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 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jun 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2026
Nuclear Technology
June 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
May 2026
Latest News
North American construction is back—smaller and faster—at OPG’s Darlington
“The nuclear renaissance is real here,” said Ontario Power Generation’s Subo Sinnathamby on May 8, one year to the day after OPG secured a final investment decision to build the first of four planned BWRX-300 reactors at its Darlington nuclear power plant, and shortly after the new reactor’s foundation was lifted into place. “We got our license to construct in April and our [final investment decision] in May, and we’ve been off to the races since.”
C. A. Flanagan
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 8 | Number 1 | July 1985 | Pages 1297-1300
Next-Generation Device | Proceedings of the Sixth Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy (San Francisco, California, March 3-7, 1985) | doi.org/10.13182/FST85-A39947
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
One critical issue examined in the present phase of the International Tokamak Reactor (INTOR) has been an evaluation of the technical benefit of dividing up the design and component production tasks of all major advanced technologies among all participants. Two approaches were evaluated: (a) a “splitting” approach in which each country provides 1/4 of the components of each major system (e.g., 3 of 12 TF coils), (b) a “branching” approach in which each country provides all components of selected major systems (e.g., first country provides all TF coils, second country provides all torus sectors, etc.). Quantitative cost and schedule estimates were developed for each of the two approaches and compared to the cost and schedule of the entire device if it were produced only by one country. The results of the U.S. evaluation indicated that the ratio of total estimated cost to the “national” cost was 1.66 for “splitting” and 1.20 for “branching.” The cost per participant was 0.41 and 0.30, respectively. The increase in the construction schedule was estimated to be 2.6 years.