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
Nuclear Installations Safety
Devoted specifically to the safety of nuclear installations and the health and safety of the public, this division seeks a better understanding of the role of safety in the design, construction and operation of nuclear installation facilities. The division also promotes engineering and scientific technology advancement associated with the safety of such facilities.
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?
Conrad V. Chester, Rowena O. Chester
Nuclear Technology | Volume 31 | Number 3 | December 1976 | Pages 326-338
Technical Paper | Reactor Siting | doi.org/10.13182/NT76-A31669
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The implications of a nuclear power industry in a large nuclear war in the year 2000 were examined from the standpoints of (a) target value of reactors, (b) consequences for nearby population, and (c) long-term consequences of adding reactor fission products to the fallout from the weapons. The primary conclusion is that fallout augmentation by targeting nuclear reactors is of marginal military or strategic value. With the anticipated missile guidance accuracy by the year 2000, it mill be feasible to excavate all reactors and high-level liquid waste tanks, and add those fission products to the fallout. However, the augmented fallout is not intense enough for long-term interdiction of strategic amounts of transportation or food production capacity under probable emergency standards for radiation exposure. On the basis of contribution to gross national product, 2400-MW(e) nuclear or fossil-fueled power plants are competitive targets compared to the rest of the economy for 1-Mton warheads, and isolated 1000-MW(e) plants are competitive targets for 125-kt warheads, given the estimated size of the USSR strategic force. If the U.S. adopts a USSR-style civil defense plan, casualties from direct weapon effects on reactors will be largely avoided, and the principal effect of fallout augmentation over that caused by the attack alone would be doubling the 90Sr contamination on essential grain-growing areas. In the population near nuclear power reactors, fatalities from the release of radioactive aerosols from damaged reactors can be essentially eliminated by the use of expedient respiratory protection by the population downwind of the damaged reactor. The potential dose-commitment from the attack alone is estimated to cause in the U.S. an increase of 30% in the cancer death rate. However, this increase in death rate would not show up for more than a decade after the attack. Fallout augmentation from cratering reactors and high-level waste tanks could result in doubling the delayed cancer death rate if (a) the USSR is willing to spend an additional 400 to 600 warheads to produce this effect, and (b) fission product wastes are retained in surface or near-surface storage for 10 y after reprocessing.
