ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Division Spotlight
Thermal Hydraulics
The division provides a forum for focused technical dialogue on thermal hydraulic technology in the nuclear industry. Specifically, this will include heat transfer and fluid mechanics involved in the utilization of nuclear energy. It is intended to attract the highest quality of theoretical and experimental work to ANS, including research on basic phenomena and application to nuclear system design.
Meeting Spotlight
2024 ANS Annual Conference
June 16–19, 2024
Las Vegas, NV|Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
May 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
June 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
The busyness of the nuclear fuel supply chain
Ken Petersenpresident@ans.org
With all that is happening in the industry these days, the nuclear fuel supply chain is still a hot topic. The Russian assault in Ukraine continues to upend the “where” and “how” of attaining nuclear fuel—and it has also motivated U.S. legislators to act.
Two years into the Russian war with Ukraine, things are different. The Inflation Reduction Act was passed in 2022, authorizing $700 million in funding to support production of high-assay low-enriched uranium in the United States. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy this January issued a $500 million request for proposals to stimulate new HALEU production. The Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2024 includes $2.7 billion in funding for new uranium enrichment production. This funding was diverted from the Civil Nuclear Credits program and will only be released if there is a ban on importing Russian uranium into the United States—which could happen by the time this column is published, as legislation that bans Russian uranium has passed the House as of this writing and is headed for the Senate. Also being considered is legislation that would sanction Russian uranium. Alternatively, the Biden-Harris administration may choose to ban Russian uranium without legislation in order to obtain access to the $2.7 billion in funding.
Sandra J. Brereton, Mujid S. Kazimi
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 10 | Number 2 | September 1986 | Pages 275-289
Technical Paper | Safety/Environmental Aspect | doi.org/10.13182/FST86-A24979
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A methodology is presented that can be used to determine if a proposed fusion power plant design modification, directed at improving plant safety, is cost-effective. Both normal and accident conditions can be handled. An approach for evaluating the maximum justified spending on safety is outlined. The incremental costs involved with a dose reduction measure are identified, and models for their assessment are given. By comparing the spending on the design modification to the justified expenditure ceiling, the cost-effectiveness of the design can be assessed. The utility of this approach is illustrated through two examples. For normal plant conditions, the cost-effectiveness of replacing the steel alloy PCA by low-activation silicon carbide (SiC) in the STARFIRE design is assessed. Based on a specified set of assumptions, it was determined that if the installed cost of SiC components is less than $110/kg, then the low-activation design is cost-effective. The second example illustrates the applicability of the methodology to accident situations. Four emergency detritiation options for the International Tokamak Reactor, using zero, one, two, or three cleanup units, are evaluated. The assessment was based on the release of 25 g of tritium into the reactor building and on several specified assumptions. The analysis indicated that if the probability of the accident occurring exceeds 3.59 × 10−2, the most cost-effective option would be the use of one detritiation unit. For lower probabilities, the use of any cleanup system would not be justified.