CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING
NEWS
DECEMBER
2 8,
1964
U.S. Pushes Nuclear-Desalting Plans Flurry of activity brings "biggest week of progress for saline water program..." The U.S. effort to combine nuclearpower plants with desalting facilities has taken a leap forward. In the East, New York's Governor Rockefeller revealed plans to build such a plant on Long Island. Across the nation, in California, an agreement was signed to get a feasibility study under way for what would be a "kingsize" nuclear-desalting plant. Not to be outdone, Washington, D.C., played host to six contractors who have signed agreements with the Government to work on conceptual designs of nuclear-desalting plants. The flurry of activity, which ended the week of Dec. 18, prompted Interior Secretary Udall to say that it was the ". . . biggest week of progress for the saline water program in its history . . . ." Secretary Udall went on to add that at least 20 more design contracts would be signed in the next month. Governor Rockefeller's plans call for building a plant to produce 1 million gallons per day of fresh water and 2500 kilowatts of electrical power. The governor intends to ask for $3.5 million in the state's 1965-66 executive budget for the plant. In keeping with California's growth, which has leapfrogged New York, the Golden state has an even grander plan for its combination plant. The California plan (agreed to by the Interior Department, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), calls for a 50 to 150 million gallon-per-day plant. The feasibility study may lead to such a plant by 1970. The six design contracts signed by Secretary Udall went to Dow Chemical, Foster Wheeler Corp., BaldwinLima-Hamilton Corp., H. K. Ferguson Co., Ralph M. Parsons Co., and
Badger Co. The contracts call for some practical plans to build a nuclear-desalting plant in the 50 million gallon-per-day range by 1970. Next Year. The busy week for the nation's saline water program is probably indicative of what President Johnson has in store for the program next year. First on his list is a request that Congress appropriate an additional $16 million to Interior. He will also ask Congress to expand existing legislation which authorizes the desalting program. Although President Johnson's keen interest in desalting may appear to some people as being fairly recent, the idea of producing fresh water from the oceans has long been in his mind. In 1958, again in 1960, and once again in 1961, he backed legislation to promote the Government's desalting efforts. This personal involvement with water problems is clearly brought out in an article the then Senate Majority Leader wrote for the Oct. 30, 1960, New York Times Magazine. "For me, as for most Westerners, water— whether in scarcity or a b u n d a n c e was the element that, more than any other, shaped life itself. It made our smiles and our frowns, triggered our exuberance and despair. Rain was money in the bank; drought meant an overdraft." Overseas. As President Johnson's interest in the nation's desalting program has grown so has the program itself. Although once confined to the domestic scene, the program has taken on world-wide proportions. In March, a team of U.S. experts traveled to Saudi Arabia to explore the possibility of building a dual plant there. Later the team recommended that two plants be built. A similar expedition went to Israel.
Interior Secretary Udall Signed six design contracts
Any day now the Office of Saline Water should be releasing plans for a detailed feasibility study of that country's needs. Also plans for a joint U.S.-Mexican dual plant are moving along. Desalting has also come in for use as a tool to open up East-West exchanges. Just last month, an agreement was reached with the Soviets to exchange technical information on desalting and combination nuclearpower-desalting plants. Although there has been much talk and some action on combination nuclear-desalting plants, there are none in existence today. Not all of the technology for such a plant has been developed; economics, though, are probably more of a barrier to construction at this time. The United Nations has completed a study of anticipated needs for fresh water in 43 developing countries. Although the report has been called the most definitive study of its kind, DEC. 2 8, 1964 C & E N
15
it is frightfully lacking in detail. A spokesman for the Office of Saline Water states that some of these countries do not even know how much water they presently use. The economics of water in the U.S. are much better known than in most other countries. The cost of water in the U.S., however, has been described as being as "fluid as water itself." Some of the latest estimates on water costs came from a report put out by a study group created by the White House's Office of Science and Technology (C&EN, April 13, page 86). The report says that large combination, nuclear-power-desalting plants could produce fresh water at 20 to 25 cents per 1000 gallons. Recommendations. On the basis of the report, Dr. Donald Hornig, director of OST, recommended to President Johnson ways in which the U.S. should proceed to develop such plants. Very likely A E C s and Interior's beefed-up plans grew out of Dr. Hornig's recommendations. Under these plans (C&EN, Nov. 9, page 42), Interior would spend an additional $200 million through fiscal 1972. A E C s part of the program would cost about $220.5 million over the next 10 years. Interior's plans, which call for spending the largest share of the money on distillation technology, have OST's endorsement. Not so with AECs plans. The White House science team feels that the most pressing need is to improve the desalting technology, since reactor development is fairly well advanced. A E C s plans have also come under fire from the National Coal Policy conference. NCPC, representing coal producers, miners, transporters, and users, charged that AEC ". . . is grabbing onto the Nation's need for more fresh water to justify a continuation of its subsidized civilian nuclear power program The economics of a large plant (more than 50 million gallons per day) favor use of nuclear fuel. Coal and other fossil fuels apparently are more appropriate for smaller plants, according to the Office of Saline Water. Neither AEC or Interior will do much work in this area though. Criticism. Criticism of the grand plan to build large combination plants goes further than the complaints of coal interests. Late last month before the Atomic Industrial Forum 16
C&FN
DEC.
