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.
Jiyun Zhao, Pradip Saha, Mujid S. Kazimi
Nuclear Technology | Volume 161 | Number 2 | February 2008 | Pages 124-139
Technical Paper | Thermal Hydraulics | doi.org/10.13182/NT08-A3918
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
To compare the stability features of a supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR) design with that of a typical boiling water reactor (BWR), a stability analysis model for a typical BWR has been developed in addition to an already-developed model for the SCWR as presented in a companion paper. The homogenous equilibrium two-phase flow model, which is adequate at high pressures, is applied to the BWR stability analysis. The reactor core is simulated by three channels according to the radial power distribution and the inlet orifice coefficients. Similar to the SCWR model, the neutronic kinetic equation is expanded based on modes (reactivity modes). The model is evaluated based on the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station stability test data, and the results agree well with the experiment.The SCWR is found to be less sensitive to the coolant density neutronic reactivity coefficient than the typical BWR, since most of the neutronic moderation function is provided by the water rods, where the density variation is either zero (if the water rods are insulated) or small (if the water rods are not insulated). The BWR is found to be less sensitive to changes in power level than the SCWR but has the same sensitivity level to the flow rate as the SCWR.A stability envelope that combines the single-channel and in-phase stability modes is developed. The decay ratios for the SCWR together with those for the typical BWR and the new Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor at nominal operational conditions are shown in the map. The stability sensitivity to operating conditions is also shown in the map, by increasing the power to 120% of nominal value and decreasing the flow rate to 80% of nominal value. It is found that the SCWR is more sensitive to the single-channel stability compared to the core-wide in-phase stability for all cases.