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 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?
N. M. Levitz, G. J. Vogel, E. L. Carls, E. Grosvenor, B. Kullen, D. Raue, W. Murphy
Nuclear Technology | Volume 6 | Number 2 | February 1969 | Pages 147-155
Technical Paper and Note | doi.org/10.13182/NT69-A28246
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A total of 2.3 kg of PuF4 was fluorinated to PuF6 with elemental fluorine in a fluidized bed of alumina in three campaigns, each consisting of three separate fluorination runs followed by a fluorination-cleanup step in which any plutonium deposited in the lines and equipment was recovered. Each run involved 260 g of −325 mesh PuF4 powder; a single ∼6.5-kg bed of nominal 48–100 mesh alumina was used in each campaign. A 93% F2-7% N2 gas mixture, which was recycled, served as the fluidizing gas and reactant. The temperature of the fluidized alumina bed was increased incrementally to 550°C, and the total fluorination time for each run was 3 to 5 h. The PuF6 was collected in traps at ∼−65°C and subsequently was sorbed on NaF. Plutonium material balances were 97, 101, and 99%. Average production rates of PuF6 were 2.4 to 4.1 lb PuF6/(h ft2) but rates >6 lb PuF6/(h ft2) were attained in initial 30-min fluorination periods. Fluorine utilization efficiency (the ratio of fluorine reacted to that which could theoretically react based on equilibrium considerations) averaged 22, 17, and 28% although efficiencies near 100% were calculated for the earlier portions of a run, when large quantities of plutonium were present. Over 96% of the plutonium charged was recovered as PuF6 while ½% was discarded as waste in the alumina bed of the fluorinator. Less than 2% of the PuF6 was decomposed to PuF4 by radiation, and this was refluorinated and recovered without difficulty.