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.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2025 ANS Winter Conference & Expo
November 9–12, 2025
Washington, DC|Washington Hilton
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
Sep 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2025
Nuclear Technology
September 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
IAEA again raises global nuclear power projections
Noting recent momentum behind nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency has revised up its projections for the expansion of nuclear power, estimating that global nuclear operational capacity will more than double by 2050—reaching 2.6 times the 2024 level—with small modular reactors expected to play a pivotal role in this high-case scenario.
IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi announced the new projections, contained in the annual report Energy, Electricity, and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050 at the 69th IAEA General Conference in Vienna.
In the report’s high-case scenario, nuclear electrical generating capacity is projected to increase to from 377 GW at the end of 2024 to 992 GW by 2050. In a low-case scenario, capacity rises 50 percent, compared with 2024, to 561 GW. SMRs are projected to account for 24 percent of the new capacity added in the high case and for 5 percent in the low case.
K. S. Smith, T. Bahadir, R. Ferrer, D. B. Lancaster, A. J. Machiels
Nuclear Technology | Volume 185 | Number 1 | January 2014 | Pages 39-56
Technical Paper | Fuel Cycle and Management | doi.org/10.13182/NT13-31
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Pressurized water reactor (PWR) assembly reactivity distributions are inferred from ∼600 in-core flux maps taken during 44 cycles of operation of the Catawba and McGuire nuclear power plants. The reactivity distribution for each flux map is determined by systematically searching for fuel subbatch reactivities that minimize differences between measured and computed 235U fission rates. More than eight million core calculations are used to reduce one million measured signals to a set of ∼2500 experimental fuel reactivities for fuel with up to 55 GWd/T burnup. These measured reactivity changes with depletion can be used to validate computer code systems used for burnup credit. To reduce the effort required to quantify computer code system biases and uncertainties, the measured changes in fuel depletion reactivity have been reduced to a set of experimental PWR lattice benchmarks for the change in reactivity as a function of fuel burnup. Results demonstrate that the uncertainty of hot-full-power (HFP) depletion reactivity of the benchmarks is < 250 pcm up to 55 GWd/T burnup. Oak Ridge National Laboratory's TSUNAMI tools are used to extend HFP results to cold conditions, and reactivity decrement uncertainties increase to ∼600 pcm. These experimental benchmarks provide a basis for quantification of combined nuclide inventory and cross-section uncertainties in computed reactivity decrements. It is demonstrated that flux map data reduction is not sensitive to the analytical tools (CASMO/SIMULATE) employed here, and experimental fuel depletion reactivity decrements and uncertainties are anticipated to be independent of fuel management code system use for the data reduction. For CASMO-based analysis, the HFP reactivity burnup decrement biases are shown to be <250 pcm up to 55 GWd/T burnup, and results show that the historical “Kopp memo” 5% reactivity decrement uncertainty assumption is conservative.