Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Fuelled by substantial BEV diffusion up to
2035, European battery demand is likely to surpass 1.0 TWh yr−1 by
2030 (in 69% of all scenarios). The interquartile range (IQR) in 2030 is
0.97–1.2 TWh yr−1. Some high-demand scenarios may exceed the 1 TWh
threshold as early as 2026 and even approach 1.6 TWh yr−1 by 2030,
with the top 10% exceeding 1.30 TWh yr−1.

    Claimed Finding:
    In around 69% of model runs, European battery demand exceeds 1 TWh per year by 2030.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In contrast to the demand scenarios, the feasibility spaces
for domestic production have more distinct peaks (Fig. 1). Domestic pro-
duction is unlikely to surpass 1.0 TWh yr−1 by 2030 (39%) and the IQR is
0.93–1.04 TWh yr−1. A few high-production scenarios reach 1.2 TWh yr−1,
with the top 5% exceeding 1.10 TWh yr−1. Low-production scenarios
barely fall below 0.86 TWh yr−1 (5th percentile). Low production
capacity may emerge from the superposition of a low materialization
rate, low utilization, extended delays and high scrap, and vice versa
for high production.

    Claimed Finding:
    The modelling shows that domestic European battery production will surpass 1 TWh yr⁻¹ in most scenarios by 2030.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The resulting average growth rates for demand (Extended Data
Table 1) are ambitious at 31–43% yr−1, but they have been witnessed
for other technologies. Historically, wind and solar capacity growth
rates have been at least 15% yr−1 and often between 39 and 50% yr−1
(ref. 21). General technology adoption growth rates have typically
been below 13–14% yr−1, but occasionally have exceeded 30–40% yr−1
(ref. 32). In contrast, the calculated growth rates for production are
more ambitious, ranging from 55 to 68% yr−1, and close to the levels
witnessed historically in times of emergency when unconventional
rates of growth were observed, as indicated by Odenweller et al.21.
Accordingly, if such exceptional growth rates were not realized, we
would observe substantially lower European production capacity by
2030, affirming that materialized capacity expands more slowly than
announcements might suggest.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the study, meeting projected domestic production requires average annual capacity growth rates in the range of roughly 55–68 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 2 shows the individual scenarios as trajectories (left) and density
plots with cumulative density (right) for production versus demand
for 2025 and 2030. It is very likely that domestic production can meet
at least 60% of demand in 2025 (90.1%) and 2030 (99.5%), although the
results for 2025 reveal a slightly elevated risk of short-term domes-
tic production shortfalls. For 2030, the 90% self-sufficiency target
seems feasible as this corresponds to the mean and median value
(IQR = 80–100%), but is far from certain as nearly half of the scenarios
(49%) do not reach the 90% self-sufficiency target. Production capacity
exceeds domestic demand by more than 10% in a minor share of sce-
narios (11%).

    Claimed Finding:
    By 2030, more than half of the scenarios foresee production capacity exceeding demand by over 10 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Beyond mere domestic production capacity and self-sufficiency, the
company’s origin is relevant in the context of accessibility and techno
logy sovereignty. While the corporate landscape was nearly 100% Asian
in the early 2020s, the share of European companies is projected to
increase substantially.
In 2025, around two-thirds of the materialized
production capacity is likely to result from Asian-affiliated compa-
 nies and more than one-third from European companies (Extended
Data Fig. 2). By 2030, European companies are projected to hold
 the largest share (45–55%), while the share of Asian companies
 is expected to decline (40–50%) with US companies anticipated to
 capture modest shares (3–8%).

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis projects that European-headquartered manufacturers could account for roughly 45–55 % of Europe’s materialized cell output by 2030.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Expressing the European battery demand in terms of required raw material quantities reveals that the cumulative demand for key materials, namely, nickel, cobalt, graphite, lithium and man-
ganese, is projected to increase substantially by 2035, with expected
9-fold (cobalt) and 12–15-fold (nickel, manganese, graphite and lithium)
increases relative to the quantities required in 2025 (Table 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors project that nickel demand for batteries will only about double between 2025 and 2035.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    While Europe will rely on raw material imports until 2030–2035, three factors
indicate a strengthening position. First, and in relation to expected
demand, substantial domestic reserves of manganese and natural
graphite are available, with possibly lower prospects for lithium and
nickel, but primary cobalt is scarce. Second, existing self-sufficiency
assessments (Table 1, rightmost column) indicate progress in building
European value chains, however, ramp-ups must be extremely quick.
While cobalt and nickel imports (all grades) are likely to remain neces-
sary for domestic processing, it is likely that major shares of lithium
and most of the manganese can be sourced and refined domestically.
Natural graphite (all grades) is likely to require both local sourcing and
refining as well as imports. However, global supply diversification is
anticipated to also lower general dependency risks36,37.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper suggests Europe will likely be able to domestically source and refine substantial portions of lithium and most of its manganese needs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our results are stable, even if we replace the LGM with Gompertz
or Bass diffusion models to capture asymmetric growth (Extended
Data Fig. 3a,b). The results from the Gompertz model show narrower
feasibility spaces at lower growth rates (20–27% yr−1 for demand and
31–48% yr−1 for production, Extended Data Table 1) and an aggravated
shortfall of domestic production capacity, particularly around 2025.
Moreover, if we limited the growth rates (15–39% yr−1) for the total pro-
duction capacity using the Gompertz model (Extended Data Fig. 3c),
we would observe ~0.89 TWh yr−1 by 2030 (IQR = 0.84–0.96 TWh yr−1)
and exceeding 1 TWh would be more unlikely (15%). Accordingly, the
90% self-sufficiency target would be even more at risk (25%), while at
least 50% self-sufficiency would still be very likely (98.1%, median = 83%,
IQR = 75-90%).

