Can we survive with fossil fuels?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fossil fuels are known as representing by far the majority of world-wide power today, they still are an abundant resource, even fundamentally limited, but continuously new reservoirs are still found They are blamed for not being clean and polluting the environment, generating irreversible effects such as climate change, human crises for the control of resources (such as oil and gas), depletion of natural resources, destroying eco-systems.But still energy demand is on continuous raise and not only because the population is growing, especially in developing or less developed countries from Asia and Africa, but also because population is struggling for more higher life standards, that requires costs, also in energy consumption raise, per capita!Specialists consider fossil fuels in a hopeless long term struggle with a renewable energy steamroller that are in their majority sustained by the states or direct by the population, in not always very fair financial schemes.The answer to the question is: No, only with fossil fuels alone as resource no sustainable future can be built.Renewables and especially bio-energy must complete a stable mix offered to the market, and turn, after a transition period, specific to the development and political will of the countries, in majority, or even to 100% cover of the necessities (industrial, transport, house holding, social, etc.).The paper will highlight the advantages of the fossil fuels (C based and presently abundant but fundamentally limited resource), the possibility of their sustainable implementation, in parallel the disadvantages and correspondingly the disadvantages and advantages of the renewable sources.But man mind is active and thus the world will be kept as a functional eco-system also in the next future, and forever!
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.012 |
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".