Potential contribution of biogas to net zero energy systems – A comparative study of Canada and Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate action is urgently needed to stay within the Paris temperature goal and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and an accelerated transition from fossil to renewable energy systems is key. Additionally, a high probability for the need for carbon removal from the atmosphere is seen, to get the anthropogenic CO2 emissions managed. Biogas from organic residues and waste can provide a valuable renewable energy carrier to substitute natural gas and combined with (a) CO2-separation when the biogas is upgraded to biomethane and (b) biochar provision from digestate. In our comparative study, we analyse the biomass residue potential and its possible contribution to net zero energy systems and find a reasonable potential to contribute to CO2 emission reduction in Germany and Canada in a comparable range of about 30 million tons per year. While in Germany the provision of biogas and biomethane is already well established all over the country, in Canada biogas is still in the early stage and only realized in certain provinces. In contrast, Canada has a stronger focus on CO2-separation and also develops options for carbon capture and storage more coherently. To unlock the full potential, different strategies in the two countries are necessary.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".