The future role of breederJ. K. Dillard, C. J. Baldwin, N. H. WoodleyWestinglhouse Electric Corporation

Numerous considerations, chiefly related to cost, nuclear power in the United States. For example. atcontribute to the growth pattern of electric gen- the World Power ('onference in Lausanne. Switzer-eration. Although water reactors will undoubtedly land. in 1964. a report was presented showing thedominate U.S. nuclear expansion into the 1980s, merits of nuclear power in areas where the deliveredthe high-gain fast breeder holds the greatest eco- cost of fossil fuels was more than 28.4 cents pernomic advantage over the long term. The factors million kilojoules (30 cents per million Btu).:i Shortlyleading to this conclusion are presented and ana- after preparation of that paper, substantial improve-lyzed here, and some predictions are made for ments were made in the capital and fuel costs of waterthe 20-year period beginning in 1986. reactors. For a year or so. reactors competed with

fossil fuels in the neighborhood of 23.7 cents per mil-The economy and reliability of the light-water re- lion kilojoules (23.7 cents per gigajoule). In late

actor in the United States have resulled in a growth 1966, taking cognizance of further capital and fuelof nuclear power far beyond the expectations of op- cost improvements. a study showed that nuclear plantstimnistic forecasters of recent years. In 1967 there for base-load operation could be built to compete withwere about 2900 MW of nuclear power in operation.' coal-fired plants using fuel costing as low as 18In 1966 alone, orders were placed for 23 ()00 MW cents. GJ.-in 29 separate nuclear units. In the first half of 1 967 The massive expansion program of nuclear plantsan additional 17 000 MW of capacity. representing 22 has brotight about repeated revisions of long-rangemore nuclear units, was ordered.S The result has been nLtclear capacity forecasts. The most recent authori-a spread of nuclear power over most areas of the tative prediction indicates that by 1980 there will beUnited States, except those regions with very low fuel 150 000 MW of installed nuclear capacity in thecost or sparse populations (Fig. I). United States.'A 'i By the year 2000 the U.S. Atomic

This accelerated growth rate is the direct result of Energy (ommission expects this figure to grow todecreasing costs of nuclear power over the past decade. 750 000 MW T: see Fig. 2. The cumulaltive ore re-This has greatly expanded the span of competition for quiremiients resulting from this capacity prediction are

FIGURE 1. Central-station nuclear installations in the United States and Puerto Rico (August 23, 1967).

Nuclear Generatinfg Capatcityit operation (18) 2900 MW(e)

APlannied andunder constructioni (48) 50000 MW (e)

TOTAL (66) 52 900 MW (e)

100 u:EE specftruml \ AkcI 1909

reactors in utility planningBreeder reactors are expected to play an in?creasiniglyimportant part in the overall energy getnerationi pictutre in theUnited States, particuilarly after the inid-1980s

shown in Fig. 3,7 Approximately 200 000 tonnes (200 able for about eight years to study long-range economicmillion kilograms) of Ufl, will have been required problems of utilities.:'"by 1980. To meet this large demand, the uranium The digital programs simulate system growth on amining industry has recently announced that it will week-by-week basis over time periods of 10 to 30spend collectively over S77 million by 1970 in ex- years. The computer programs automatically determineplorationi to increase known reserves substantially.5 future unit installation dates using probability mathe-Hence, it is reasonable to believe that nuclear growth matics to maintain system reliability to a specifiedwill continue as indicated by current predictions. criterion. They simulate realistic annual maintenance

As water reactors consume fissile uranium, a cer- schedules, operating rules covering spinning reserve,tain amount of fissile plutoniumil is produced. Of and the economic dispatch of generating units to meetcourse, this plutonium can be recycled into the water the simulated load in each week.reactors-but beyond 1980. with ever-larger amounts Each computer run evaluates the annual revenue re-of plutonium being produced. additional economic quirements and their present worth for a specific gen-benefits can be realized by the development of a com- eration expansion pattern.]" The revenue requirementsmercial high-gain fast breeder reactor. Utilizing plI- may not be the same each year. but it is possible totoniinu as fuel. this reactor creates a better market use a levelized equivalent. Table I is an illustrativefor plutoniunm produced by today's light-water reactors. example of the computation of levelized annual sav-

