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 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Apr 2026
Jan 2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
May 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Texas opens $350M in nuclear funding
Three years ago, the Texas Public Utility Commission launched the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group at the direction of Gov. Greg Abbott. One year later, that new group issued a report recommending several actions to the Texas legislature that could be taken to attract new nuclear projects to the state.
Included in those recommendations were the foundation of a nonregulatory entity to coordinate Texas’s “strategic nuclear vision” along with an advanced nuclear fund to help “overcome the funding valley project developers face” in the state.
N. V. Kornilov, S. M. Grimes, A. Voinov
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 172 | Number 3 | November 2012 | Pages 278-286
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE11-61
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The variations of ˜14-MeV (n, p), (n, ), and (n, 2n) reaction cross sections with A and Z have been analyzed. We tried to answer a rather interesting question: Can a simple parameterization be useful in comparing with nuclear reaction model calculations? In addition, we checked several approaches for parameterization. Simple systematics gave a better prediction than model calculation for the (n, 2n) reaction at A > 120. At a low mass number, the difference between experimental data and calculated or fitted results may be connected with the structure of levels for residual nuclei. We saw better agreement between experimental and fitted data in comparison with results of model calculation in particular for the (n, ) reaction for A < 110. Both approaches failed to predict (n, p) cross sections inside experimental uncertainties for A < 110 and the (n, ) cross section for A > 110. This failure may be connected with low accuracy of experimental data or with some unknown physical effect that provides an additional splitting of experimental data.