Atomic Energy of Limited

CANADIAN POWER REACTOR PROGRAM- PRESENT AND FUTURE

by

E.C.W. PERRYMAN

Presented at the 27th Annual Congress of the Canadian Association of Physicists, , Alberta, on 27 June 1972

Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, September 1972 AECL-4265 CAI" ADIAN POWER REACTOR PROGRAM - PRESENT A. .D FUTURE1

by

E.C.W. Perryman

ABSTRACT

A brief historical review of the Canadian Power Reactor Program is given, covering heavy-water moderated reactors cooled with , light water and organic liquid. The experience obtained from NPD and Douglas Point is discussed in relation to the first year's successful operation of the Pickering Station. Future improvements and trends in the CANDU family of reactors are described.

1 This talk was presented at the 27th Annual Congress of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Edmonton, Alberta, on 27 June 1972.

Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario September 1972

AECL-4265 Programme canadien des reacteuirs de puissance — Le present et l'avenir1

par

E.C.W. Perryman

Resume

On passe brievement en revue le programme canadien des reacteurs moderes par eau lourde dont le caloporteur est de l'eau lourde, de l'eau legere ou un liquide organique. L'experience acquise grace a NPD et a Douglas Point est commentee a la lumiere du foncttonnement initial heureux de la centrale nucleaire Pickering. Les ameliorations futures et les tendances de la filiere CANDU sont decites.

'Cette conference a ete presentee lors du XXVIIe Congres annuel de 1'Association canadienne des physicien.% tenu a Edmonton, Alberta, !e 27 juin 1972.

L'Energie Atomique du Canada, Limitee Laboratoires Nucleaires de Chalk River Chalk River, Ontario septembre 1972

AECL-4265 INTRODUCTION

Nuclear power is no longer a curiosity; it has now ment. Other countries recognize this by their seeking reached a fully commercial stage in Canada and the technical and commercial agreements with us. At the rest of the world. In the world today, excluding the present time AECL has agreements with the USA, USSR, there is a total of 25,217 MWe operating. By UK, France, Italy, Japan and India, so we are not 1990 the installed capacity is estimated to be working in the world alone. In the next twenty-Five 1,300,000 MWe of which 80% will be in the Western minutes I will attempt to show you that nuclear World. The breakdown of today's operating power power in Canada has reached the commercial stage, reactors between countries is shown in Table 1, from give you some idea as to what technical areas warrant which you will see that Canada is in fourth place and further work and discuss other reactor concepts based very close to France. on the Canada Deuterium (CANDU) family of reactors. TABLE 1 - OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER IN THE WORLD EXCLUDING USSR, APRIL 1972 (MWe)

USA 9526 UK 6132 France 2278 Canada 2115 Japan 121.3 30000 - W. Germany 906 Switzerland 728 Italy 635 Spain 620 Sweden 472 India 400 20QQO - Pakistan 137

Total 25 m

Canada's installed nuclear capacity is estimated to I00OO - grow rapidly over the next 20 years (Fig. 1) reaching 35,000 MWe by 1990. To supply this capacity Canadian utilities will spend $3.5 billion for equip, ment, $1.5 billion to install and house the equipment, and $1.5 billion for heavy water. Annual expenditure 2000 - for the at that time is estimated to be 1970 about $200 million, which is to be compared 7/ith an estimated $840 million per year if this power were produced from fossil fuel. Figure 1 — Estimated growth of Canada's nuclear This I think is sufficient to show you that Canada power capacity. is in the forefront of nuclear power reactor develop-

-1- STEAM TO TURBINE STEAM STEAM/WATER MIXTURE

FUEL

HEAVY WATER MODERATOR PHW BLW (Pressurized Heavy-Water) (Boiling Light-Water) (Organic-Cooled Roactor)

Figure 2 - Schematics of CANDU-PHW, -BLW, and -OCR.

