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.”
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.