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
Thermal Hydraulics
The division provides a forum for focused technical dialogue on thermal hydraulic technology in the nuclear industry. Specifically, this will include heat transfer and fluid mechanics involved in the utilization of nuclear energy. It is intended to attract the highest quality of theoretical and experimental work to ANS, including research on basic phenomena and application to nuclear system design.
Meeting Spotlight
Conference on Nuclear Training and Education: A Biennial International Forum (CONTE 2025)
February 3–6, 2025
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 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2025
Nuclear Technology
January 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Reboot: Nuclear needs a success . . . anywhere
The media have gleefully resurrected the language of a past nuclear renaissance. Beyond the hype and PR, many people in the nuclear community are taking a more measured view of conditions that could lead to new construction: data center demand, the proliferation of new reactor designs and start-ups, and the sudden ascendance of nuclear energy as the power source everyone wants—or wants to talk about.
Once built, large nuclear reactors can provide clean power for at least 80 years—outlasting 10 to 20 presidential administrations. Smaller reactors can provide heat and power outputs tailored to an end user’s needs. With all the new attention, are we any closer to getting past persistent supply chain and workforce issues and building these new plants? And what will the election of Donald Trump to a second term as president mean for nuclear?
As usual, there are more questions than answers, and most come down to money. Several developers are engaging with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or have already applied for a license, certification, or permit. But designs without paying customers won’t get built. So where are the customers, and what will it take for them to commit?
Gerald R. Luetkehans, John Toman, Bennie G. DiBona
Nuclear Technology | Volume 27 | Number 4 | December 1975 | Pages 539-558
Technical Paper | Nuclear Explosive | doi.org/10.13182/NT75-A24334
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Project Rio Blanco is a joint government-industry experiment utilizing nuclear explosives to stimulate gas production from thick, relatively impermeable, gas-bearing lenticular sand and shale sequences. Three 30-kt explosives spaced vertically in a single wellbore at intervals of 390 and 460 ft were detonated simultaneously on May 17, 1973. No significant adverse effects were experienced, and damage resulting from ground motion was as predicted. The initial reentry into the upper explosive region indicates that coales-cense of the top cavity and fracture region with the lower ones did not occur as expected. Reentry into the bottom cavity indicated that similarly, communication does not exist between the lower two chimneys. The fracture height of the upper region was about as predicted from previous experience with single-chimney geometry as was the cavity radius resulting from the bottom detonation. All indications are that yields were as predicted, and to date there is no valid explanation as to the lack of intercommunication between the fracture regions of the three explosives. Production test data from the top chimney indicated a reservoir capacity of only 0.73 md-ft, which is 6 to 10 times lower than expected. Subsequent testing of an evaluation well and other data lends further evidence that, although significant stimulation most surely occurred, the gas contained in the sandstones was much less than had been originally anticipated. Properties deduced from production test data from the bottom chimney are in much better agreement with predetonation estimates. Further investigations are required to fully evaluate the experiment.