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
Aug 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2026
Nuclear Technology
September 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2026
Latest News
LLNL, Ampera partner to develop thorium-based TRISO fuel
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has formed a strategic partnership with Ampera to develop the company’s nuclear fuel concept through a project named THUNDER, for Thorium Unimodal Droplet Ejection for Reactors.
The focus of THUNDER is fabricating TRISO made with kernels of thorium rather than the usual uranium. LLNL and Ampera will evaluate and optimize liquid metal–jetting technology to produce highly uniform, spherical kernels of thorium-232 for later processing into TRISO fuel.
Won Il Ko, Hangbok Choi, Myung Seung Yang
Nuclear Technology | Volume 134 | Number 2 | May 2001 | Pages 167-186
Technical Paper | Fuel Cycle and Management | doi.org/10.13182/NT01-A3193
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
This study examines the economics of the DUPIC fuel cycle using unit costs of fuel cycle components estimated based on conceptual designs. The fuel cycle cost (FCC) was calculated by a deterministic method in which reference values of fuel cycle components are used. The FCC was then analyzed by a Monte Carlo simulation to get the uncertainty of the FCC associated with the unit costs of the fuel cycle components. From the deterministic analysis on the equilibrium fuel cycle model, the DUPIC FCC was estimated to be 6.21 to 6.34 mills/kWh for DUPIC fuel options, which is a little smaller than that of the once-through FCC by 0.07 to 0.27 mills/kWh. Considering the uncertainty (0.40 to 0.44 mills/kWh) of the FCC estimated by the Monte Carlo simulation method, the cost difference between the DUPIC and once-through fuel cycle is negligible. On the other hand, the material balance calculation has shown that the DUPIC fuel cycle can save natural uranium resources by ~20% and reduce the spent fuel arising by ~65% compared with the once-through fuel cycle. In conclusion, the DUPIC fuel cycle is comparable with the once-through fuel cycle from the viewpoint of FCC. In the future, it should be important to consider factors such as the environmental benefit owing to natural uranium savings, the capability of reusing spent pressurized water reactor fuel, and the safeguardability of the fuel cycle when deciding on an advanced nuclear fuel cycle option.