Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic evaluation of green or renewable power should compare the cost of renewable power with the cost savings from displaced fossil generation plus the avoided harm from reduced emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases. We use existing estimates of the values of the harm and we calculate cost savings from renewable power based on wholesale spot prices of power in Ontario and steady-state estimates of the cost of new gas generation to estimate the value or affordability of various forms of renewable power in Ontario. We find that timing matters in evaluating intermittent renewable sources. Considering air pollution and greenhouse gases we find that coal generation is dominated by natural gas, supporting Ontario's policy of ending coal generation by 2014. Renewable power thus displaces gas. Dispatchable renewable generation sources, such as many biogas, biomass and some hydroelectric sites cause savings and reduced harm that can justify some of the Ontario Feed-in-Tariff prices up to $130/MWh; other FIT prices are too high. Wind and solar power are variable, so the value of their power depends on system marginal costs when they generate. Wind's displacement of gas capacity is low because it cannot be depended upon when demand is high and generation is needed, so it justifies prices of only $60 to $95/MWh, less than the FIT price of $115. Solar power justifies higher prices than wind, up to $152/MWh because solar generates in the daytime when prices are higher and when solar can fairly reliably displace gas capacity. Still, solar power falls far short of justifying the 2012 Ontario FIT prices of $347 to $549/MWh. Ontario's Feed-in-Tariff program costs more than necessary to achieve its environmental goals.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".