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 Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
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
Nov 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
December 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
X-energy raises $700M in latest funding round
Advanced reactor developer X-energy has announced that it has closed an oversubscribed Series D financing round of approximately $700 million. The funding proceeds are expected to be used to help continue the expansion of its supply chain and the commercial pipeline for its Xe-100 advanced small modular reactor and TRISO-X fuel, according the company.
Alex Galperin, Yigal Ronen
Nuclear Technology | Volume 58 | Number 3 | September 1982 | Pages 388-396
Technical Paper | Fission Reactor | doi.org/10.13182/NT82-A32974
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Received November 3, 1981 Accepted for Publication March 22, 1982 A symbiotic system of Pu-Th- and 233U-U-fueled reactors has been proposed and analyzed. The Pu-Th reactors utilize a tight lattice core and the 233U-U reactors utilize a regular pressurized water reactor (PWR) core. The two cases were investigated with different Pu-Th cores (system A: VM/VF =0.4 and system B: VM/VF - 1.0) and similar 233U-U cores. The cumulative 30-yr requirements of uranium ore and separative work for both systems were evaluated and indicated significant savings compared to current PWRs with plutonium recycle and the cross-progeny fuel cycle. The fuel cycle costs calculated for the proposed systems were slightly higher than those for the current PWR cycle.
