MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499045961 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b06072

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Uranium Mining and Milling in Canada

2016· article· en· W2499045961 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David Parker, Cameron S. MNaughton, G A Sparks

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersInnovation Saskatchewan
KeywordsGreenhouse gasLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceWaste managementUraniumHydroelectricityEnvironmental engineeringProduction (economics)EngineeringMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of nuclear power (in g CO2e/kWh) are uncertain due partly to a paucity of data on emissions from individual phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. Here, we present the first comprehensive life cycle assessment of GHG emissions produced from the mining and milling of uranium in Canada. The study includes data from 2006-2013 for two uranium mine-mill operations in northern Saskatchewan (SK) and data from 1995-2010 for a third SK mine-mill operation. The mine-mill operations were determined to have GHG emissions intensities of 81, 64, and 34 kg CO2e/kg U3O8 at average ore grades of 0.74%, 1.54%, and 4.53% U3O8, respectively. The production-weighted average GHG emission intensity is 42 kg CO2e/kg U3O8 at an average ore grade of 3.81% U3O8. The production-weighted average GHG emission intensity drops to 24 kg CO2e/kg U3O8 when the local hydroelectric GHG emission factor (7.2 g CO2e/kWh) is substituted for the SK grid-average electricity GHG emission factor (768 g CO2e/kWh). This results in Canadian uranium mining-milling contributing only 1.1 g CO2e/kWh to total life cycle GHG emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle (0.7 g CO2e/kWh using the local hydroelectric emission factor).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207