Besides producing more fissile material than it con- ings for a 35 percent breeder-65 percent water reactorsumes. the high-gain fast breeder operates at a much pattern compared with a base case. The present-worthhigher temperature. improving the thermal efficiency savings of S511.61 million can be levelized over theof the overall cycle. Today's light-water reactors con- 20-year study period by dividing the sumn of the present-vert approximately one percent of the latent energy worth factors for the period. The resulting $44.6 mil-of the fuel into thermal energy. With the breeder it lion savings each year of the study period is thenis possible to convert over 60 percent of the latent exactly equivalent to a larger single-payment present-energy of the fertile fuel into heat. With a breeding worth value at the beginning of the period. Use ofratio of 1.5. the amount of fissile material can bedoubled every ten years or less. enough to keep pacewith the growth of the U.S. utility load.

Economic study techniques FIGURE 3. Cumulative U 0 requirements.The economic justification for breeder reactor-s re-

qulires long-ra~nge projection of system load growthand plant isage. (-haracteristics of single units cannotbe comipared becaiuse of the influience of one uinit on 1600another in day-to-day plant usage and in long-ra ngeimipact on fuiel availability and price. Fortuinatelv. 1400digital computer simulattion programs have been avail- l

Z 1200

1000FIGURE 2. Forecast of installed nuclear generating ca-pacity for the United States.

Soo

600 600

a. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~400-, 400

200 -°] 20013I4>XW

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year Year

llllaidtIBthin. Worodlev--The ftituire role of lrevedler icarctots

equivalent levelized values permits comparison of ex- With digital simulation techniques, the use ofpansion alternatives on an economic basis. breeder reactors can be compared with the use ofA generation expansion pattern is a list of specific water reactors only, or with the use of fossil-fuel plants

future generating units, in desired order of installa- only, or with any mix of the three types. All importanttion, to be installed during the simulated growth. By parameters may be varied to study the sensitivity ofrepeating the growth simulation, each time with a the economic choice to fossil-fuel price, breeder capitaldifferent expansion pattern, the economic evaluation cost, nuclear-fuel price, and utility growth rate.for each alternative is determined. The alternativepattern with the lowest present worth of all future The system hypothesisrevenue requirements is the economic choice. The best way to study breeder-reactor economics isThe results of different expansion-pattern evalua- to examine the role of breeders on a power system in

tions are all represented as savings of various patterns which a significant percentage of the installed genera-over a base case. An all-fossil expansion pattern is tion is nuclear. Over the past two years, such a systeman appropriate base case in a study of the introduction has been studied. It has a present installed capacityof the first water reactors. In a breeder-reactor study, of 4000 MW and will have approximately 14 000 MWa logical base case is the optimum water-reactor installed by 1986, of which 35 percent will be nuclear.pattern that can be developed. Detailed characteristics of the system are given in

Table II, which reflects a load growth rate of 7 per-cent. Seasonal peak-load variations and weekly loadcurves are typical of those found on many U.S. sys-

1. Computation of levelized tems. The system has an annual load factor of 58annual savings, millions of dollars percent and a winter peak; however, the study results

Alternate would be unaffected by varying the time of peak.Base Case Pattern A 20-year study period was chosen, since this is(35% WR, (35% BR, the usual period used in U.S. studies. The base year65% F) 65% WR) was chosen to be 1986, which is estimated to be the

Generating plant first year that operation of large-scale commercial fastinvestment $1784.00 $1406.39 breeder reactors could have any significant impact.

Production expense 2974.00 2840.00breerecoscudhvan siifatim c.

