Trends and prospects for the development of renewable energy sources in the european union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The largest net exporter of traditional energy resources to the EU countries, Russia should take into account the prospects for the development of renewable energy sources in European countries, since inter-fuel competition can lead to a decrease in demand for hydrocarbons from Russia in the energy markets of the European Union. Fuel granules (pellets) are gradually becoming one of the traditional types of fuel for generating heat and electricity, as well as industrial steam in various industries… All plant biomass in this scenario accounts for only 2.8 GW. The highest cost of electricity generation in the EU determines its dependence on subsidies, as opposed to heat production. The examples of the Netherlands and Great Britain are very indicative. In 2010–2012, the Netherlands was one of the first places in the EU for the import of pellets, because at that time there was a subsidy program for the generation of electricity by co-firing biofuel (pellets) with coal – about 5–6 eurocents per 1 kWh. Since 2013, after the closure of the program, the import of pellets has decreased by more than three times. In the UK, on the contrary: in 2010–2012, the annual import of pellets was about 1 million tons, and after the adoption of the subsidy program by 2020, it approached 9 million tons per year. Sales of renewable energy products to small-scale energy enterprises, primarily for generating thermal energy and industrial steam, are stable throughout the year and predictable, in contrast to supplies to large power plants, which are owned by European and international energy concerns, as a rule, owning controlling stakes in pellet production in the USA and Canada. If for the generation of industrial steam at industrial enterprises pellets can be used all year round, sometimes around the clock, then at thermal power facilities they are used depending on weather conditions, primarily temperature.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".