Open AccessReport of the AD HOC Study Group on integrated versus dispersed fuel cycle facilities
Author(s) -
Maximilian Kreiter,
A.M. Platt
Publication year - 1975
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Reports
DOI - 10.2172/4058693
Subject(s) - plutonium , uranium , nuclear reprocessing , interim , enriched uranium , waste management , spent nuclear fuel , fuel cycle , nuclear engineering , nuclear power , fabrication , nuclear fuel cycle , depleted uranium , uranium oxide , nuclear fuel , isotope separation , environmental science , radiochemistry , materials science , chemistry , isotope , engineering , nuclear physics , metallurgy , physics , political science , medicine , alternative medicine , pathology , law
To provide isolation of strategic materials and confinement of nuclear wastes, the basic facilities considered in assessing the DFCF and IFCF were mixed plutonium and uranium oxide and HTGR fuel fabrication, fuel reprocessing, high- enrichment isotopic separation and interim waste storage. Reactors, low- enrichment isotopic separation, and low-enrichment uranium facilities were excluded. It is expected that the IFCF would attract uranium fuel fabrication and possibly reactors. An assumption was made for the study that the choice of either IFCF or DFCF would not alter the nuclear power generation pattern postulated to exist up to the year 2000. The advantages of IFCF are seen to outweigh disadvantages. (auth