Productiwonthexpense 297.0 24000New units are assumed to range in size from 1000

Prevenuewrequirements* 475to 3500 MW, typical for a 1986 power system of

revenue requirements* $4758.00 $4246.39 14 000 MW that grows to 50 000 MW by the twentiethSavings $511.61

year, 2005. Figure 4 shows the relative capital cost of(Savings) $511.61 fossil units, water reactors, and fast breeder reactors

Levelized annual savings = 20 11.4699 = $44.60 as a function of size. Table III shows operation and

I PWFn maintenance costs and full-load heat rates for thesen=1 same large units.

*These figures are present worth of revenue requirements for Forced outage rates and maintenance cycles are20 years of the study neriod. important parameters, since they determine the amount

IL. Existing 1986 systemFossil Gas Turbine Nuclear

Initial installed capacity, fossil base pattern, MW 13940 2600 0Initial installed capacity, nuclear base pattern, MW 9220 2600 4720

Number of units, fossil base pattern 72 17 0Number of units, nuclear base pattern 66 17 6

Average unit size, fossil base pattern, MW 194 153Average unit size, nuclear base pattern, MW 140 153 787

Maximum unit size, fossil base pattern, MW 950 200Maximum unit size, nuclear base pattern, MW 600 200 950

Full-load heat rate, fossil base pattern, kJ/kWh 9100-15 800 12650(Btu/ kWh) (8625-15 000) (12 000)

Full-load heat rate, nuclear base pattern, kJ/kWh 9270-15 800 12650 10900-10950(Btu/ kWh) (8800-15 000) (12 000) (10 350-10 400)

Fuel cost, cents/GJ 19-23.7 47.4 8.75-8.91*(cents! MBtu) (20-25) (50) (9.23-9.4*)

Forced outage rate, percent 5.0 1.0 5.0

Five-year maintenance cycle, weeks/year 3-3-4-3-3 0-0-1-0-0 3-3-4-3-3

1985 peak load: 13 351 MWLoad-growth rate: 7 percentLoad factor: 0:58* Does not include working capital for fuel inventory.

102 IEEE spectrum MARCH 1969

of reserve capacity and date of unit installations. For ffiEbase-load units (breeders, water reactors, and fossilplants) a five-ylear maintenance cycle of 3-3-4-3-3weeks per year including refueling time for nuclear 1 1tunits was uised. A 5 percent forced outage rate wasused for th ase-load tinits. Evidence to date suggests"that this rate is too high for nuclear uinits. buit it was pused as a conservative estiniate. The expansion pat-terns were supplied with somc peaking units. since ,ouir experience indicates that optimumn system develop-

7

ment usually requires their use. Gas turbines wereused with a forced outage rate of one percent and oneweek of maintenance every third year. 1400 1800 2200 2600 3000

Size, megawatts (electric)Expansion-pattern development FIGURE 4. Capital cost of generating plant, excludingAn unlimited number of expansion patterns might working capital for fuel inventory.

he devised to study breeder economics. However. care-futl selection of expansion patterns will point out theimportance of major parameters in breeder-reactoreconomics and the sensitivity to these parameters.Table IV shows a few, but not all, of the patterns. Ill. New-unit characteristicsThese are representative of the various mixes thatwere examined. In the first pattern shown in Table Fixed OperationIV. water reactors arc installedl in sutfcient capacitv and Maintenanceto maintain 35 percent water reactors. 65 percent fossil Costs, Full-Loadunits, which was the ratio of existing units on the Unit Sze, per year ka kWhsvstemi in 1986. In the second pattern shown, breederreactors are installed until thev reach 35 percent ofsystem capacity. Then water-rcactor installations are F W R F WRalternated with breeders to maintain the breeder par- 1000 0.710 0.960 1.160 9080 10900 8810ticipation at 35 percent for the remainder of the cx- 1500 0.830 1.100 1.320 8900 10 840 8700pansion. T'he third pattern installs breeders until 65 2500 0.985 1.315 1.580 87600 10 790 8590percent of the total capacity is achieved, and so forth. 3000 1.045 1.405 1.685 8500 10700 8440

