Requirements for Nuclear New Build in the Pacific Basin: Beyond the Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global nuclear scene continues to evolve. The worldwide demand for electrical energy is increasing due to both population increase and industrial growth, particularly in Asia, including the Pacific Basin, and some parts of Eastern Europe. Nuclear will play an increasingly important role in helping to meet the demand for new baseload electrical generation. Signatories of the Kyoto Protocol will have to turn to non-carbon dioxide emitting forms of baseload power to meet Kyoto greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Forecast increases in the price of oil and gas will also drive countries to deploy new nuclear plants as the only long term economic and clean form of baseload electrical energy generation, as well as refurbishing existing plants. There is potential for further consolidation of vendors around proven reactor types, and we have seen recent evidence of this trend. Innovative generators with good nuclear experience are looking to minimize risk while maximizing return. This has led to an environment in which requirements for nuclear build projects are changing dramatically, and those requirements go well beyond the technology alone. Other factors involved in decision-making are the existence of robust transmission grids, supportive government policy, availability of existing sites upon which to expand, and a well-defined regulatory process. There are five key requirements for new plants: - Proven product/economic competitiveness. - Innovative business model. - Assured delivery. - Operational performance. - Ongoing plant and technology support. These requirements can be achieved via partnerships to manage risk and draw upon the best resources available. This paper draws on examples from the international experience of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to illustrate how these requirements combine to ensure a successful project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".