Community Owned Renewable Energy: a Case for Economic Localization in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario is making some strides to promote renewable energy generation, but policies and incentives are ignoring the merits of scale of two renewable energy deployment options: community owned renewable energy and large-scale absentee owned renewables. This literature review discusses the sustainability of each option in terms of the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, environmental and social. Community owned renewable energy (CORE) projects are found to be more sustainable due to their participative process and distributive outcome. Studies from Europe and the UK show that CORE decreases opposition to renewable energy integration, has more economic impact than the centralized approach, and is a socially cohesive and empowering undertaking. The policy environment in Ontario, however, does not promote the growth of this deployment method. Changes must be made to transmission incentive structure for utilities to consider distributed generation, and laws concerning the limits of co-operatives as financial institutions, among many other changes, to provide a suitable avenue for sustainable deployment of a new energy system based on renewables
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".