3500 1.120 1.500 1.790 8350 10 680 8350ResultsTwo generalized studies of breeder reactor eco-

nomics have been performed on the foregoing systemdluring the past two years. The first assumed a rcla-tively low nuclear-power growth rate.'1 It conIcluLded IV. Base-load unit additionsthat with low-cost uranium. the optimumit expansion for typical expansion patternspattern called for growth %ithout limit in water re-actors but restricted breeder participation to 35 per-cent of peak load. 50% BR,The second stiudv compared high-gain breeders with Size, 35% WR, 35% BR, 65% BR, 20% WR,

low-gain breeders and steam breeders for the more Year MW 65% F 65% WR 35% WR 30% Frecent higher projections of nticleair power growth.'2It also examined the sensitivitv of the resultant level- 1986 1000 F BR BR BRizel annual savings to variations in fucl costs. A 1987 1100 WR BR BR BRpartial summary of significant resuilts is depictedl in 1988 1100 F BR BR BRFigs. 5 and 6. Figure 5 compares water-reactor-onlv 1989 1200 F BR BR BR

1990 1300 WR BR BR BRexpansions with an all-fossil plant expansion. Two 1991 1400 F BR BR BRfossil-fuel costs. 19 and 23.7 cents'(iJ. are examinel. 1992 1500 F WR BR BRThe results are shown in two ways. first as the present 1993 1600 WR BR BR BRworth for each pattern antd second as the cquivalent 1994 1700 F WR BR BR21)-vear levelizedl annual savings or penalty over the 1995 1800 F WR BR BRfossil-fuel pattern. 1996 1900 WR BR BR BR

The first coluimin represents the all-fossil-fuel base 1997 2100 F WR BR BRcase. The next group of four columns shows thait if 1998 2200 F WR BR FL!f() prices remalin below S22 per kilogram. the op- 1999 2400 WR BR BR BRtinLlil amiount of water reactors is the mnaximl1um11 2001 2700 F WR WR BRpossible. Gieneral inflation in the economy wotildL af- 2002 2900 WR BR BR WRfect both capital and fuel costs. This factor has not 2003 3100 F WR WR Fbeen considered because mnany economic studies have 2004 3300 F WR BR BRshown that general inflation usually does not affect the 2005 3500 WR BR BR WReconomiiic choice between aiternattives. However. if_

Dillard. Bal dwin. Woodkev---Thc ftutuic role of breeder reactors 103

WaterReactor

No Water FuelReactor Escalationi

All Fuel for 150 000Fossil Escalation MW (e) by 1980

Percent water- reactorI ~~~capacity -capacity 0 ~~~~2035 507 all 20 35T 50 al

6000 -

5000

4000 -

Present worth of future revenuerequirements, millions of dollars 3000r

2000-

1000 r-

0

150-

100

Levelized annual savings, millionsot dollars 51

0Base

50

B 6000

'5000

40S0 IPresent worth of future revenuerequirements, millions of dollars 3000 _

2000-

Iioo L . .0

150-

100 -Levelized annual savings, millionsof dollars

50

0 r Base

104 IEEE SpeCCtrUli MARClI 1969

FIGURE 5. Water-reactor sensitivity to fuel of' conclusions for fossil fuel costing 23.7 cents!(A.prices. A-Fossil-fuel cost = 19 cents/GJ (20 Of coursc. higher fossil-fuel cost assuLimption results incents/million Btu). B-Fossil-fuel cost = 23.7 higher savings for the water-reactor expansions.centsiGJ (25 cents/million Btu). Breeder reactor savings. Figure 6 illustrates the

additionail equivalent levelized savings that result fromincluding breeder reactors. Increasing ore costs were

fuel costs escalate because of supply-and-derimand con- again used along with the 23.7 cents/Cu coal assump-siderations, then a difference can exist in choosing tion for the results presented in the tipper half of Fig.alternatives. The remaining four columns show what 6. Results shown in the lower half assume 23.7 cents'would happen in the event that ore costs increase. GJ coal but no escalation of nuclear fuel cost. AWith escalating ore costs, the optimum water-reactor new base pattern. 35 percent water reactors, is used.capacity is substantially less than the maximuLIm pos- Thus the savings shown in Fig. 6 are savings attribuLtedsible. In fact, it comes out to be 35 percent for the to breeder reactors only. Another interesting resultperiod beyond 1986. shown by Fig. 6 is the relative lack of sensitivity ofThe lower half of Fig. S illustrates the samne set savings to the mix of units.

