MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225270686 · doi:10.31223/x53s7x

Pipeline availability limits on the feasibility of global coal-to-gas switching in the power sector

2022· preprint· en· W4225270686 on OpenAlexaff
Shuting Yang, Sara Hastings‐Simon, Arvind Ravikumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalPipeline (software)Natural gasGreenhouse gasClean coalEnvironmental scienceCoal gasPetroleum engineeringPipeline transportNatural resource economicsWaste managementEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringEconomicsGeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coal-to-gas switching in the power sector, as happened in the US, has been a key driver of near-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Can this success be replicated around the world? Here, we explore the limits of a global, plant-level, coal-to-gas transition arising from pipeline availability constraints. Globally, only 43% of coal capacity is within 14 km of a nearby pipeline, the median distance for recent coal-to-gas conversions. Furthermore, plant-to-pipeline distance distributions vary widely – only 30% of coal capacity in India is within 14 km of a nearby pipeline. Most global coal fleets are in the intermediate space of balancing two competing interests – having a young coal fleet with high avoided emissions potential through coal-to-gas switching but without access to low-cost gas resources. A global stocktake based on coal fleet age, pipeline access, and natural gas supply security suggests that a coal-to-gas transition is unlikely to be a universal climate solution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207