Delta Force
- 81
- 7
Does anyone know how Hyman Rickover decided to prioritize pressurized light water reactor technology in the 1940s when there were so many technologies to choose from?
Hyman Rickover prioritized pressurized light water reactor (PWR) technology for naval propulsion in the 1940s due to its proven effectiveness in submarines, despite safety concerns. Alternative technologies, such as sodium-cooled reactors and heavy water reactors, were explored but faced significant challenges, including material incompatibilities and operational limitations. The decision was influenced by the limited availability of suitable nuclear technologies at the time, with most major reactor concepts developed during the Manhattan Project. The U.S. Navy has since operated over 6,200 reactor years without a radiological accident, underscoring the reliability of PWR technology.
PREREQUISITESNuclear engineers, naval architects, historians of technology, and anyone interested in the evolution of nuclear propulsion systems in the U.S. Navy.
There were not 'so many technologies' available for nuclear power or propulsion in the 1940s. Many alternative nuclear technologies were explored in the 1950s, and many technologies are not suitable for power reactors.Delta Force said:Does anyone know how Hyman Rickover decided to prioritize pressurized light water reactor technology in the 1940s when there were so many technologies to choose from?
jedishrfu said:And another closer to your question:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...but-because-it-worked-on-navy-submarines.html
because it works on a sub not because its safe -- kind of disturbing to think about
...
Our basic organization, responsibilities, and, most important,
our core values have remained largely unchanged since Admiral
Rickover founded NR. These core values that I've discussed
today are the foundation that have allowed our nuclear-powered
ships to safely steam more than 128 million miles, equivalent to
over 5,000 trips around the Earth . . . without a reactor
accident . . . indeed, with no measurable negative impact on the
environment or human health.
ref: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/testimony/safety/bowman031029.txt
Astronuc said:There were not 'so many technologies' available for nuclear power or propulsion in the 1940s. Many alternative nuclear technologies were explored in the 1950s, and many technologies are not suitable for power reactors.
There was one trial for a sodium power reactor in the submarine, Seawolf, SSN-575.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575)
See the section on comparing to Nautilus. There was the basic incompatibility of sodium and water in the heat exchanger, when pipes cracked. There was the matter of activated Na-24, which has a short half-life and produces an energetic gamma ray (1.369 MeV). That lead to a problem of Cerenkov radiation in the seawater nearest the reactor and primary cooling system.
jedishrfu said:Here's an Atlantic article on the design and construction of the reactor and the reasons things were done the way they were done:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1959/01/admiral-rickovers-gamble/308436/
Please provide a reference or source to substantiate that claim.Delta Force said:All the major nuclear reactor technologies with the exception of molten salt were conceived at Argonne during the Manhattan Project, although they weren't necessarily constructed and tested by the time Rickover had to make his decision.
On July 1, 1946, the laboratory was formally chartered as Argonne National Laboratory to conduct "cooperative research in nucleonics." At the request of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, it began developing nuclear reactors for the nation's peaceful nuclear energy program. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the laboratory moved to a larger location in Lemont, Illinois, and established a remote location in Idaho, called "Argonne-West," to conduct further nuclear research.
In 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission, following the advice of the General Advisory Committee (GAC), decided that a laboratory in the hills of Tennessee could never achieve scientific distinction. It, therefore, designated Argonne as the country's only center for reactor development. The outlook for ORNL's survival was bleak. Robert Oppenheimer and James Conant were doubtful that the laboratory could survive; and I. I. Rabi, another prominent member of the GAC, tried to persuade the scientists of ORNL to move, en masse, to the newly formed Brookhaven National Laboratory. So, ever since it was founded, ORNL's survival has been an overriding concern.
AIRCRAFT NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM...... 24
Aircraft Reactor Experiment Development...... 24
ARE Operation......... 26
MOLTEN-SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT....... 29
Delta Force said:, but is there anything else that has kept the [BWR] technology from being used on submarines and other vessels since then?
anorlunda said:There is a big problem if the vessel heels over or turns upside down. Of course the steam generators in PWRs have the same problem. I've asked several navy buddies how far they are allowed to heel over, but of course the answer is "classified".Delta Force said:, but is there anything else that has kept the [BWR] technology from being used on submarines and other vessels since then?
Astronuc said:They other key issue would be the need to perform during pitch and roll. If the core were to pitch or roll, the moderation and hence power distribution would be asymmetric in the core, which could potentially cause failure of the fuel/core. With a PWR, there is no voiding to skew the mode
anorlunda said:There is a big problem if the vessel heels over or turns upside down. Of course the steam generators in PWRs have the same problem. I've asked several navy buddies how far they are allowed to heel over, but of course the answer is "classified".