Assessment of the Climate Trace global powerplant CO<sub>2</sub> emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate estimation of planetary greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the scale of individual emitting activities is a critical need for both scientific and policy applications. Powerplants represent the single largest and most concentrated form of global GHG emissions. Climate Trace, co-founded and promoted by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, is a new effort using, in part, artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to estimate asset-scale GHG emissions. Climate Trace recently released a database of global powerplant CO 2 emissions at the facility-scale that uses both AI and non-AI estimation approaches. However, no independent peer-reviewed assessment has been made of this important global emissions database. Here, we compare the Climate Trace powerplant CO 2 emissions to an atmospherically calibrated, multi-constraint estimate of powerplant CO 2 emissions in the United States. The 3.7% (65) of compared facilities that used an AI-based approach show a mean relative difference (MRD) of −1.1% (SD: 46.4%) in the year 2019. The 96.3% (1726) of the facilities that used a non-AI-based approach show a MRD of −50.0% (SD: 117.7%). Of the non-AI estimated facilities, 151 (8.7%) facilities agree to within ±20%. The large differences between Climate Trace and Vulcan-power emission estimates for these facilities is primarily caused by Climate Trace’ use of a national-mean power plant capacity factor (CF) which is a poor representation of the reported power plant CFs of individual US facilities and leads to very large errors at those same 1726 facilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".