TABLEZ-CANDU A FAMILY OF REACTOR CONCEPTS costs {about half that of the USA light-water reactors), the largest amount of power per unit mass of uranium ore of any reactor in the world, and a larger plutonium production rate than any other DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS thermal reactor, which is why sometimes CANDU is called an advanced converter. What this all means is 1) Heavy-water moderation that the CANDU reactor system is the most efficient supplier and user of of all reactor systems. Fuel economy — freedom to use The materials of construction for the three reactors Spreads out fuel — allows pressure tubes are the same and only in the case of the organic- cooled reactor is the fuel different. Thus our research 2) Pressure tubes of economic material and development program is in the main relevant to Ease of proof testing all three reactor types, which has given us the Ease of scale-up possibility of developing these three types with a Allows evolutionary improvemenls minimum of research and development.

3) Oil-power fuelling OPERATING EXPERIENCE

MEMBERS OF FAMILY CHARACTERIZED BY COOLANT Table 3 gives the CANDU power reactors that are either operating or under construction. To give you PHW -• Pressurized heavy-water coolant some feel for the size of this program I would remind BLW - Boiling light-water coolant you that the Canadian share of the St. Lawrence OCR — Organic-cooled reactor Seaway power development is 1000 MWe and that the 1700 MWe of nuclear power now operating in Ontario is about 14% of the system. Before doing this, I should first remind you of the CANDU reactor concept and how it can be consi- The Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD, 25 dered as a family of reactors, each reactor being MWe) reactor came into operation in 1962 and distinguished by the type of coolant used to take the Douglas Point (200 MWe) was committed and heat away from the fuel. Table 2 and Figure 2 show designed before any real experience was obtained the different characteristics of the three reactor from NPD. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that types. The important thing to note is that the Douglas Point ran into some difficulties. However, dominant factor in the CANDU family has always the operation of Douglas Point has not been very been neutron economy, which is reflected in low fuel different from many other prototype nuclear power

-2- plants in the world; at least half of the unreliability example, last winter it achieved a capacity factor of was associated with standard power station com- 80%; that is, it produced 80% of the design power ponents such as valves, seals, heat exchangers, output. It is now shut down for maintenance and its turbines, and generators. Although difficulty was heavy water is being used at Pickering. During this experienced with the fueling machines initially, these shutdown a number of major maintenance jobs will difficulties have been overcome and on-power fueling be done including some reblading of the turbines, is now a routine operation. The important points which has accounted for a loss of 8% capacity over learned from Douglas Point were as follows: the last few years. When it starts up again in the fall we expect it to operate as a very reliable source of

TABLE is- CANADIAN POWER REACTORS - OPERATING OR UNDER steam, which will be used for heating in the Bruce CONSTRUCTION heavy-water production plant. When the design of the 2000 K,ie Pickering

Type MWe Name Start-up station began in 1965 we had three years' experience from NPD but nothing from Douglas Point. However,

BHW 22 NPD Rolphlon 1962 sufficient experience had been gained to show how PHW 208 Douglas Point 1967 major improvements could be made. For example, PHW 125 KANUPP 1971 the light-water systems were better segregated from PHW 508 Pickei:is-1 1971 the heavy-water systems, the number of valves and BLW 250 GentiUy 1971 mechanical joints were reduced, and air driers were PHW 508 Pickerlng-2 1971 PHW 203 RAPP-1 1972 included, all of which were expected to lead to lower PHW 508 Pickering-3 1972 heavy-water upkeep costs. The fueling machine had PHW 508 Pickering-4 1973 to be redesigned because the pressure tube size for PHW 203 RAPP-2 1974 Pickering was increased to 4.07 inches from the 3.25 PHW 750 Bruce-1 1976 inches used in NPD and Douglas Point. These may PHW 750 Bmce-2 1977 sound like minor changes to a scientific community, PHW 750 Bruce-3 1978 but in fact are very major when you are confronted PHW 750 Bruce4 1979 with demonstrating high reliability of operation.

