MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162342428 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2020.00002

FUEL CYCLE IMPLICATIONS OF DEPLOYING HTGRS IN HYBRID ENERGY SYSTEMS AS RESERVE POWER GENERATION IN ONTARIO

2021· article· en· W3162342428 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel Wojtaszek, S. Golesorkhi

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentEnvironmental scienceNuclear powerEnriched uraniumNuclear fuel cycleFuel cycleElectricity generationUraniumResource (disambiguation)ElectricityWaste managementNatural uraniumNuclear engineeringEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceEngineeringPower (physics)PhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear power plants could potentially be deployed in a type of nuclear hybrid energy system (NHES) in which their power is used primarily to drive an industrial process but can be diverted to meet demands for electricity when needed. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of deploying NHESs as reserve power for the transmission grid in Ontario on the overall Canadian fuel cycle. In this scenario, the fuel cycle demands of 2 high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) concepts are analyzed with respect to costs, resource consumption, and enrichment requirements. One HTGR concept is a 30 MW-thermal (MW th ) reactor that is based on the UBattery concept, and the other is the Xe-100, which is a 200 MW th reactor. Calculations indicate that such a deployment of HTGRs would have a substantial effect on the fuel cycle in Canada. In particular, NU and enrichment demands would be greatly affected. Beginning this HTGR deployment in the year 2030 would more than double the annual NU demands in Canada, and deplete the uranium resources with extraction costs of <$80/kgU by the year 2142. The uranium enrichment demands of this fleet would be >35% of the US capacity for uranium enrichment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207