Editing ML-1 (section)

{{Short description|Test nuclear reactor built by the US Army}}
{{about|the nuclear reactor|the launch platform|Mobile Launcher Platform 3}}

[[Image:ML-1 mobile nuclear power plant in Idaho, ca. 1961-1965.jpg|thumb|400px|Full-scale ML-1 mockup at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. The actual reactor was tested nearby.]]

'''ML-1''' was an experimental [[nuclear reactor]] built as part of the US [[Army Nuclear Power Program]] between 1961 and 1965. It was intended to provide truck-mounted nuclear power that could accompany troops from place to place and provide power to command and communication centers, evacuation hospitals, depots, and radar and weapons systems.<ref name="Suid">{{cite book |last1=Suid |first1=Lawrence H. |title=The Army's Nuclear Power Program: The Evolution of a Support Agency |date=1990 |publisher=Contributions in Military Studies, Number 98 |isbn=978-0-313-27226-4 }}</ref>{{rp|99}}

Unlike the other seven reactors of this program, it did not use a steam turbine, but instead used a nitrogen coolant at {{convert|315|psi}} to drive a [[closed-cycle gas turbine]]. It was designed to produce 3.3 MW<sub>thermal</sub> of heat and 400&nbsp;kW of shaft horsepower with an outlet temperature of {{convert|1200|°F}}.<ref name="wayne">{{cite journal |last1=Wayne |first1=W. D. |title=ML-1 nuclear power plant initial power tests |journal=American Nuclear Society 9th Annual Meeting |date=1963-06-15 |publisher=Aerojet-General Nucleonics |location=Salt Lake City, UT (United States)|osti=4880928 }}</ref>

Though the concept of a nitrogen closed cycle gas turbine was strong, the design failed to live up to expectations, and was abandoned with the closure of ML-1 in 1965 after several major refits and with only a few hundred hours of testing completed in all. Similar concepts have been more recently proposed as part of the [[Pebble bed reactor|PBMR]] program as derivatives thereof.

A 1964 economic analysis concluded that the overall cost of purchasing and operating the ML-1 for a period of 10 years would be about ten times that of a comparable diesel plant at normal fuel costs.<ref name="AECAuthFeb64">{{cite journal |last1=United States |title=AEC Authorizing Legislation: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States. 88th Congress, 2nd session |journal=United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy |date=Feb 19, 1964 |page=414 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03584645q&seq=130 |access-date=30 November 2023}}</ref>