TABLE 4 - CAPACITY FACTOR FOR PICKERING UNITS 1-3,3 UNITS, EACH 540 MWe

1) the necessity to design reactor buildings for complete recovery of the heavy water that has escaped from the primary heat-transport circuit;

2) to avoid a congested plant layout to provide easier February Critically - - Miy 42 - - Ffcit full po»er maintenance; Miy30 3) to separate heavy-water and light-water circuits to June 42 - - July 91.8 - - ttldeclued avoid downgrading of heavy water escaping from "In Mrvke" the primary heat-transport circuit; August 56.1 - - September B8.B CritlcaUly - 4) to develop improved valves, especially control October 71.8 November 98.8 65.8 - Fint full power valves, to reduce heavy-water leakage; Nov. 7 December 83.2 100.3 - fttdecUred 5) zirconium-clad VO2 fuel is subject fo failure when "taienrice" the power rating is increased after the cladding has 1912 been damaged due to neutron radiation; Juiuary 74.5 80.6 - Februtiy 09.2 78.5 - 6) a more corrosion-resistant material than Monel Hucb 90.B 80.6 - should be used to give lower radiation fields; April 97.6 99.4 Crilkillly M.y Flnt full potnr Hay 12 7) more emphasis should be given to improving the June #3dedind reliability of standard engineering components "unerriai" such as valves, seals, steam generators, turbines, etc. In February 1971, Canada's first commercial size In spite of the difficulties experienced at Douglas 540 MWe unit at Pickering went critical and within Point, it has been a reliable source of power; for three months had reached full power, a very notable

-3- achievement. The second 540 MWe unit reached full because it showed promise of lower capital and total power on November 7, 1971, two months after unit energy costs. In addition, the use of light water criticality and the third 540 MWe unit reached full in the high pressure, high temperature, coolant power on May 12, 1972, eighteen days after criti- system would eradicate the heavy-water leakage cality. The fourth unit is scheduled for operation in problem. Boiling of the coolant allowed natural July 1973. The capacity factors for the three uranium fuel to be used and increased the net station operating units shown in Table 4 demonstrate the efficiency. At the outset it was recognized that the excellent performance obtained so far. The heavy- reactor would have a positive void coefficient of water upkeep cost has been below the design figure, reactivity, i.e., as the density of the coolant (see Figure 3). This cost has two components: that decreased, more reactivity would be produced and due to total loss and that associated with the cost of hence more power. Such changes in density can be upgrading the recovered water. The total loss figure produced by perturbations in pressure, temperature, for each uf the reactor units is about 0.2 kg/h from a flow rate and . Thus from the outset we system containing a total of about 5 x 10s kg of recognized that the control of reactor power might be heavy water. The on-power fueling machines have more difficult and that is why a prototype reactor been fc fought into operation smoothly on units 1 and was necessary. The commissioning of this reactor has 2, and changing fuel under full power is now a been intentionally very slow because we wanted to routine operation. No other power reactors in the carry out many measurements to be sure we under- world have achieved this. Although on-power fueling stood the reactor characteristics affecting operation. was introduced originally to give higher fuel burnup, As with our other prototype reactors, we have had it wili, I believe, in time give many other advantages. many hardware problems, especially with the turbine. The reactor reached full power on May 18th and is Up to May 31, 1972, the Pickering station has operating smoothly. The construction of this reactor 9 produced 6.5 x 10 kWh of electricity, the equivalent went very smoothly and was built to a very tight 6 of burning 2.4 x 10 tons of coal at a total fuel cost four-year schedule. This experience has shown us that 6 saving of $24.0 x 10 . the construction time for this type of reactor can be about 6 months shorter than a CANDU-PHW (pres- BOILING LIGHT-WATER CANDU surized heavy-water) reactor, which in these days of high interest rates is very significant. Reducing the The 250 MWe Gentilly prototype was built

