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 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Mar 2026
Jan 2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
April 2026
Latest News
Kentucky disburses $10M in nuclear grants
The Kentucky Nuclear Energy Development Authority (KNEDA) recently distributed its first awards through the new Nuclear Energy Development Grant Program, which was established last year. In total, KNEDA disbursed $10 million to a variety of companies that will use the funding to support siting studies, enrichment supply-chain planning, workforce training, and curriculum development.
Lara M. Pierpoint
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 186 | Number 1 | April 2017 | Pages 66-82
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2016.1272386
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Nuclear fuel cycle studies have provided a wealth of information on the potential impacts of advanced recycling systems. Deciding on fuel cycle implementation pathways, however, requires synthesizing volumes of data and navigating trade-offs between fuel cycle options. This research presents a framework intended to aid fuel cycle decision makers by focusing on the cost reduction/waste mitigation trade-off as a lens for choosing a near-term strategy. The framework consists of a fuel cycle simulation coupled to a decision tree model that maps evolution scenarios. System scenarios are constructed by considering the technological options for fuel cycle evolution and key uncertainties expected to affect the desirability of those options. For this study, the once-through fuel cycle is compared to a self-sustaining fast reactor (FR) fuel cycle. Scenarios are compared using a value function that incorporates cost and waste metrics. The results indicate that uranium costs and the attainable level of reprocessing efficiency may not significantly impact the suite of desirable decisions. On the other hand, the pattern and timing of nuclear builds as well as the extent to which FRs provide true waste mitigation more significantly impact the attractiveness of closing the fuel cycle.