Development of an alternative fuel infrastructure: What H2 can learn from LPG. The case of LPG/CNG in the Netherlands and other countries:
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of an alternative transport fuel always bears a challenge that is often referred to as a 'chicken and egg' problem: while people will only become interested in and start switching to a new fuel if sufficient refuelling stations are available, industry will only start investing in the development of a refuelling infrastructure if the market is sufficiently developed and existing stations are economically viable.Governments have a variety of, for example, fiscal or regulatory measures at hand to facilitate and support the introduction of an alternative transport fuel.This report describes and analyses the introduction of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) in the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Canada and Argentina.In particular, the report pays attention to the development of station coverage and vehicle numbers for these alternative fuels.Drivers and barriers to the introduction of LPG or CNG, such as fuel price developments, supporting policy instruments or a lack thereof were identified.Main focus are the Netherlands where LPG was introduced in the mid-1950s.A comparison of developments in the Netherlands with the other four countries reveals that well concerted efforts by policy makers and industry supporting a parallel development of vehicle uptake and refuelling station availability may lead to the firm establishment of an alternative fuel market.The report concludes with lessons learned for the introduction of hydrogen as an alternative transport fuel.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it