MATURITY TARGET

2 | 06 UWT1 UNIT 7

1971 I9« Figure 3 — Trends in heavy-water upkeep cost for Pickering units 1 and 2 (3 month average), June 5,1972.

A construction time for a 750 MWe power reactor by warrant further development. about 10% means a saving of about 2% in capital cost. FUTURE REACTOR DEVELOPMENT ORGANIC-COOLED CANDU All CANDU reactors discussed so far are designed One of the more advanced ideas associated with to burn natural uranium and the fuel design has been heavy-water reactors is to use oil (Terpnenyl) instead such that sufficiently low fabrication costs have IKWII of water, as the fluid to take the heat away from the achieved to give the lowest fueling cost of any nuciear fuel. Because such organic coolants can be operated power reactor in the world. The fueling cost achieved. at some 100°C higher temperature than water and at 0.7 mills/kWh, is less than half that of the USA a lower pressure, improved steam conditions at the light-water reactors and we have assumed no value lor turbine can be obtained and hence higher net station the plutonium contained within the discharged fuel. efficiency. A power reactor based on this coolant would be similar to the other two reactor types With the presently predicted nuclear power discussed, the major difference being in the operating requirements for Canada, we will have by 19ts{) about temperature of the fuel cladding and pressure tubes. 7600 kg of plutonium existing in discharged fuel and To operate such a reactor with a natural uranium fuel in the same year the plutonium production rale will cycle will necessitate using a fuel such as uranium be about 1600 kg/year. The economic value of (his carbide or uranium metal, both of which have higher plutonium is most uncertain; it will lie between the densities than . lowest value defined by the cost of separating the- plutonium from the fuel and the maximum valur For the past six years we have been operating a which a given reactor system can afford to pay for test reactor of this type at our Whiteshell Nuclear mixed uranium oxide and plutonium oxide fuel Research Establishment in . This reactor is elements. moderated with heavy water contained in a stainless steel calandria similar to all the CANDU power The possible options for the disposal of this reactors. Originally the reactor was built with stain- plutonium are as follows: less steel pressure tubes but as a result of research and 1) se!l the discharged fuel; development over the last three to four years we have 2) reprocess the discharged fuel and sell the found how to control the coolant chemistry so that separated piutonium; zirconium alloy pressure tubes can be used. The 1 stainess steel pressure tubes have now been removed 3) rep-ocess the discharged fuel and us? tut and replaced by zirconium alloy tubes. The coolant pluionium in our operating reactors or in operates at a temperature and pressure similar to that reactors designel to burn it most efficiently. which would be used in a power reactor. Thus, apart The fast-reactor people state that they can afford from the fact that WR-1 produces no electricity, the to bum plutonium at S20/g. Our own slarr at moderator and heat-transport circuits are fully repre- Whiteshell are saying that using the amine process for sentative of a power reactor. reprocessing, they can recover the piutonium at $6/6. Thus if the market allows, we could obtain a net of The most important fact that has been learned $14/g which would mean that our fuel cost for a from the operation of WR-1 is that there is very little CANDU-PHW would be very close to zerc. This is transport of radioactive material in the primary unlikely to happen because those countries deve- heat-transport system. Indeed, the radiation fields in loping the fast reactor will ensure that they install in the primary heat-excbfinger room are low enough to their power system the mix of thermal and fas! allow a man to work in this environment all day reactors that will ensure that they are independent or without exceeding his allowable exposure, and outside sources for their plutonium requirements. contact maintenance is possible. This is orders of There could, however, be a few years when they magnitude different from the water-oooied reactor would have to buy from an outside source. case, and certainly is a large economic advantage for this type of reactor by virtue of easier maintenance. Over the last two years we have been investigating the third option, namely, how we can best use the A design study for a 500 MWe OCR (organic- Plutonium in CANDU reactors. We have addressed cooled reactor) fueled with natural uranium carbide is ourselves to the following questions: now underway and due for completion by the end of 1972. This will enable us to determine whether the 1) How can we best use plutonium to reduce the economic advantages of the OCR are large enough to capital cost of the CANDU reactor?

