[en] A nuclear energy scenario study was performed using VISION 3.4; to analyze three different fuel cycles: once through (open) cycle (OTC), modified open cycle (MOC), and full recycle (FuRe) in terms of their impact on uranium resource utilization on both the front- and back-end of these fuel cycles. Both the MOC and FuRe show significant improvement (reduction) in the amount of uranium ore required to generate the same amount of energy for a 150-year period when compared to the OTC. The same conclusion also holds for the amount of used nuclear fuel (UNF) in both wet and dry storage in the back-end of the fuel cycle. Findings suggest that under realistic deployment scenarios, there is no clear advantage of either MOC or FuRe over one another in the front end of the fuel cycle as far as material utilization is concerned. However, due to its potential for earlier deployment, MOC offers better UNF management in the back end: the amount of UNF for storage is smaller compared to OTC and FuRe. In terms of transuranic (TRU) consumption, FuRe is the better choice compared to MOC. It can be concluded that the choice of either MOC or FuRe depends on the fuel cycle objectives, however both are better compared to OTC, in terms of uranium resources utilization.(author).