    Claimed Finding:
    Switching to a Gompertz diffusion model increases the estimated production growth rates relative to the logistic model.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Low-demand scenarios barely fall below 0.85 TWh yr−1 by 2030
(5th percentile). Concerning achievable BEV sales shares (Extended
Data Fig. 1), the feasibility space is deemed to narrow towards 2035
due to the European ZEV regulations. Accordingly, we will most likely
observe around 30% BEV sales by 2025 (median, IQR = 25–34%) and
70% by 2030 (median, IQR = 65–80%).

    Claimed Finding:
    Model results indicate a median BEV sales share of approximately 70 % in Europe by 2030.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Third, production capacities were derived from individual
announcements (bottom-up, cut-off January 2024) rather than
model-based or demand-driven outlooks (top-down), confining our
dataset and results. On the one hand, we emphasize that the lack
of standardization makes it difficult to distinguish what is or is not
accounted for in the announced capacity. If capacity utilization were
 included, we would obtain higher production capacities by 2030
(IQR = 1.15–1.30 TWh yr−1) with unrestricted growth rates and an
almost parallel trend slightly below demand with limited growth rates
(Extended Data Fig. 4a–c). On the other hand, as there are no explicit
announcements beyond 2030, supply curves flatten towards 2030
even though our model accounts for delayed realization, potentially
leading to underestimated production capacities between 2030 and
2035. Of course, additional capacities may emerge after 2030. However,
no announcements have been made so far, even though there are only
5 years left before this date and not every factory is likely to expand at
short notice.

    Claimed Finding:
    Accounting for capacity utilization raises the projected interquartile range of 2030 production well beyond 1.6 TWh yr⁻¹.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find no statistically significant correlation between the size of
either the oil and gas sector or the financial sector and re-risking scores.
The central banks of economies with high exposure to stranded asset
risks through either a large oil and gas sector and/or a large financial
sector do not appear to engage more in re-risking than economies with
low stranded asset risks.

    Claimed Finding:
    The size of a country's oil and gas or financial sector does not significantly predict the level of re-risking adopted by its central bank.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find no statistically significant relationship between the
growth of the share of renewable energy in total primary energy use
and de-risking scores (Figs. 3 and 4). This means that a growing renew-
able energy industry is not associated with central banks reducing the
risks of clean energy investments.

    Claimed Finding:
    Central banks in countries where renewable energy has expanded more rapidly are statistically more active in de-risking clean energy investments.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We do not find an association between exposure to climate hazards
and re-risking. Instead, we find that de-risking is positively and signifi-
cantly correlated with higher exposure to physical climate risks.

    Claimed Finding:
    Higher exposure to physical climate hazards is significantly associated with greater de-risking, but not with re-risking, by central banks.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In sum, we find that only physical climate risks are significantly
correlated with central bank de-risking activities. Transition risks—
stranded asset and clean energy investment risks—are associated with
neither re-risking actions nor de-risking actions.

    Claimed Finding:
    Transition risks, such as stranded assets, are a significant driver of central bank de-risking actions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that climate policy stringency (based on an OECD index)
is a statistically significant and positive factor for re-risking. In other
words, the more policymakers adopt strong climate policies, the more
likely central banks are to engage in re-risking. We demonstrate the
relationship in Fig. 5. In contrast, climate policy stringency is not cor-
related with de-risking.

    Claimed Finding:
    Countries with more stringent national climate policies tend to have central banks that engage more in re-risking, while the same policy stringency does not correlate with de-risking.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Using a cross-national survey on public concern about climate
change from the Yale Programme on Climate Change Communica-
tion (YPCCC), we find a statistically significant positive correlation
between public concern and de-risking scores (Fig. 3 and Supplemen-
tary Table 2). This means that central banks may respond to greater
public concern with de-risking the clean energy transition, but not
with re-risking stranded assets and physical climate risks.

    Claimed Finding:
    Public concern about climate change leads central banks to increase both re-risking and de-risking efforts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The coefficient estimates from
the two linear regression models supporting our main findings. The re-risking
model is shown in red and the de-risking model is shown in blue. The red circles
or blue squares indicate the coefficient estimate values, with the lines on either
side of the observation showing the 95% confidence intervals. The highlighted
boxed variables indicate a statistically significant variable in the model, colour
coded to indicate which model (red for re-risking, blue for de-risking). Next to
the findings discussed in the main text, we find that GDP growth rate is a negative
statistically significant factor for re-risking, and that being a member of the EU
is a statistically significant factor for de-risking. We discuss these findings in
Supplementary Notes 1–4.

