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
2025 ANS Winter Conference & Expo
November 9–12, 2025
Washington, DC|Washington Hilton
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
Oct 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
November 2025
Nuclear Technology
October 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
The journey of the U.S. fuel cycle
Craig Piercycpiercy@ans.org
While most big journeys begin with a clear objective, they rarely start with an exact knowledge of the route. When commissioning the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1803, President Thomas Jefferson didn’t provide specific “turn right at the big mountain” directions to the Corps of Discovery. He gave goal-oriented instructions: explore the Missouri River, find its source, search for a transcontinental water route to the Pacific, and build scientific and cultural knowledge along the way.
Jefferson left it up to Lewis and Clark to turn his broad, geopolitically motivated guidance into gritty reality.
Similarly, U.S. nuclear policy has begun a journey toward closing the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle. There is a clear signal of support for recycling from the Trump administration, along with growing bipartisan excitement in Congress. Yet the precise path remains unclear.
Yong Hoon Jeong, Mujid S. Kazimi
Nuclear Technology | Volume 160 | Number 2 | November 2007 | Pages 233-243
Technical Paper | Thermal Hydraulics | doi.org/10.13182/NT07-A3895
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
By using a combination of a nuclear reactor that emits no carbon dioxide and a high-efficiency gas turbine cycle, electric utilities can reduce their generating cost as well as minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The economic competitiveness of pure natural-gas combined-cycle (NGCC), nuclear-assisted NGCC, and pure nuclear power plants is studied, and the level of CO2 emission tax effects on the cost of electricity from each plant is defined.An advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactor in addition to a conventional NGCC as a heat source for the air exiting the compressor is considered. At a reactor outlet gas temperature of 900°C, the thermal contribution (fossil fuel saving and CO2 reduction) by nuclear energy in the nuclear-assisted NGCC cycle was 46.3%.To assess the economic competitiveness of the plants, the levelized electricity generation costs were calculated. The economics depend primarily on the cost of natural gas and the capital cost of the nuclear reactor. Obviously, the best plant option for low natural-gas cost is pure NGCC and is pure nuclear power for high natural-gas prices. The intersecting points are affected by the assumed carbon tax.Several synergetic effects for using nuclear and fossil powers together are quantified. First, since the electricity generation cost of the nuclear-assisted NGCC cycle is not as sensitive to gas price as the NGCC, the economic risk of fluctuations in gas prices can be minimized by adopting a nuclear-assisted NGCC cycle. Second, the high nuclear capital cost can be largely compensated for by the low capital cost of the gas turbine plant. For example, 3000 $/kW(electric) of nuclear capital cost can be effectively reduced to ~1500 $/kW(electric) for the hybrid plant. Third, nuclear-assisted NGCC has several advantages over the two single-fuel options in the reduction of high capital costs and high gas prices. In addition, the greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by half by using nuclear-assisted NGCC, and the amount of nuclear spent fuel per kilowatt-hour would also be less than that of the pure nuclear option.