MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023751792 · doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2014.11.004

The case for a near-term commercial demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor

2014· article· en· W2023751792 on OpenAlexaff
Barry W. Brook, J.B. van Erp, D.A. Meneley, Thomas A. Blees

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable materials and technologies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear transmutationSpent nuclear fuelPlutoniumNuclear engineeringLight-water reactorTransuranium elementCoolantNuclear fuel cycleWaste managementFission productsRadioactive wasteNuclear fuelSodium-cooled fast reactorBurnupEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringNeutronRadiochemistryMechanical engineeringChemistryNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demonstrating a credible and acceptable way to safely recycle ‘used’ nuclear fuel will clear a socially acceptable pathway for nuclear fission to be a major low-carbon energy source for this century. Here we advocate for an accelerated timetable for commercial demonstration of Generation IV nuclear technology, via construction of a prototype metal-fueled fast neutron reactor and associated 100 t/year pyroprocessing facility to convert and recycle spent fuel (routinely mischaracterized as “nuclear waste”) that has accumulated from decades of light-water reactor use. Based on the pioneering research and development done during the ‘Integral Fast Reactor’ (IFR) program at Argonne National Laboratory, 1 a number of synergistic design choices are recommended: (a) a pool-type sodium-cooled reactor; (b) metal fuel based on a uranium–plutonium–zirconium alloy, and (c) recycling using electrorefining and pyroprocessing, thereby enabling the transmutation and repeated re-use of the actinides in the reactor system. We argue that alternative technology options for the coolant, fuel type and recycling system, while sometimes possessing individually attractive features, are challenging to combine into a sufficiently competitive overall system. A reactor blueprint that embodies these key design features, the General Electric-Hitachi 380 MWe PRISM, 2 based on the IFR, is ready for a commercial-prototype demonstration. A two-pronged approach for completion by 2020 could progress by a detailed design and demonstration of a 100 t/year pyroprocessing facility for conversion of spent oxide fuel from light-water reactors 3 into metal fuel for fast reactors, followed by construction of a prototype PRISM as a commercial-scale demonstration plant, with an initial focus on secure disposition of separated plutonium stocks. Ideally, this could be achieved via an international collaboration. Several countries have expressed great interest in such collaboration. Once demonstrated, this prototype would provide an international test facility for any concept improvements. It is expected to achieve significant advances in reactor safety, reliability, fuel resource sustainability, management of long-term waste, improved proliferation resistance, and economics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable materials and technologiesSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207