Delta Force
Banned
I was thinking of a PoD in the mid-1950s around the time of the Power Reactor Demonstration Program when I first wrote this, but now I think a later PoD in the late 1960s or early 1970s might have been an option too.
Around that time, the recently admitted state of Alaska was looking to diversify its economy and lower energy costs. One project that came up was Rampart Dam, but it would have required energy exports to Canada and the Pacific Northwest to fully utilize its output. Natural gas and coal were also considered, but weren't economically viable, leaving only small and medium size hydroelectric facilities and nuclear energy as viable options at the time.
As it turns out Alaska just went with small scale distributed generation, but what if there had been more of a push for the nuclear power option? At the time the push was mostly for larger and newer reactors by American utilities (at least the large ones), but perhaps a combination of lobbying from Alaska and interest from the Atomic Energy Commission, State Department, and perhaps even elements of the Department of Defense at just the right time could have led to more of a focus on smaller factory produced designs? The military had designs that could be flown in to remote areas on rugged transport aircraft or towed to location on barges, so the capability was already there, although not necessarily in commercial/civilian form.
It's also worth pointing out that any reactor designed for service in Alaska would be rugged and safe enough for use just about anywhere, since it would require extensive seismic shock protection (the state suffering a 9.2 magnitude earthquake in 1964) and the ability to safely shutdown without use of external power supplies. That would make the reactor well suited for use in harsh conditions, as well power grids with less stable energy supplies.
Around that time, the recently admitted state of Alaska was looking to diversify its economy and lower energy costs. One project that came up was Rampart Dam, but it would have required energy exports to Canada and the Pacific Northwest to fully utilize its output. Natural gas and coal were also considered, but weren't economically viable, leaving only small and medium size hydroelectric facilities and nuclear energy as viable options at the time.
As it turns out Alaska just went with small scale distributed generation, but what if there had been more of a push for the nuclear power option? At the time the push was mostly for larger and newer reactors by American utilities (at least the large ones), but perhaps a combination of lobbying from Alaska and interest from the Atomic Energy Commission, State Department, and perhaps even elements of the Department of Defense at just the right time could have led to more of a focus on smaller factory produced designs? The military had designs that could be flown in to remote areas on rugged transport aircraft or towed to location on barges, so the capability was already there, although not necessarily in commercial/civilian form.
It's also worth pointing out that any reactor designed for service in Alaska would be rugged and safe enough for use just about anywhere, since it would require extensive seismic shock protection (the state suffering a 9.2 magnitude earthquake in 1964) and the ability to safely shutdown without use of external power supplies. That would make the reactor well suited for use in harsh conditions, as well power grids with less stable energy supplies.