More recent study of this same system investigatesthe sensilivitv of the levelized annual system savingsto variations in the three most critical assumptions.These are load growth rate. hreeder capital costs. andthe value of plutonitiuim as a breeder-reactor fuel.

Percent breeder 35 35 1 6b 100 Sensitivity to load growth. One of the uncertaintiescapacit! in_ __ forecasting nuclear reactor economics after 1985

reactor capacity 355 is the growth rate of utility systemns at that time. S-s-Percenit water- 3i5 is th5 201 --' tem growth ma\ continue at something near the pies-

ent 7 percent. On the other hand. what would he thelefect if the system growth ralte is only 5 percent?!

Levelized arnniul 10iol FigLure 7 shows the effects of' growth rate on levelizedsavings, millions of aiinnual savingsfrtes'tmwt'""- r otdollars. with

s o h ytr ih esaaig r ot

fuel escalationi ind a coal cost of 23.7 cents (;J. Patterns examinedrepresent the 35 and -5o prciceiit high-gain blreeerparticipation. The patterns with high percentatges of

Bt.iSi- bree(ter unlits are nmore sensitike to load-growthi redILC-tion. as might be expectedl. However, the most impor-taint point is that hreeder reactors still otrer substan-

oovelized annual 100 tial savinlg's even if the growth falls to 5 percent.savings, millions ofdollars. with nofuel escalatioi D( )

Bast.

FIGURE 6. Economic advantages of high-gain breeder FIGURE 8. Capital-cost sensitivity for various high-reactor. gain breeder-reactor patterns.

FIGURE 7. Load-growth sensitivity.

Goagrwt.de n O O O

0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

Expansion pattern: 35%/ breeder 50%i breeder 13 14 15 165% fossil 20% water Breeder capital cost

30% fossil water-reactor capital cost

Ditliard, lHaltdwin. WVoodtcv-.-Thi. fulture rotc or ba-edter re;aemurs 105

2.5

2.0 e...\ 1

A601.5

4,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~5

H.iigh-igain brbpder0.5

0 I I I -~~~~~~~~~~g ~305 10 15 20 25 30

10cPlutonium value. dollars per gram >

20-~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~2

4,30

4 ~~~ ~~~~~1.52.0 2.5Sensitivity to capital cost. Figurc 4 showed the rela- liilowatthours. HowBreeder cycle plutonium value

0 60 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Water-cycleplutonium value

70 cost FIGURE 10. Sensitivity of plutonium value for varioushigh gain breeder patterns.

FIGURE 9. Effects of ore cost on total fuel-cycle costfor 1000-MW unit.

The breeder plant's atriaible fielucost coimponentdecreases with increasing value of pluhtoniumfo becauseexcess pLutoniue is produced as the plant generates

Sensitivity to capital cost. Figure 4 showed the rela- kilowatihours. However, as the plutonium becomestive capital cost aSSuMptions for fossil plants. water hore valuable, the cost of working capital to maintainreactors, and high-gain breeders. High-gain breeders the core inventory increases, and the fixed fuel-cycle-were asSbmed to cost 20 percent more than water reac- cost component increases more rapidly than the varia-tors. An imfportant sensitivity analysis examines varia- ble cost decreases. Hence, the total breeder fuell-ccletions in the capital cost of breeders. How mulch more cost as a fuinction Of pLutoniuM value has a small netcan ia breeder reactor cost thn a water reactor before positive slope, as shown in the upper half of Fig. 9.projected savingsfbro the fuel cycle vanish? Figure 8 This is contrasted to the large positive slope shownpresents the resuilts of stidies in which breeder plint for the water reactor's toil fuel-cycle costsnversuscapital costs were increased to the point where level- Plutoniuim value.ized annual savings are zero. Again, escalating ore costs The lower half of Fig. 9 shows that the plutoniumand the higher coal cost are used. The ctrves plottet value depends directll ipon the basic cost of natuiralrepresent breeder participation of 35. 50. and 100 uraniun orec (U.0T,) and the reactor characteristics.percent of all new base-load tunits added in the 20- The cost of separative work and the uniqune reactornear period beginning in 1986.ithe higher the per- fviel ccle determbine the position and slope of thesecentage participation. the faster the savings disappear ctrves. The figure also shows how the fuiel cost iswith increasing breeder capital costs. However, even afTected bv the value of plutoniuM in either anill-with expansion patterns employing all breeder uinits, thermail or in a nmixed thermial-breeder environmient.thos utnits could cost up to 64 percentmiiore than PlurtoniLur will generally be milorevalueable as breederswvater reactors and still be the economnic choice, anre introdupced tonse it. The curve assumes that the

