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.
Magdi M. H. Ragheb, Gregory A. Moses, Charles W. Maynard
Nuclear Technology | Volume 48 | Number 1 | April 1980 | Pages 16-33
Technical Paper | Fuel Cycle | doi.org/10.13182/NT80-A32444
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Pellet and coupled pellet-blanket time-integrated neutronics and photonics calculations are reported for a representative low-gain (25), low-compression (deuterium-tritium core ρr = 9.4 kg/m2) pellet design for an electron beam fusion reactor. Tungsten, lead, and natural uranium are compared as pusher-tamper materials. In the three cases, neutron balances show that neutron multiplication in the pellet compensates for the energy losses and spectral softening due to neutron interactions. Fissile breeding cannot be achieved in the natural uranium case, since the fission reaction predominates. Substantive additional energy can be obtained (∼5.5 MeV/source neutron) in the pellet if natural uranium is used as the tamper material. Neutron and gamma spectra from the pellet micro explosions are given. Natural uranium, tungsten, and lead cause 14, 7, and 4% neutron multiplication, respectively. Compared to the case where a pure 14.1-MeV source is used, the spectra for the lead and tungsten pellets lead to almost the same values of breeding and heating rates. However, these are apportioned differently between the 7Li(n,α) and 7Li(n,n’α) reactions and spatial positions in the blanket. The atomic displacements and the gas production per unit of thermal power produced at the first wall are substantially reduced in the natural uranium case. Natural uranium as a tamper material leads to 8% higher tritium breeding and a 39% increase in energy production compared to the tungsten case. Per unit of energy produced, it leads to 27% less displacement damage and 30%) less hydrogen and helium production than the tungsten pellet case. For larger ρr values, these effects may be more pronounced. These results indicate that longer wall lifetimes may be obtained by neutron spectrum softening in the pellet without affecting the breeding and heat production in the blanket.