Archibald
Banned
Excuse my (limited) understanding of the history of civilian nuclear power.
I have that feeling that civilian nuclear energy history has been flawed from day one.
By three major events / trends
1- Nuclear weapons come first (1945) and the enormously expensive Manhattan project infrastructure shaped the future of the civilian spinoff
2- the dominance of solid-fuel, boiling / pressurized water reactors (BWR / PWR) because of Rickover submarines and Shippingport (1955).
It still last to this day.
And it is seriously flawed
- Spent uranium rods are a royal PITA that are cooled in pools for 30 years and then buried (La Hague)
- When the water cooling system goes belly-up, you end with a Fukushima (or a TMI).
3- The breeder folly (1960 - 1990).
Basically there was a (unrealistic) fear of a uranium 235 crisis someday, hence the plutonium economy was the future of nuclear power - hence breeder. A breeder is a nuclear reactor that can create a lot of plutonium from a limited supply of uranium. Breeders used a pretty scary combination of sodium and plutonium. France Superphoenix was a complete waste of money. Also Clinch River LMFBR. And Japan Monju. And of course Soviet Union loved them to.
I wish somebody could write the definite civilian atompunk ATL history where the all three things I mentions never happens. But that would take a POD in the very early 20th century, and no WWII.
I wonder what kind of alternate nuclear reactor would have dominated the civilian nuclear world without Manhattan, Rickover and the Breeder race.
There are plenty of designs that are far better than BWR / PWR.
I'm not able to write such TL (I'm an aerospace buff, not an atompunk geek) but I'm willing to discuss it.
what do you think ?
I have that feeling that civilian nuclear energy history has been flawed from day one.
By three major events / trends
1- Nuclear weapons come first (1945) and the enormously expensive Manhattan project infrastructure shaped the future of the civilian spinoff
2- the dominance of solid-fuel, boiling / pressurized water reactors (BWR / PWR) because of Rickover submarines and Shippingport (1955).
It still last to this day.
And it is seriously flawed
- Spent uranium rods are a royal PITA that are cooled in pools for 30 years and then buried (La Hague)
- When the water cooling system goes belly-up, you end with a Fukushima (or a TMI).
3- The breeder folly (1960 - 1990).
Basically there was a (unrealistic) fear of a uranium 235 crisis someday, hence the plutonium economy was the future of nuclear power - hence breeder. A breeder is a nuclear reactor that can create a lot of plutonium from a limited supply of uranium. Breeders used a pretty scary combination of sodium and plutonium. France Superphoenix was a complete waste of money. Also Clinch River LMFBR. And Japan Monju. And of course Soviet Union loved them to.
I wish somebody could write the definite civilian atompunk ATL history where the all three things I mentions never happens. But that would take a POD in the very early 20th century, and no WWII.
I wonder what kind of alternate nuclear reactor would have dominated the civilian nuclear world without Manhattan, Rickover and the Breeder race.
There are plenty of designs that are far better than BWR / PWR.
I'm not able to write such TL (I'm an aerospace buff, not an atompunk geek) but I'm willing to discuss it.
what do you think ?