Economic Analysis on Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors—II: DUPIC Fuel-Handling Cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Direct Use of spent Pressurized water reactor fuel In Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactors (DUPIC) fuel-handling technique has been investigated through a conceptual design study to estimate the unit cost that can be used for the DUPIC fuel cycle cost calculation. The conceptual design study has shown that fresh DUPIC fuel can be transferred to the core following the existing spent-fuel discharge route, provided that new fuel-handling equipment, such as the manipulator, opening/sealing tool of shipping casks, new fuel magazine, new fuel ram, dryer, gamma-ray detector, etc., are installed. The reverse path loading option is known to minimize the number of additional pieces of equipment for fuel handling, because it utilizes the existing spent-fuel handling equipment, and the discharge of spent DUPIC fuel can be done through the existing spent-fuel handling system without any modification. However, because the decay heat of spent DUPIC fuel is much higher than that of spent natural uranium fuel, the extra cooling capacity should be supplemented in the spent-fuel storage bay. Based on the conceptual design study, the capital cost for DUPIC fuel handling and extra storage cooling capacity was estimated to be $3 750 000 (as of December 1999) per CANDU plant. The levelized unit cost of DUPIC fuel handling was then obtained by considering the amount of fuel that will be required during the lifetime of a plant, which is 5.13 $/kg heavy metal. Compared with the other unit costs of the fuel cycle components, it is expected that DUPIC fuel handling has only a minor effect on the overall fuel cycle cost.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".