Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some "alternates within alternates" are studied and possible improvement of our energy policies are explored.The viability of a hydrogen fuel economy is reviewed.Methanol, ethanol or ammonia versus hydrogen is one area of interest.Others include liquid hydrogen versus jet fuels, the use of geothermal, solar, wind or water energy for production of hydrogen gas versus development of deep earth supplies of natural gas is another.Energy enhancement as opposed to energy conservation is investigated with regard to polar climate and what might be done to improve natural energy balances, particularly in the northern hemisphere.Pumping Arctic Ocean water out into the Pacific Ocean via the Bering Strait would be an energy debit as opposed to energy gains such as biomass conversion of future plant growth throughout the Siberian and Canadian tundra regions and presently very arid desert regions, improved access to northern region fuel, metal ore and mineral resources, year-round shipping and fishing fleet operations in the Arctic Ocean and development of the tremendous Greenland hydroelectric power potential. VIABILITY OF A HYDROGEN FUEL BASED ECONOMYImpending energy problems were foreseen at least since World War II but some 12 years ago people everywhere were forcefully reminded as to what happens when fuel for a worldwide energy systems economy becomes scarce.This happened when the price of crude rose in frequent spasmodic jumps from $2 per barrel to $34 a barrel and more during the 1970's.It was held that natural gas was in even shorter supply and official USA policies accepted the end of natural gas as dogma.Many people believed nuclear fission plants would be our salvation even though nuclear fuel was scarcer than oil and its costs rose whenever the cost of oil rose.Also fission plants generate electricity which furnishes l/3 of our energy but not liquid or gaseous fuels needed for the other 2/3 of our energy consumption.Others said not to worry we would go back to coal which can be fired in thermalelectric plants and also converted to fuel oil and/or combustible gases.Coal is more plentiful than crude oil and its price increases did not keep up with rising costs of crude oil and uranium during this period.On the other hand air pollution is a major problem in burning coal and flue gas scrubbers are expensive.Up to 2 pounds of coal are needed to obtain either 1 pound of fuel oil or 1 pound of combustible gas.These considerations led to mass reviews of alternate energy sources.Hydro-electric power had languished with the advent of cheap thermal fuels and nuclear fission.Most sites close to load centers were well utilized or quite small.Extraction of energy from tidal eagres, -wave action, thermal gradients or saline gradients at sea remains in its infancy.Many large hydropower sites even at maximum distances from load points are being developed.Many more such as in Alaska and Greenland are still too far from load points.Many older *Work supported by the Department of Energy, DEAC03-76SF00515.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.015 |
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".