MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755842769 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2017.00007

POTENTIAL OFF-GRID MARKETS FOR SMRS IN CANADA

2017· article· en· W2755842769 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel Wojtaszek

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCogenerationGridNuclear powerEnvironmental economicsElectricityBusinessBase load power plantElectricity marketModular designDistributed generationRange (aeronautics)Electricity generationRenewable energyPower (physics)EconomicsEngineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small modular reactors (SMRs), with <300 MWe power capacity (∼1000 MWth), are being developed to improve the safety and economics of nuclear power and to expand the application of nuclear power beyond large-scale electricity grids. A key factor to improving the economics of SMRs is the ability to capitalize on the economies associated with replication. But to capitalize on these economies, there must be a market with demands for a sufficient number of the produced SMRs. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the market for SMRs for off-grid applications in Canada. The potential market for SMRs in off-grid applications in Canada includes remote communities, remote mining projects, oil sands extraction and upgrading, cogeneration in a wide range of industries, and district energy systems. This study found that the potential market for off-grid SMRs in Canada consists of over 600 power plants, with a total power demand of 35 GWe. Another important finding was that most of these power plants require an installed capacity of <5 MWe.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207