@katyhuff
Currently, the paper states, and I plan to set the time scope to the following:

Because of the eg01-eg23 transition scenario, the simulation should run to a distant
future to demonstrate substantial change. In this case, the year is set from
1960 to 2100. From 1960 to current, the existing data is used for the simulation.
For the near future (~2035), different projections and plans
made by each governments are taken
into account to estimate the direction of nuclear fleets in the EU (explained
further in later sections). For the far future (2035~2100), an equilibrium capacity
is set and decommissioned reactors are replaced by the exact
 same reactors with the same
capacity. Of course in the case of the transition scenario the replaced French reactors
would be SFRs, not LWRs.

Do you think this is a viable option? I think the far future estimate is a bit too rough and
rudimentary.. Any suggestions on better predicting the future?

Fission Products and Minor Actinides

Reprocessing Stops at 2010

Reprocessing Continues

Total Tailing

Reprocessing Stops at 2010

Reprocessing Continues

Never Reprocess

Reprocessed U

Reprocessing Stops at 2010

Reprocessing Continues

Total waste UOX

Reprocessing Stops at 2010

Reprocessing Continues

Never Reprocess

Total Fuel Usage

Reprocessing Stops at 2010

Reprocessing Continues

Never Reprocess

Many of the sources (WNA) are missing authors. One way to solve this is to use the primary source (where did WNA get this info) rather than the secondary source (the WNA wepages.) In any case, the URLs are missing as well.

the box link

has the first two scenarios from 1970 - 2160.

After 2030, additional PWRs are deployed to remain a steady net capacity.

Let me know if this looks good

Scenarios:

1. Reprocessing and usage of MOX stops at 2020
2. Reprocessing continues until 2160.

Hi @jbae11 :
I left a marked-up version of this document on your desk . I know you weren't ready for me to read this, but I was excited to read it and couldn't help myself. So I left some markups as suggestions for you to consider while you continue to draft the document. That seemed less pushy than a PR (which you might not be ready for at this stage, since you're still drafting).

I'm leaving this as an open issue so you can reference it if/when you make any of the edits that I suggested.

The first part looks good (grammatical and phrasing stuff mostly), and I know you're still in the sketchy draft stage for the latter part. I'm looking forward to the final product and I hope to be helpful!

For the cycamore::Reactor, there should be defined specifications for the SFRs.

1. Core size
2. Assembly size
3. Refueling period
4. Batch size
5. Power cap (preferably 1GW)

Is there a good source for this or is following fco-ta good enough?

the following input file

tries to recycle mox by having a separate reprocessing plant to separate u and pu from mox fuel

( the reason for a separate facility prototype is because if one prototype produces two different composition streams, it can't be mixed, with certainty, to a single recipe in the mixer)

however, the tailing from the enrichment only goes to the one mixer plant,

so the second mixer plant (that receives separated Pu from used MOX) does not operate.

The output file is /france_1970_2020/recycle_mox_realistic
in the box folder

in short)

used_uox -> uox_reprcoessing -> (+tailings) ->uox_mixer -> MOX
ALL the tailings go to the uox_mixer,
so,
used_mox -> mox_reprocessing -> (no tailings!) mox_mixer -> NOTHING

There doesn't appear to be a zotero directory associated with this paper in the arfc group. Please add one.

The repository currently doesn't have ans.bst in it, but the bibliography style requires ans.bst. This issue can be closed by using a different bibliography style or by including ans.bst.