Sensitivity to plutoniuin value. Perhaps the greaitest uise of breeders will increaise the VaJlue Of plutoniumuncertainty is the value of plutonium recycled throuIgh by 50 percent. The arrows indicate how the reactorbreeder reactors. Although plutonium has v-et to be fuLo-CCle costs are obtained in either environpent forintroduced as the fissile material to maintain the chain variations in basic ore cost. PreViOuSlV, it was assunedreaction in large commercial reactors, experimentail that the valute of pluitoniumil in a breeder-reactor cvclewvork has established a fair idea of its value as fuiel is I .5 timies its valueC in a water reactor, as plotted infor light-water reactors. However, the Val1Ue Of phI- the lower part of Fig. 9. The exact relationship be-toniLuml as fuiel in the breeder reaictor will be different tween ore cost and pILutoniumil value for the breederbecauise of better neuitron Utilization and better plant cycle depends on separative processes and charaicter-efliciency. istics of reactors yet to he designed and operated in

106 iiEEL s)cCtrurim MARCHI 1969

substantial numbers. For this reason, a sensitivity for 1968--69," Nutcleonics Week, vol. 8, Aug. 24, 1967.study was made of this relationship assuming escalat- 9. Dillard, J. K., and Baldwin, C. J., "System simulation,"ing ore costs and a coal cost of 23.7 cents/GJ. Westinghouse Engr., vol. 20, pp. 130-135, Sept. 1960.

10. Jeynes, P. H.. and Baldwin, C. J., "Financial concepts forFigure 10 shows the levelized annual savings for economic studies," Westinghouse Engr., vol. 24, pp. 8-47,

several breeder patterns for variations in the ratio of Mar. 1964.plutonium value in the two cycles. The plutonium 11. Nordman, D. A., Smith, E. E., and Wright, J. H.. "Ap-

plication of advanced nuclear reactors to utility systems."~value for the breeder cycle has been assumed to go presented at the American Nuclear Society Suimmer Meeting.as high as 3.0 times its value in a water cycle. Today's June 1966.realistic assumption is 1.5: but even at twice this 12. Wright. J. H., Smith, E. E.. and Nordman. D. A., "The

figure,substantial savings from breeders are still cvi- economic impact of breeder reactors on utility systems.-- Proc.figure, susata aig rmbedr r tl v- A in. Power ConI., 1967.dent. As the saturation of breeders in the pattern in-creases-for example, to 65 percent breeders-thesavings decrease at a faster rate as plutonium value J. K. Dillard (F) received the B.S.E.E. degree from thegoes up. This is because of the higher fixed cost of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the M. S. degreeplutonium inventory in the breeder reactors. Never- from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hetheless, the savings remain substantial for any realistic served on the staff of the Electrical Engineering Depart-ment at M.I.T. before joining Westinghouse in 1950. Hisassumption of plutonium value. first assignment was in the Electric Utility Engineering

One final comment is necessary on the sensitivity Department, where he dealt with system studies of surgestudy of plutonium value. The only type of breeder protection, transient phenomena, circuit analysis, andplant considered is the high-gain breeder with its high economic dispatch. As manager of the department since

