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
Education, Training & Workforce Development
The Education, Training & Workforce Development Division provides communication among the academic, industrial, and governmental communities through the exchange of views and information on matters related to education, training and workforce development in nuclear and radiological science, engineering, and technology. Industry leaders, education and training professionals, and interested students work together through Society-sponsored meetings and publications, to enrich their professional development, to educate the general public, and to advance nuclear and radiological science and engineering.
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
Mar 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
April 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
February 2024
Latest News
Can hydrogen be the transportation fuel in an otherwise nuclear economy?
Let’s face it: The global economy should be powered primarily by nuclear power. And it probably will by the end of this century, with a still-significant assist from renewables and hydro. Once nuclear systems are dominant, the costs come down to where gas is now; and when carbon emissions are reduced to a small portion of their present state, it will become obvious that most other sources are only good in niche settings. I mean, why use small modular reactors to load-follow when they can just produce that power instead of buffering it?
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.