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
Materials Science & Technology
The objectives of MSTD are: promote the advancement of materials science in Nuclear Science Technology; support the multidisciplines which constitute it; encourage research by providing a forum for the presentation, exchange, and documentation of relevant information; promote the interaction and communication among its members; and recognize and reward its members for significant contributions to the field of materials science in nuclear technology.
Meeting Spotlight
Conference on Nuclear Training and Education: A Biennial International Forum (CONTE 2023)
February 6–9, 2023
Amelia Island, FL|Omni Amelia Island Resort
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
Jan 2023
Jul 2022
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2023
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
January 2023
Latest News
Nuclear energy: enabling production of food, fiber, hydrocarbon biofuels, and negative carbon emissions
In the 1960s, Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory initiated a series of studies on nuclear agro-industrial complexes1 to address the needs of the world’s growing population. Agriculture was a central component of these studies, as it must be. Much of the emphasis was on desalination of seawater to provide fresh water for irrigation of crops. Remarkable advances have lowered the cost of desalination to make that option viable in countries like Israel. Later studies2 asked the question, are there sufficient minerals (potassium, phosphorous, copper, nickel, etc.) to enable a prosperous global society assuming sufficient nuclear energy? The answer was a qualified “yes,” with the caveat that mineral resources will limit some technological options. These studies were defined by the characteristic of looking across agricultural and industrial sectors to address multiple challenges using nuclear energy.
J. Haroon, E. Nichita
Nuclear Technology | Volume 208 | Number 2 | February 2022 | Pages 246-267
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2021.1929768
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A new 37-element PHWR fuel bundle, designed for molybdenum-99 production, has been proposed previously. The new bundle has been shown to have lattice properties and reactivity feedback effects equivalent to the standard PHWR bundle. This study looks at the effect the use of molybdenum-99-producing bundles has on the reactivity worth of reactivity devices, through the prism of reactivity-device macroscopic-cross-section increments. The study utilizes three-dimensional supercell configurations and the neutron transport code DRAGON to calculate and compare the incremental macroscopic cross sections and supercell reactivity for adjuster absorbers, shutoff absorber rods and liquid zone controllers when surrounded by molybdenum-99-producing bundles and by regular bundles. Two geometrical representations of fuel bundles are used: a detailed, cluster, representation, whereby all fuel pins are modeled separately, and an annularized representation, whereby each ring of fuel pins and corresponding coolant is represented as a homogeneous annulus. The latter model is the one customarily used in production calculations for finding cross-section increments of reactivity devices.
The study finds that reactivity-device cross-section and supercell reactivity increments are very similar (< 2% difference in reactivity increments) for the case of the molybdenum-producing bundle and the regular bundle. The study also finds that the use of a detailed, cluster, geometrical representation of the fuel bundle produces slightly different cross-section increments and supercell reactivity increments than the use of an annularized geometrical representation. The supercell reactivity-increment difference between the two representations is found to be ~8.0% for adjuster absorbers and ~11.0% for shutoff absorber rods.
