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
Fusion Energy
This division promotes the development and timely introduction of fusion energy as a sustainable energy source with favorable economic, environmental, and safety attributes. The division cooperates with other organizations on common issues of multidisciplinary fusion science and technology, conducts professional meetings, and disseminates technical information in support of these goals. Members focus on the assessment and resolution of critical developmental issues for practical fusion energy applications.
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?
K. Hnilica, H. P. Holley, K. Lahner, H. Schmale
Nuclear Technology | Volume 31 | Number 1 | October 1976 | Pages 53-61
Technical Paper | Fuel Cycle | doi.org/10.13182/NT76-A31698
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The economic incentives for utilizing the plutonium produced in light water reactors can be evaluated for two alternatives: stockpiling or successive recycling of the self-generated plutonium obtained from 1200-MW(e) pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) power stations. The economic analysis covers an operating period of 20 yr, starting in 1976. The recycling of plutonium begins with the fourth fuel cycle, and the reload fuel batches consist then of uranium fuel elements and U/Pu fuel elements of the all-rod design in appropriate number to use all the self-generated plutonium of the reprocessed fuel elements from previous cycles. The necessary nuclear data for the fuel cycle cost calculations were obtained by detailed physics calculations. The economic analysis is based on 1976 cost data on different fabrication penalties for the U/Pu assemblies and a plutonium market price of zero. This last assumption is justified for utilities by the lack of a functioning plutonium market and is used as the basis to determine a realistic valuation of plutonium. The obtained levelized fuel costs are discussed in detail for the PWR with and without successive plutonium recycling. Results for the BWR are discussed for comparison purposes. The comparison of fuel cycle cost for the two cases with and without plutonium recycling shows for a plutonium market price of zero and a fabrication penalty of 100% for U/Pu fuel elements a cumulative cost saving of 7% in the case of recycling plutonium in the PWR after 20 yr of operation. Similarly, 6% are obtained for the BWR. Any additional increase in the fabrication penalty by 100% reduces the savings by 1.2%, whereas the influence of the diluent material is practically negligible. If the storage charges for the bred plutonium are taken into consideration, the cost reductions increase further. For low plutonium sale prices, a limited storage period can be economically attractive for a utility, especially if at a later date a higher plutonium sale price is obtainable. Therefore, in the present analysis the minimum plutonium sale price that has to be obtained for the stored plutonium at the selling date was determined by using the following balance equation: For simplicity, the plutonium price was set to zero during the storage period and has a value only at the selling date. To determine an economically justified storage period, the obtained plutonium sale prices are compared to the price of 1 g of 93% enriched uranium. The results of the present analysis indicate for a fabrication penalty of 100% for U/Pu fuel assemblies and a yearly storage charge of 2 $/g Putot, storage time is ∼10 yr for the BWR and PWR. Furthermore, the economically acceptable storage periods increase with increasing fabrication penalties. If, in addition, the removal charges for americium (if the plutonium is stored in form of PuO2) are included, the storage periods are ∼2 yr shorter.
