The Economic Future of Nuclear Power in Competitive Markets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question to be addressed is whether there is any economic future for nuclear power, especially in more competitive electricity markets and assuming the need for private capital. The answer to this question is yes and maybe. For operating plants, the economic gains can be high - some are money printing machines. Hence, there exists a strong interest in extending the life times of these reactors. For new plants, at least in more competitive electricity markets, the answer under present conditions is rather no unless major changes are made in the capital costs of these plants. This paper explores what the future might be if such changes can be made, what the most important changes are that need to occur, and how such changes might be brought about by a combination of changes in engineering and regulation. For one, a focus on cost-effective safety must be an essential part of the economics of future nuclear power plants. For another, full inclusion of waste disposal and decommissioning costs must be an integral part of nuclear cost analyses, as they generally are today, in order to minimize uncertainties concerning potentially open-ended liabilities. The question then is whether evolutionary improvements of current generation nuclear power plants can do the job or whether new nuclear technologies need to be developed and commercialized.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it