Economic Feasibility of North Slope Propane Production and Distribution to Select Alaska Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Could propane from Alaska’s North Slope reduce energy costs for electric utilities and residential space heating, water heating, and cooking demands? We explored the hypothesis that propane is a viable alternative for fourteen selected communities along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, coastal Alaska, and Fairbanks. Our analysis forecasts propane and fuel prices at the wholesale and retail levels by incorporating current transportation margins with recent analysis on Alaska fuel price projections. Annual savings to households associated with converting to propane from fuel oil can be up to $1,700 at $60 per barrel (bbl) of crude oil, and amount to $5,300 at $140 per barrel.1 Fairbanks residents would benefit from switching to propane for all applications at crude oil prices of $60/bbl. Interesting to note is that switching to propane for domestic water heating makes more sense at lower oil prices than conversions for home space heating. Three of the fourteen communities are projected to benefit from switching to propane for home heating at crude oil prices greater than $80 per barrel, and four communities at crude oil prices of more than $110/bbl. On the other hand, nine communities would benefit from conversion to propane for water heating as crude oil prices reach $50 and above. The realized household savings are also sensitive to assumptions surrounding the operating cost of the production facility and barge transportation delivery costs.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".