-5- 2) In what form should the plutonium be used? reactors would provide enough plutonium to support the installation of about 19,000 MWe of this enriched Both these questions are extremely complicated, and BLW type. Another consequence would be that the in the time available I can only give you a short natural-uranium requirements for this 24,000 MWe of summary of the results of our study. PHW reactors plus plutonium-enriched BLW reactors First we compared CANDU-PHW and CANDU- would be about 60% of that for 24,000 MWe BLW (boiling light-water)designs optimized for composed only of natural CANDU reactors. burning U02—PuO2 fuel. This showed that the At present Canada is the only country committed CANDU-BLW reactor gave the best economics, or to a national program of power reactors based on putting it another way, we can afford to pay more for heavy-water moderation and pressure tubes. In fact plutonium when burnt in a BLW than when burnt in we are one of the few countries with a national a PHW. Our studies were then extended to optimizing program left. The UK has a 100 MWe prototype the plutonium-burning BLW and we found that a operating, the SGHWR (steam-generated heavy-water reactor having a capital cost some 20% lower than a reactor), which is similar to the plutonium-enriehed natural PHW and a total unit energy cost (TUEC) BLW that I have been discussing except that they use some 11% lower may be possible. Such a reactor U-235 enriched fuel. Although the UK power reactor would have the same physical size as Gentilly but program has so far been confined to graphite- would produce three times as much power. Unlike a moderated gas-cooled reactors, it appears likely that natural-uranium reactor, this enriched design would they may change to some other type for their next be undnrmoderated; that is the moderator-to-coolant commitment. Their experience with the SGHWR has ratio would be considerably lower than for a natural- been very good and it is possible that they may uranium reactor. This would be achieved by spacing convert to this type. If they do so, then Canada will the pressure tubes closer together and increasing the be in a strong position through our agreement with calandria tube diameter. The reactor would have a the UK and furthermore this could act as a strong higher power density, which our heat-transfer and influence on France, Italy and Japan who are all fuel-development work indicates is possible. The either studying or constructing small reactors of the capital cost savings arise from: enriched BLW type. Our agreements with all these 1) fewer fuel channels; countries have allowed us not only to obtain valuable information but also to influence their programs. 2) smaller calandria; 3) no heat exchanger; CANDU FLEXIBILITY 4) reduced pumping power; A reactor fueled with U-235 enriched fuel is 5) lower heavy-water inventory; considerably more affected by the cost of uranium 6) only one fueling machine; than the natural-fueled CANDU reactor. Thus, should 7) shorter construction time. the price of uranium double, the fueling cost for the CANDU-PHW would increase from 0.7 mill/kWh to Earlier I stated that a natural uranium CANDU- 0.9 mill/kWh, whereas the fueling cost for the BLW such as Gentilly has a positive void coefficient USA-type light-water reactor would increase from 1.5 which makes control more difficult. This coefficient mills/kWh to 1.9 mills/kWh, i.e., twice the increase. If is a strong function of the moderator-to-coolant ratio the cost of uranium became prohibitive, we are in the and as this decreases, the void coefficient becomes fortunate position of being able to burn thorium, of less positive. The plutonium-burning reactor design which there is a great abundance. In this case the fuel that I have been speaking of should have an almost could be thorium mixed with a small amount of zero coefficient and therefore should be much easier U-235 or Pu to provide the neutrons to convert to control. Th-232 to U-233. This thorium fuel would be This enriched reactor can be designed to be reprocessed to recover the fissile U-233 which would self-sufficient in plutonium; the plutonium for the in turn be made into fuel for subsequent burning. The first fuel charge would come from inventory but characteristics of CANDU reactors operating on a during operation as much plutonium would be thorium fuel cycle, together with the great abundance produced as would be burnt. A 750 MWe reactor of of thorium, are such that low-cost power could be this design would need 500 kg of plutonium and one supplied to meet all the world's needs for hundreds of can easily show that 5000 MWe of natural CANDU centuries.

