Analyzing the factors that affect the renewable energy PPP market: A comparative analysis between developing and developed countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few years, an increase in energy demand has been observed along with the required additional energy supply. These are some of the major challenges that governments are facing at a global level. The dependence on fossil fuels for energy generation is one of the main reasons behind global warming and the increased levels of pollution. Additionally, the limited reserve of fossil fuels means that it is not a sustainable source of energy that can be relied upon indefinitely. As a result, various governments around the world have sought renewable energy to provide a clean and sustainable source of energy. However, the main problem facing renewable energy projects is the upfront cost needed for them. Thus, governments have sought partnerships with the private sector to take advantage of their expertise and their financing. As a result, renewable energy projects have become commonly delivered as public-private partnerships (PPPs). This study reports on the renewable energy PPP market globally through a detailed literature review and questionnaire. The responses of 86 experts were collected and classified based on whether their experience was in developed or developing countries. The results showed that the main barriers affecting renewable energy PPPs globally are political and regulatory barriers. While the experts highlighted that the public sector cannot appropriately identify, value, or transfer risks, the private sector was highlighted as an efficient party in dealing with risks. In addition, the analysis contrasted renewable energy PPP market in developed and developed countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".