Comparing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options, Observations and Challenges - A report for the Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future by Paul P.H. Wilson
Re: Comparing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options, Observations and Challenges - A report for the Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future by Paul P.H. Wilson
BRC commissioned papers
I have some comments in regards to these documents, http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/wilson.fuel_.cycle_.compari... This BRC commissioned paper reveals the hidden bias of the BRC commission towards the existing lobby of the utilities and the fuel assembly manufacturers. The Wilson paper only discusses recycling done in Europe and processes that have only been researched in the laboratory and Wilson follows this up with projected costs for a national facility for each process. No where did Wilson do a cost estimate for DUPIC or the revenue from electrical sells from a fleet of heavy water reactors burning LWR spent fuel and the cash flows to the waste trust funds from the heavy water reactors. The paper commissioned by the BRC prepared by Wilson FAILS.
If Wilson had included DUPIC and heavy water reactors and then discussed heavy water spent fuel deposition, this would have made more since.
Heavy water reactors have been licensed for over 50 years, to ignore that and not to do an economic analysis as Wilson does in his chart,"spent fuel management alternatives" is evidence of the authors and the commissions conflicted biased interests in the statues qua of the industry lobby
Re: Comparing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options, Observations and Challenges - A report for the Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future by Paul P.H. Wilson
BRC commissioned papers
I have some comments in regards to these documents,
http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/wilson.fuel_.cycle_.compari... This BRC commissioned paper reveals the hidden bias of the BRC commission towards the existing lobby of the utilities and the fuel assembly manufacturers. The Wilson paper only discusses recycling done in Europe and processes that have only been researched in the laboratory and Wilson follows this up with projected costs for a national facility for each process. No where did Wilson do a cost estimate for DUPIC or the revenue from electrical sells from a fleet of heavy water reactors burning LWR spent fuel and the cash flows to the waste trust funds from the heavy water reactors. The paper commissioned by the BRC prepared by Wilson FAILS.
If Wilson had included DUPIC and heavy water reactors and then discussed heavy water spent fuel deposition, this would have made more since.
Heavy water reactors have been licensed for over 50 years, to ignore that and not to do an economic analysis as Wilson does in his chart,"spent fuel management alternatives" is evidence of the authors and the commissions conflicted biased interests in the statues qua of the industry lobby
Steven Rappolee