1956, he is responsible for the engineering relationshipspecific power (1200 kW, thermal, per kilogram of of Westinghouse with electric power companies all overfissile material) and its short compound doubling time the world, and for technical(seven years). Previously, little economic advantage and economic investigations,was shown from low-gain and steam breeder reactors. looking 10 to 15 years into the

future. Major programs cur-which have lower specific powers and longer doubling rently under his direction in-times. Since these other breeder types have higher clude the Apple Grove EHVspecific inventories (kilograms of plutonium per mega- Test Project, involving trans-watt of electrical output), they would be much more mission voltages up to 750 kV;sensitive to increasing plutonium values, the Waltz Mill 1100-kV Project

on research in undergroundtransmission; and computer

Conclusion applications to power systems.Water reactors will continue to dominate nuclear

expansion into the 1980s. Nevertheless, the high-gain C. J. Baldwin (F) is an electrical engineering graduate ofthe University of Texas and M.I.T. He has been with thefast breeder holds the greatest long-term promise. Electric Utility Headquarters of Westinghouse since

The economic advantages of the breeder reactor are 1952. As a sponsor engineer he dealt with system engi-substantial; the capital cost of breeders can be over neering problems of utilities in the Ohio River Valley50 percent higher than water reactors and still be area. Later he headed a team that developed new tech-

econoic, reede-reator avantges ae no cx- niques for system planning by digital simulation. Sinceeconomic. Breeder-reactor advantages are not ex- then these methods have been applied by Westinghousetremely sensitive to utility growth rates; substantial to the planning problems of utilities representing 40savings still exist for growth rates even as low as 5 percent of the installed kilowatt capacity in the Unitedpercent. The relative cost of plutonium as fuel in the States. In 1961 he was cho-breeder compared with the water reactor can vary elescraengiansetnhenoutsdingyouna-greatly withoLut dlestroying the breeder's advantage. tion by Eta Kappa Nu. At West-

inghouse he is manager of

This article is based on a paper presentedi at the 1968 World developent, avancd sy fsPower Conference, heldi in Moscow. U.S.S.R., AUgList 20-24.p

tems technoiogy, and in thisThe original paper will appear in the proceedings of the con- cpct edrcscnutnference. copyright Soviet National Comminmee. work for utility customers and

development projects in gen-REFERENCES eration, transmission, and dis-

tribution system engineering.1. 1967 Supplement to the 1962 Report to the Presidenit onCivilian Nuclear Power, p. 23, Feb. 1967. N. H. Woodley (SM) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees2. Seaborg, G. T., "The new world," address presented at Rio in electrical engineering from Iowa State University,de Janieiro. Brazil. Juily 3. 1967. where he also taught courses in circuits and machines.3. Dillard, J. K., and Baldwin, C. J., "Economic development He also taught electronics for two years at the U.S. Armyof mine-mouth power plants. EHV transmission, and nuclear DensScolAdvlpm tegieravneds-generation in the United States," Paper 78, 1964 World Defense School. As development engineer, advanced sys-Power Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland. tems technology, at Westing-

4. Johnson, W. E., "Nuclear power and the Northwest." house,his responsibilities invremarks before the Washington Public Utility District's As- clud ethedevelopment ofsociation, Seattle, Wash., Dec. 8, 1966. digital computer techniques5. Seaborg, G. T., "Fast-breeder power reactors-a world out- for application to electric util-look," address presented at Montreal, Que., Canada, May 31. ity long-range generation plan-1967. ning. He is also active in6. Simpson, J. W., remarks at the 1966 Annual Meeting of developing digital simulationthe Association of Edison Illuminating Companies. methods for applications re-7. Lane, J. A., "Economics of nuclear power," U.S. Army lated to long-range distribu-Nuclear Science Seminar, Oak Ridge, Tenn., July 18 1967. tion system planning and re-

8. "Uranium drilling topping 1957 record; more in sight liability analysis.

Dillard, Baldwin. Woodley-The future role of breeder reactors 107