2 8,
1964
meeting in San Francisco, Kenneth A. Roe of Burns and Roe, Inc., verbally blasted plans for huge combination plants. "The need to place a large nuclear plant in a safe place remote from population centers (or alternately building in expensive safeguards) is inconsistent with and contrary to the advantages resulting from the production of electricity and the water at the center of use . . . . Obviously these centers of water and electricity use must be in highly populated industrial areas. This is exactly the place you cannot cheaply site a large nuclear dual-purpose plant." Competition. The arguments for and against those plans put forth by AEC and Interior mainly revolve around the question of economics. Economics alone, though, are not always the deciding factors in large technical programs. As with the U.S. space effort, there is an air of competition surrounding the nuclear-desalting program. Earlier this month after a U.S. technical team returned from a tour of Soviet desalting installations, Secretary Udall issued a statement saying "The Soviet Union has made impressive progress in the highly significant field of converting saline water to fresh and is continuing to move ahead very rapidly under a vigorous program." At the same time Secretary Udall revealed that the Soviets plan a dualpurpose plant at Schevchenko, a new city on the arid east shore of the Caspian Sea. Dr. John C. Calhoun, Jr., Mr. Udall's science adviser and head of the U.S. team that toured Soviet facilities said that ". . . the Russians offer us keen competition in the desalting field." There is some doubt, though, whether the U.S. is competing under the same set of ground rules. The tour of Soviet facilities was preceded by a team of Soviet experts touring U.S. desalting facilities. At that time, U.S. engineers questioning, Soviet experts on the economics of a 1.5 million gallon-per-day plant already in operation in the Soviet Union, got some blank stares. Further questioning of the Soviet experts revealed that their plant was built with little or no attention to economics. Costly stainless steel and titanium were used liberally through the plant. All in all, the Soviets seemed to have the attitude, "We built it, it works; who cares about the cost?"
Elliott Committee Urges More Study of Student Aid The Elliott committee has completed its review of federal programs of financial assistance for college and university students. Its only recommendation is that Congress should provide for periodic renewal of the study. The committee—officially the House Select Committee on Government Research—finds a geographical imbalance that places students from some states at a disadvantage. But the imbalance is "unintentional," it says, and it suggests that the House devote further study to finding ways of obviating the disadvantage. The 100-page report, the committee's fifth in a projected series of 10, reviews various federal assistance programs, excluding the service academies, veterans' assistance programs, and support for military training programs such as the Reserve Officers Training Corps. The committee sent questionnaires to 2100 colleges and universities. Returns from 802 of the institutions show that nearly 187,000 students received direct assistance from the Federal Government in fiscal 1963. The direct assistance was in the form of scholarships, fellowships, grants, and loans. All told, it amounted to a little more than $167 million during the year. About 45,642 students received indirect help during the year—through federal grants and contracts to the schools for research, development, and other activities. This indirect assistance totaled almost $57.7 million during the year. These grants and contracts provide part-time employment for students. Geographical Results. The committee reports that students receiving federal assistance in New England institutions averaged $1519 per student—the highest for any area—in fiscal 1963. Next highest was the average on the West Coast-$1187. In contrast, the average for those in schools in the West South Central states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) was $722. Of those students whose home states were known to the committee, there were more (12,507 in all) from New York State, the most populous state, receiving federal help than from any other state. Illinois, the fourth most populous state, was second with 9739 students receiving federal assistance.
