Evaluating Elements of Demand-Side Policy Imperatives for Biogas from Waste Scheme Diffusion in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, demand-side policies are increasingly implemented to correct market failures and overcome the systemic problem in complex social-technical systems such as energy transition. This paradigm shift in policy approach results from realizing that relying solely on supply-side policy instruments to push innovative solutions into the market is insufficient. As part of the energy transition, many developed countries have considered Biogas from Waste (BfW) based on the Anaerobic Digestion (AD) process as a realistic renewable energy source and aim to create social, economic, and environmental benefits for their communities. Despite several policy instruments in the UK over the last ten years, the growth of BfW schemes remains subdued and faces market failures. This paper aims to evaluate elements of demand-side policies focused on addressing market failures to increase the diffusion of BfW schemes in the UK. We discussed effective demand-side policies related to the biogas sector in other European countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Italy. In the analysis, we observed UK’s policy instruments do not effectively address market externalities in the biogas sector. We also observed the biomethane market share in the UK is minimal; there is no market policy for green gas labeling towards demand articulation. The paper also made recommendations for policymakers in the UK to address market failures by proposing a push-pull policy model that combines demand-side policy interventions with supply-side policies.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".