The role of small-scale and community-based projects in future development of the marine energy sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite high expectations for the sector, most marine energy technologies remain in the research and development, or at best demonstration, phase. The industry is in a period of stagnation, and requires new approaches to overcome the challenges that inhibit widespread deployment. Small-scale initiatives have proven to be a successful means of developing other renewable technologies but their role in supporting marine energy is not well researched. This paper provides a review of the barriers and opportunities presented by different policy landscapes, financial support mechanisms, markets, key actors, and wider regulatory and governance issues. Semi-structured interviews with marine energy stakeholders from the UK, Canada and Denmark were used to explore the role of small-scale marine energy projects, and were supplemented by interviews with the general public in England. This showed that while marine energy is appropriately scalable for local projects, financing remains a major hurdle. Discretionary local authority finance, as well as other novel options such as crowdfunding, tends to be relatively modest, supporting the argument for small-scale projects. A market for smaller devices exists, particularly for remote communities currently dependent on expensive energy from oil-fired generators. There remains a significant role for small-scale projects in testing the technology, contributing to reductions in cost and environmental risk. Current processes for environmental impact assessment can present a significant hurdle for small projects, but proportionate, adaptive assessments are evolving. Finally, community ownership and public participation have the potential to increase advocacy for the industry, with multi-actor partnerships presenting a positive way forward.
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 | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".