-6- You may ask why Canada is not undertaking work our research and development effort on valves, seals, on the fast breeder reactor that the US, UK, France heat-exchangers, quality control, and non-destructive and the USSR are putting so much effort on. First, testing. Economic gains can be obtained from more the CANDU fuel cost today is about the same as the creep-resistant zirconium alloys to lower the wall fuel cost expected in fast reactors. Therefore any thickness of the pressure tube and increase the fuel economic advantage that the fast reactor has must be burnup and hence decrease fuel costs. in capital cost. The proponents of fast reactors maintain that this will be so .because of the much Another factor which creates new research and higher power density and hence smaller size of development problems is increasing plant, size. The reactor core. However, the cost of the nuclear steam specific capital cost of a plant decreases with raising equipment represents only about 30% of the increasing size, but available evidence suggests that total capital cost of a so that the station reliability also decreases. This arises from the fast reactor nuclear steam raising equipment will have increasing size of components and an insufficient to be very much cheaper. Considering the difficulties technological base from whinh to extrapolate. An of handling liquid sodium and the necessity of having example of this is that the main coolant pumps for a twice as many heat exchangers to avoid the possi- Bruce reactor consume more electrical power than bility of a reaction between radioactive sodium and NPD produces. In order to maintain our position water, it seems rather unlikely that significantly lower there is a great deal of work still to be done although capital costs will be achieved. The most optimistic most of it is associated with improved hardware predictions place the commercialization date for fast rather than sophisticated nuclear physics. There are, reactors at 1985 and it will probably be more like however, plenty of probems associated with irra- 1990. Through our agreement with the USA we are diation damage in solids that should interest the able to obtain all the information being generated in solid-state physicist. their fast reactor development program. Thus we are The more advanced reactor types that I have in a strong position to watch fast reactor progress and discussed do demand some new research and develop- should fast reactor development be desireable, then ment such as plutonium fuel fabrication, the physics we will be able to jump at the appropriate time. of plutonium cores, heat transfer and fluid dynamics in two-phase coolant, zirconium fuel cladding alloys that will operate at higher temperatures, and fuel RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT management physics. Having seen the results from Pickering, you may Canada's relatively small research and development well ask what further research and development is expenditure on nuclear power has so far paid off there to do. Firstly, for the PHW reactors, there are handsomely and we must ensure that we do not lose evolutionary improvements to make. For example, the position we have been able to reach in this economic gains can be made by allowing the heavy- competitive world. water coolant to boil. NPD has operated in the boiling mode for a year or so and no significant NUCLEAR INDUSTRY difficulty has been experienced. Improved fuel can always be used whether this be an improved design of New technology must bring in its wake industrial zirconium-ciad uranium dioxide fuel delivering more growth. From the outset we have endeavoured to heat per unit length or whether it be a uranium alloy work closely with industry and, wherever possible, such as U—Si—Al, which has a higher uranium density have encouraged them in contract research and and hence will give lower fueling costs because of development so that when the market appeared the higher burnup and lower fabrication costs. Consi- respective industry would have the technological base derably more work is needed to provide a techno- necessary to provide a reliable product. The fact that logical base so that we can predict how radiation the Pickering Generating Station nuclear steam fields will increase with time and how they will be supply system has 80% Canadian content testifies distributed through the plant. This is a very complex that we have been reasonably successful. process involving the transport and deposition of The nuclear fuel industry was brought into being corrosion products. For a reactor such as Pickering, by inviting two companies to attach staff to Chalk shutdown time is worth about $3,000/h; thus very River to participate in the fuel development program. high reliability of mechnaical components must be After a few years they returned to their home bases achieved. Many components do not have this high and became the nucleus of the technology team in reliability and we have found it necessary to increase the fuel companies. During this time we bought our

