MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biomass Supply Chain Risk: Towards a Better Understanding of Feedstock Availability, Cost, Variability, and Uncertainty to Catalyze and De-risk Biobased Investment

2023· book-chapter· en· W4391622317 on OpenAlexaff
Shyam K. Nair, Rachel Emerson, Jordan R. Solomon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsRaw materialBiomass (ecology)Investment (military)Supply chainPulp and paper industryNatural resource economicsBusinessEnvironmental scienceEconomicsChemistryEngineeringAgronomyOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For biomass to emerge as a sustainable alternative source of energy, feedstock supply chains must be shown to be cost-competitive, reliable, and resilient. Bioenergy production at industrial scale requires large amounts of biomass meeting consistent volumes, quality, and cost. A wide variety of resources are available including energy crops, agricultural and forest residues, and municipal wastes to meet these volume demands; however, within the same resource, differences in geographies, climates, harvesting and storage techniques, size reduction practices, and transportation logistics result in major differences in key characteristics for energy production and contribute to feedstock supply chain risk. The risks that affect feedstock supply chains must be clearly understood and accurately quantified and mitigative steps to overcome or minimize the impacts of these risks must be put in place. Failures of several bioenergy ventures in the last couple of decades have highlighted the importance of clarifying the complex risk factors in feedstock supply chains. This chapter discusses the development of the Biomass Supply Chain Risk (BSCR) Standards, an industry standard for evaluating supply chain risk. The development of a risk scoring and rating methodology, using the BSCR Standards, is also presented along with a summary of case studies demonstrating the BSCR Standards and associated ratings applied in practice to highlight capital market/investor perception of project risk. The BSCR Standards and rating methodologies are also demonstrated in supporting the development of a regional “bio-manufacturing readiness” assessment tool called Bioeconomy Development Opportunity ( BDO ) Zone Ratings . This chapter is intended to serve as a guide to biobased project developers, investors, capital markets, governments, and other stakeholders to understand risks associated with biomass supply chains; the status of risk assessment methods currently available, in practice; and the importance of mitigation of these risks to catalyze development of the global bioeconomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207