the rate of 3 % per annum up to about 1940. Since that time our increase h a s been largely swallowed up by increased overhead. This nation, now losing real income, should b e greatly concerned. Knowing where even 1% of inert» used productivity may come from in the near future is very significant, because it is 1% out of about 5 % , or our total industry. This 1% gain would in itself completely offset the total being spent by the Atomic Energy Commission. I n a very thorough report by Sir Edward Smith of London, published in the American Scientist for April 1 9 5 1 , it is shown t h a t in 1890 the productivity per man in this country was n o better than that in England. Since then there has been a decided diversion, with England gaining at only 1.5% per year, while this country has gainod at 3 % per year. Today, t h e productivity p e r man in this country is roughly twice that of the British worker. Sir Edward Smith has proposed a n increase of 5 % p e r year in order to reduce this difference. This is emphasizing t h e very fundamentals of the problem of national well-being. However, there is a question whether
AND
ENGINEERING
NEWS
anything as enormous in value and significance as this can b e directed b y any kind of central authority, be it in the Government or a cartel. T h e stimulus of competition is required, and this is becoming difficult in an economy which, like ours at the present time, confiscates through taxes the proceeds of extra effort. All this shows that w e must make room in our thinking for the necessity of such progress in productivity. Intensive work along the line of applying atomic energy to the job of turning the wheels of industry can be one source of such increasing productivity per man. Other segments of our industry have their own opportunities for progress. Production of Power In the power field, however, we find a very serious situation. In the past our increase in productivity was largely due to the increasing efficiency with which our engineers were able to extract power out of coal and oil and make it work for us. In spite of rising wages and living standards, and tremendously improved service and reliability of electrical power, the net cost kept on going down. W e now have reached a point, however, where our Government is undertaking to distribute by edict, benefits that have not yet been created. This has placed such a heavy burden on the power—producing industry that its prices have had to go up for the first time. By the time the effect of the decrease in the value of the dollar is reckoned into the true power costs, the price will have to go still higher. Adding to this the fact that the rise in the efficiency of using heat in new plants, from about 1 3 % in 1913 to the peak of 3 8 % for the famous Philip Sporn station in 1950, has taken place with an ever smaller percentage increase per year, we realize w e are approaching a practical limit. It requires ever so much more effort and investment to produce a given increase in over-all economy now than it did before. For example, stepping up the temperature of 140-pound saturated steam on the old reciprocating engines of 4 0 years ago from 350° to 500° F . by superheating, raised the efficiency about 20% and saved every fifth pound of coal. N o w a 150° rise from 1050° to 1200° F. may help only 2% and probably costs too much. T h e rapid increase in total heat energy consumption, particularly the electrical
We've come a long way since 1942 when the first nuclear reactor, shown above, w a s put into operation at the University of Chicago's Stagg Field research laboratory power production, now doubling every nine years, can no longer be supplied from the current rate o f production of coal. Even the rapidly increasing distribution of oil and gas, if continued at the same percentage growth, will fail to meet the total heat energy requirements at current rates of growth by about eight thousand trillion B.t.u. in 1960. Instead, the price of coal will rise beyond the recent high levels because we will have to look for less economical, more remote sources, with added new investments. This alone may well amount to a loss of 1% of our over-all national productivity as time goes on, which atomic energy may prevent in addition to the 1% saving in normal fuel costs. Atomic P o w e r Plants In the field of atomic power engineering, the progress t o be expected is enormous, simply because the output so far has been negligible. T h e art is young. So far, people are still working on skimming some of the cream from the uranium fuel in the form of uranium 235 which is only partially consumed in present reactors. Experiments in the direction of breeding more fissionable materials than are consumed in the process, out of thorium and uranium 238 as fuels, are still in their infancy. The state of the art was given by the chairman of the U. S. Atomic Energy
J
OHN JOSEF GREBE, who came to this country in 1814, was born in the German Rhineland. Case School of Applied Science is his alma mater, and in 1924 he joined Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., as director of the physical research laboratory. He was on loan to the Chemical Corps of the U. S. Army in 1948 as chief technical adviser and scientific expert. He has developed electrometric control, Dowtherm heating fluids, the process for extracting bromine from sea water, chemical treatment of oil wells, and polystyrene and saran. Also to his credit are production and purification processes of butadiene, and special types of synthetic rubber.
VOLUME
2 9, N O .
4 1 » » OCTOBER
Commission, Gordon Dean, in a recent address before the N e w York Chamber of Commerce, where he said: The most distinguishing characteristic of the next most widely mentioned product of atomic energy—atomic power—is that it is not yet on the market, and I for one am extremely hesitant to say just w h e n it will be. There a r e several reasons for this. In the first place there are technical difficulties which stand in the way o f building atomic power plants at costs that will make them economical to operate. In our present state o f knowledge w e could undoubtedly build an atomic power plant right now, but there is n o chance in the world that it could produce power a t anything approaching t h e relatively l o w cost of power produced from coal or b y hydroelectric means. We will, as a matter of fact, sometime t h i s year put a reactor in operation at our Idaho testing station that has been designed t o produce, as a n experiment, something over 100 kilowatts of power, but it w i l l not be the kind o f plant that will be needed to produce power commercially. It will be instead primarily a research reactor and its main purpose will be to test the process w e call 'breeding" which is an attempt t o operate a reactor in s u c h a way that it will produce more fissionable material than it consumes. W e are concentrating right now on d e veloping atomic engines tor the propulsion of submarines and aircraft. W e a r e much farther along on t h e submarine r e actor than we are o n the aircraft one, b u t I am sure in my o w n mind that eventually w e are going to have both. And as a special bonus we are going to pick u p a l o t of technical know-how that will help u s immeasurably in cutting the cost of power reactors to national security, and in t h e process getting, at t h e earliest date p o s sible, a kind of propulsion unit that will reduce almost to t h e vanishing point t h e dependence of naval vessels and military aircraft upon bases o f fuel supply. It is well to realize that with breeding, the cost of atomic fuel becomes negligible in spite of increasing ore costs. The whole subject then boils itself down to an i m mense long-range effort t o attain a development of the atomic power field just like
8,
1951
4155
ι
ι
ι
*κΓ r~
Ρχΐ
L
rW*
4 0\
Γ
^\^%\^
I
^V^M^V^
Υ—,&Φ' —Z° %
3o% I
"
I
ι /\
I
JOOM
~ 1
' • //\ '
'\ \/
\—7^S6,° M-
1
/S'^ A*r Year
^KL^i^ Η
^î^^'H
J
U —\ :
\y24 M
Η
'4-^'-
ι fyf )
YJ^^^% QÏ*—-^^^
,» *
—
L-
1
U,K>
\-20 MlLUON POPULATION \
K^J'/'
M
ί€0 Μ
i2o M^S*\S/\~
Js y
M
~~r— : —
r l· r
US BA/ERGY CONSUMPTION
^_
•
~Λ*~ ~ \r^=PoPULAfJ^rm
—~i
\
ι
1
l·"^
f ^ AtwA
\
I — h r r——-|
x^f°QOOQ
I
y~ '·V l
|
^f r ^
^
ι
I
I
I
mo
rtoo
i
