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
Human Factors, Instrumentation & Controls
Improving task performance, system reliability, system and personnel safety, efficiency, and effectiveness are the division's main objectives. Its major areas of interest include task design, procedures, training, instrument and control layout and placement, stress control, anthropometrics, psychological input, and motivation.
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.
Blair P. Bromley
Nuclear Technology | Volume 194 | Number 2 | May 2016 | Pages 192-203
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT14-101
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Pressure-tube heavy water reactors (PT-HWRs) are highly advantageous for implementing plutonium-thorium (Pu-Th) fuels because of their high neutron economy and online refueling capability. The use of annular heterogeneous seed-blanket core concepts in a PT-HWR where higher-fissile-content seed fuel bundles are physically separate from lower-fissile-content blanket bundles allows more flexibility and control in fuel management. The lattice concept modeled was a 35-element bundle made with a homogeneous mixture of reactor-grade PuO2 (67 wt% fissile) and ThO2, with a central zirconia rod to reduce coolant void reactivity. Eight annular heterogeneous seed-blanket core concepts with plutonium-thorium–based fuels in a 700-MW(electric)–class PT HWR were analyzed, using a once-through-thorium cycle. Blanket region(s) represented 50% to 75% of the total fuel volume. There were 1, 2, and 3 different blanket regions and 1, 2, and 3 different seed regions. The seed fuel tested was 3 wt% or 4 wt% PuO2, while the blanket fuel tested was 1 wt% PuO2, mixed with ThO2. The impact of different fuel combinations on the core-average burnup, fissile utilization (FU), power distributions, and other performance parameters were evaluated. WIMS-AECL 3.1 was used to perform lattice physics calculations using two-dimensional, 89-group integral neutron transport theory, while RFSP 3.5.1 was used to perform the core physics and fuel management calculations using three-dimensional two-group diffusion theory. Among the different core concepts investigated, there were cores where the FU was up to 25% higher than is achieved in a PT-HWR using natural uranium fuel bundles. There were cores where up to 60% of the Pu was consumed, cores where up to 41% of the energy was produced from 233U, and cores where up to 236 kg/yr of fissile uranium (mainly 233U) was produced in the discharged fuel. This study is an extension of previous work that involved the analysis of homogeneous cores, two-region (one seed, one blanket) and eight-region (four seeds, four blankets) annular, and checkerboard-type heterogeneous seed-blanket cores.