This is based off a post I made
here.
An
aqueous homogeneous reactor is an interesting design for a nuclear reactor. They can operate using materials that wouldn't have been too difficult to acquire in the 1900s, with heavy water versions capable of using uranium salts, including
uranium sulfate, a byproduct of uranium mining, and
uranyl nitrate, a material commonly used in early photography, and still listed in the order catalogs for Kodak and other photographic corporations in the 1930s. The heavy water AHR has the lowest fissile material requirement of any nuclear reactor, and AHRs are considered the safest nuclear reactor design.
Given the overlap in timeframes, it seems possible that an early nuclear scientist could have had access to both uranyl nitrate and heavy water at the same time. If the two materials had then come into contact in large enough quantities, a nuclear reaction would have resulted. In fact, a uranyl nitrate AHR, HYPO, was built as part of the Manhattan Project. Notably, it gave off bubbles from the
radiolysis of water, which led to HYPO and its predecessor LOPO being given the nickname "water boilers", and offering a clue that something interesting was taking place to the discoverer of nuclear reactors.
Apart from the nature of its creation, there are a few other issues with AHR reactors. Given its serendipitous discovery, radiation might be an issue with the first reactor. Also, AHR designs in general have an issue with corrosion, and it was common for them to use exotic materials - even gold - to prevent this problem.
If AHR reactors are built and become a common tool among early nuclear scientists, they have far more potential uses than simply laboratory tools. AHR designs were considered for use as power generating or breeder reactors at various points, but weren't adopted outside of experimental roles. Of course, if they predate other designs they might find a niche for themselves as a potential way to generate fissile materials, at least for early atomic programs. Also, it's possible that if the AHR had been popular as a laboratory device, the
molten salt reactor might have been theorized earlier, and perhaps have become the standard for the nuclear industry. One reason why the MSR failed to catch on was because boiler and later turbine technologies were far more developed than nuclear salts. If the AHR was first, it might be the other way around, especially since new infrastructure would be required to build the water and gas cooled designs.
So, how plausible is it for the AHR to be a serendipitous discovery in the 1930s, especially before the discovery of nuclear fission? Could they have gone on to shape early nuclear physics, weapons, and energy research, perhaps laying the groundwork for nuclear salt technology to have dominated the nuclear industry?