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?
M. Levenson, F. Rahn
Nuclear Technology | Volume 53 | Number 2 | May 1981 | Pages 99-110
Technical Paper | Realistic Estimates of the Consequences of Nuclear Accident / Nuclear Safety | doi.org/10.13182/NT81-A32614
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In estimating the real risk to the public from an accident at a nuclear power plant, several quantities are important: the probability and consequence of the accident itself and the risk resulting from any mitigating action taken. The uncertainties of the risk associated with the accident seem to be dominated by the uncertainties of the consequence estimates. The current procedure of using “conservative” assumptions (usually at each stage) in the calculations produces an estimate of the risk that is likely to be much too high (by as much as an order of magnitude or more). In and of themselves, conservative estimates as typically made in the licensing process may in fact contribute additional risk by overestimating source terms and thus overestimating benefits of activities such as evacuation. This process, in turn, leads inadvertently to putting major segments of society at greater risk than is necessary by encouraging decisions that have higher risk. The principal areas of concern focus on the treatment of a number of physical processes. These processes are always operative and can be counted on to limit the consequences of a reactor accident. Sufficient credit is not taken for their ability to reduce the release of radioactivity and confine it relatively close to its source. Estimates of risk will improve in direct proportion to improvements in quantification of these phenomena. Empirical evidence from many sources shows that these processes are indeed operative and very efficient in reducing the release of radioactivity. As a result, the policy decisions based on the source term in the event of a major reactor accident must be reassessed.