-7- experimental fuel from these companies and sup- course be a large number of new jobs becoming ported research and development work in their available within the utilities. The new jobs arising for laboratories. This program started in 1957 and even professional employees will certainly be interesting today, some 13 years later, the fuel sales are hardly and challenging, but are unlikely to be in very large enough to support a viable research and develop- sophisticated fields that you might like to see. ment effort. However, yearly fuel sales are now Although all levels of research are mandatory for the increasing rapidly, as shown in Figure 4. This also successful development of a new technology, it is shows the number of new jobs that will be appearing. essential that these different levels interact together In dollar terms the fuel sales will be about $15 M/yr and keep thier eyes on the objective. If this is done, in 1975, climbing to $200 M in 1990. you will find that being part of the mission accom- plished will provide you with a great deal of ^ 200 satisfaction and pride.

4000 TABLE 5 - COMPARISON OF FUEL EXPERIENCE / M$ CANDU BWRa PWRa TONNES U

100 Bundles 31,800 7,800 3,300

2000 / Elements 700,000 380,000 670,000

Weight 540 1,530 1,400 or JOBS (tonnes U)

°BWR — boiling-water reactor; PWR — pressutized-water reactor 1970 1980 1990 Figure 4 — Canadian Annual Fuel Production

We are very proud of our fuel industry since, as stated earlier, our fabrication cost is the lowest in the world. We believe this is due entirely to the simplicity of the design and the use of short, 2-foot long, fuel bundles. All the USA light-water reactors use bundles about 10 feet long, weighing almost 500 kg against our 20 kg. Table 5 shows the amount of nuclear fuel

made to date for CANDU reactors and the USA 1 iOD light-vater reactors. It is very clear that although the EXPENDITURES, USA has produced more weight of fuel, the design of $ million 1200 the CANDU fuel has allowed us to exceed them in terms of mass production parameters, thus allowing us to achieve a low fuel fabrication cost quickly. Another important factor is that the production of such fuel can be achieved in a single plant with a relatively low capital investment. To achieve the present production rate of 200 tons/yr, about $6 M has been invested in the plant. Figure 5 shows the cumulative expenditure on many other components required for the CANDU reactors that are predicted for the future. What does IP72 1974 1976 1970 1930 19B2 1984 1986 196B 1990 all this mean in terms of new jobs for the manu- facturing industry? At present there are about 1500 Figure 5 — Cumulative expenditures in Canadian people employed in industry to produce those items nuclear industry, by sections. (J. Howieson, The shown in Figure 5. This is expected to climb to 2500 Canadian Nuclear Industry, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. in 1980 and 3300 in 1990. The number of profes- Peaceful Uses Atomic Energy. United Nations, Paper sional employees is now about 450, climbing to 700 A/CONF/49/P/155; also Atomic Energy of Canada and 950 in 1980 and 1990 respectively. There will of Limited Report AECL-3978.)

-8- CONCLUSIONS I hope that I have given you some feel for the state of nuclear power in Canada today and how it is likely to proceed over the next decade or so. Furthermore, I hope that I have been able to convey to you some idea of the excitement that those of us who have been lucky enough to work in the nuclear power field have obtained. This excitement is made even more profound when one considers the impact that the CANDU reactor could have on developing countries. For such countries it is ideal, since it uses indigenous fuel without expensive isotope separation plants and it is constructed from small modules so that the country in question can easily grow its own industry to provide the necessary hardware. Figure 6 shows phase I of our mission completed, and now we must avoid the mistake of resting on our laurels and thinking our work is completed but must push on to the completion of phase II — even more reliable and cheaper nuclear power stations.

Figure 6 — Pickering Generating Station.

-9- Additional copies of this document may be obtained from Scientific Document Distribution Office Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Chalk River, Ontario, Canada

Price - 50< per copy

2254-72