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
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Aug 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2026
Nuclear Technology
September 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2026
Latest News
Second round of Launch Pad selections includes eight newcomers
The National Reactor Innovation Center at Idaho National Laboratory has announced 13 project selections across 12 companies for the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad, a Department of Energy–led program that integrates reactor and fuel facility authorization, testing, and deployment support for private nuclear developers.
The Launch Pad emerged from the Reactor Pilot Program and Fuel Line Pilot Program.
According to INL, projects selected include reactor development and nuclear fuel cycle advancements, including fabrication, enrichment, and conversion technologies.
G. A. Rattá, J. Vega, A. Murari
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 74 | Number 1 | July-August 2018 | Pages 13-22
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2017.1390390
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Models that apply machine learning (ML) techniques for disruption prediction have improved detection rates and warning times in JET and other tokamaks. However, these models require an already stored database to develop them. Therefore, a significant problem arises at the time of training ML-based systems for ITER. To tackle this problem, this work computes a genetic algorithm–optimized predictor inspired by a previous study using initially only ASDEX-Upgrade (AUG) data and tested with the wide database of JET. This smaller-to-larger tokamak approach pursues the future extrapolation of this technique to ITER. The outcomes of direct application of a cross predictor resulted in 30.03% false alarms and more than 42% premature alarms, which indicates the need for different input parameters or at least some information about the target device to achieve reasonable performance.
In a second approach, a new model was created with the AUG database plus one disruptive and one nondisruptive pulse of JET. The final cross predictions (over the chronologically first 564 shots after training, 52 of them were disruptive) reached 100% of total detected disruptions (all of them with anticipation times up to 10 ms). The false alarms were 7.42%. The results decayed at the time newer shots were tested. This aging effect is a known phenomenon, and it can be tackled by periodic retraining of the system. As proof of principle, a final predictor was created in an adaptive approach, obtaining in the following 1000 pulses (52 of them disruptive) 91.75% detections with at least 10 ms of warning times and less than 1% false alarms.