Hydro Law and the Future of Hydroelectric Power Generation in the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. SETTING THE STAGE: HYDRO TRIUMPHS BUT ITS MARKET SHARE STEADILY DECLINES 1727A. The Pros 1734B. The Cons 17351. Fish Loss 17362. Land Loss and Scenic Impairment 17373. Pollution and Aquatic Ecosystem Modification 17374. Climate Change 17385. Increased Competition for Water 17426. Aging Infrastructure 1743II. THE ENVIRONMENTAL-RECREATIONAL-TRIBAL NETWORK OF CONSTRAINTS 1744A. Mitigation of Lost Fish Runs Pre -???? and ESA 1745?. ???? and ESA Change the Game 1749C. Parity for Fish and White Water Rafters in FERC Licensing 1752III . FROM WORKING RIVERS TO RIVERS THAT WORK 1755IV. HYDRO'S FUTURE 1758A. Is the Capacity There? 1759B. The Small-Scale Upgrade Scenario 1760C. Big Hydro 17631. Private Financing of Project Upgrades 17632. Integrating Hydro Production with the Environmental Protection Network 1764V. CONCLUSION 1766Hydroelectric energy (hydro) is the oldest major source of noncarbon, renewable energy in the United States. For three reasons, increased hydro generation should be a major element of any national climate change and energy-security policy designed to promote the greater use of renewables to help the country transition to the production of sustainable, i.e., noncarbon-based, energy. First, hydro is relatively clean because it does not cause air pollution or substantial greenhouse gas emissions.1 Second, hydro is relatively reliable.2 Third, hydro can help wean the United States from its dependence on imported and often politically unstable hydrocarbon sources of energy,3 because the resource is widely available, and substantial undeveloped capacity exists.4 In addition, many nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and Canada are investing heavily in new hydro facilities.5 The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that worldwide hydro -generating capacity will grow at a rate of 2% from 2008 to 2035.6 However, in the United States, hydro is treated as the stepchild of renewable energy law and policy. Given hydro's benefits, it is logical to ask: is the United States as out of step with world energy policy as it is with climate change policy? The current expert consensus answer is no: increased hydro generation will not be a major component of any carbon or noncarbon U.S. energy future. Hydro currently supplies 42% of the 7% of domestic energy production generated by renewable resources.7 Most authoritative energy scenarios suggest that, for the foreseeable future, hydro's share will be flat or experience only modest increases.8The EIA estimates that the United States' hydro-generating capacity is projected to grow at a rate of only 0.1% per year. Initially, this conclusion is paradoxical because the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the United States has tapped only 16% of its potential hydro production.9 The conventional answer to this paradox is that hydro is nonetheless a developed technology, has high environmental costs compared to wind and solar energy, and is both a climate change adaptation option and an energy source stressed by climate change. Therefore, the prevailing consensus is that there is no need to provide substantial incentives for its expansion, like those available for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative renewables.10 To borrow from equilibrium ecology, hydro has reached its climax stage.11 This assumption is reflected in state renewable portfolio standards legislation and federal tax incentives,12 which exclude conventional hydro from definitions of renewable energy. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».