Please find below the
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
The proposal read more like argument so it was hard to tell if the proposal/funding goal was to educate congress or if it was to actually build more nuclear reactors or both. I think refocusing your proposal would be beneficial. Also, this is definitely something that has been attempted before perhaps several if not many times over the past several years/decade. An analysis as to why it has not worked in the past and what could be done differently would greatly benefit the proposal.
The proposal presumes a particular technical solution as inevitable within the context of Nuclear Energy having a clear place in the future energy system and imagines that the key barrier to implementation of the solution is education.
Additionally, that education of the public is of paramount importance in order to support robust governmental and regulatory discussions.
In my estimation, the approach is incorrect and probably too narrow in scope. Additionally, I think that it would be of most importance to seek consensus among the Nuclear Industry, including regulators, governmental entities, etc. in order to ensure that the solution set is agreed before embarking on an informational campaign.
Since the science and technology for Gen IV nuclear plants are several decades from commercial availability, I question the timing of the need for an immediate educational campaign.
From a proposal/project management point of view, I would say that there is insufficient evidence presented in the proposal to provide confidence in the approach and in many cases the proposal team is unable to articulate costs, schedules, or impact, which would make it substantially difficult to award in excess of $1M to support the research.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
