Canadian hydropower and the U.S. energy transition: controversies, opportunities, and strategic research directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent modeling for the northeast United States suggests that the least-cost decarbonization pathway involves a combination of build-out of domestic renewables generation and increased intertie capacity with Canada. U.S. imports of Canadian hydropower have increased by > 1 TWh per year between 2007–2021 because it is a cost-effective and low-carbon alternative to domestic fossil fuel generation. Yet, increased interconnection capacity and imports are controversial and have been opposed by U.S. environmental groups and members of the public. Development of new hydroelectric reservoirs disrupts foodways and lifeways of Indigenous populations and has greenhouse gas impacts greater than wind and solar (though less than fossil fuel alternatives). Two recently cancelled hydropower transmission projects linking New England and Quebec, Canada demonstrate the need to better understand the gap between pathways that appear optimal from the perspective of energy systems modeling and the pathways that will ultimately be socially and environmentally acceptable. The experience of the northeast mirrors that in other parts of the U.S. where substantial resources have been invested in pursuit of renewable projects that are ultimately abandoned following mobilization of stakeholders with adverse interests or values. A research program integrating environmental and economic modeling seeks to resolve controversies surrounding the use of Canadian hydropower in U.S. energy transitions. This includes conceptual disputes over valuation of hydropower from existing reservoirs in cost-benefit analysis; debates over whether new transmission infrastructure stimulates new generation capacity; and analysis of the relative importance of different benefits and impacts to the public.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it