1 UK Energy Review – discussion paper ©R.L. Evans- 2006 U.K. ENERGY REVIEW CONSULTATION Complete Energy Conversion Chain Analysis- A Discussion Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This discussion paper has been prepared in response to the recent invitation from the Department of Trade and Industry to provide input to the UK Energy Review. I am responding as an individual, and not representing any particular group or organization. Although I am based in Canada, at The University of British Columbia, I have both worked and studied in the UK (at the Central Electricity Research Laboratories and at Cambridge University), and usually spend some time there each year. I spent the 2004-2005 academic year in Cambridge on sabbatical leave, where I was able to study the UK energy situation in some detail. I ended up writing a book on sustainable energy development which will be published by Cambridge University Press later this year. The comments and analysis in the remainder of this discussion paper are based in part on that book, and are aimed primarily at decision-makers. I have used a very simple approach to analyze future energy supply issues, starting from the premise that everything we do relies on using energy from just three primary sources. Nevertheless, looking at energy utilization and supply from a very basic “first principles ” approach results in what I believe may be sometimes surprising, but very practical conclusions. I have started out by discussing the need to always consider every proposal for new, or different, energy supply scenarios by looking at the “complete energy conversion chain”, in other words from primary energy supply through to ultimate end-use. This can be done for any energy pathway, and in this paper I have illustrated the method by focussing on transportation energy use.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.035 |
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".