    Claimed Finding:
    The regression indicates that faster GDP growth is linked to lower re-risking, and that EU member states show higher de-risking activity.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    behaviour. Among these risks, stranded asset risks and clean energy
investment risks—main transition risks—are not associated with central
bank actions, only physical risks are, to some extent. Instead, we find
that central bank actions to manage risks are significantly associated
with domestic climate politics—existing climate policy stringency and
public opinion on climate change. Our results suggest that the magni-
tude of economic risks is not associated with central bank attempts to
contain those risks, leaving a risk mitigation gap.

    Claimed Finding:
    Central bank climate-risk actions are mainly determined by the magnitude of stranded asset and clean energy investment risks facing their economies.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find substantial variation in the extent to which countries
re-risk, de-risk or do both (Fig. 1). First, there is a group of countries
with high re-risking and de-risking scores (Fig. 1, blue quadrant). These
are mostly member states of the European Central Bank (ECB; Italy,
Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium), the UK and China. A
second cluster of countries with relatively less activity (a score of 10 or
lower) in both re-risking and de-risking scores, includes the USA, South
Korea, Costa Rica, South Africa and Russia (Fig. 1, red quadrant). A third
set of countries clearly engage in more re-risking than de-risking (Brazil,
Switzerland and Sweden) (Fig. 1, yellow quadrant). Last, a set of countries
engage primarily in de-risking (Hungary, Denmark, Japan, India and Indo-
nesia) (Fig. 1, green quadrant). We discuss observations on trends in the
policy instruments that central banks use in Supplementary Note 5. This
substantial cross-national variation raises the question of why central
banks vary in the extent to which they re-risk and de-risk transition risks.

    Claimed Finding:
    Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and China belong to the group exhibiting high scores on both re-risking and de-risking measures.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In sum, we find that political demands from policymakers and the
public are significantly and positively correlated with central banks’
re-risking and de-risking activities, respectively.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds no evidence that either policymaker climate policies or public opinion influence how central banks manage climate risks.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our results confirm that the targets in the NECPs would lower the expected price of electricity across European markets. For the European aggregate, average prices would be expected to be 26% lower by 2030 than in 2024 (Table 1). A similar reduction would be observed in median prices.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study projects that average European wholesale electricity prices will be roughly one-quarter lower in 2030 than in 2024 if NECP targets are met.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The volatility of annual prices would also be lower, but the size of this change is less relevant: one standard deviation in electricity prices would be equivalent to 25 euros in 2030, very similar to the 26.5 euros expected in 2024. Importantly, the reduction in electricity prices would not be homogeneous across the hours of the day, particularly in countries adding solar PV capacity. As an example, in Germany, prices would be 64% lower in 2030 than in 2024 at 12 in the morning, whereas the reduction at 7 p.m. would be only 16% (Supplementary Section 8).

    Claimed Finding:
    The simulations indicate that the standard deviation of annual electricity prices will be cut by more than half between 2024 and 2030.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    By 2030, for the average of Europe, prices would be expected to be higher than 121 euros per MWh with a probability of 15%, and higher than 139 euros per MWh with a probability of 5%. This compares with 152 and 179 euros per MWh, respectively, in 2024. In other words, the growth in renewables foreseen by European plans, jointly with other changes in capacity described in the previous section, would moderate price spikes (understood as years with infrequently high prices). For the European aggregate, spikes in annual prices could be approximately 20% lower by 2030 than in 2024. These results confirm an underlying trend towards lower prices overall and a mitigation of price spikes in Europe.

    Claimed Finding:
    Model results show that the 95th-percentile annual electricity price is expected to fall by about 20% in 2030 compared with 2024.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that by 2030, a 1 euro increase in the price of natural gas would translate into a 1 euro increase in annual electricity prices for the aggregate of European countries. This would be 40% lower than the situation in 2024, where the electricity price would be expected to increase by 1.4 euros.

    Claimed Finding:
    By 2030, a one-euro increase in natural gas prices is expected to raise electricity prices by about 2 euros.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The negative change in β-sensitivity from 2024 to 2030 is strongly correlated with the reduction in the tails of the price distribution, both for high and extreme episodes; countries that reduce the dependency of their markets on natural gas are those that also obtain a clearer mitigation of price spikes. This is an important result as it confirms the underlying rationale of European renewable deployment policies. By reducing the dependence on natural gas, they help achieve broader price stability. Because of this, in what follows, we focus on understanding what drives the evolution of β-sensitivity.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across countries, larger reductions in β-sensitivity are closely associated with bigger declines in extreme price spikes, confirming that less gas exposure improves price stability.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Deploying 10% more solar PV and wind relative to the target would additionally reduce this sensitivity to 0.8 euros. Reducing the β-sensitivity of electricity prices below 0.5 euros (that is, a situation where for every euro of increase in the price of natural gas, the annual price of electricity would only increase by 0.5 euros) would require deploying 30% or more renewables than in the NECPs (Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Exceeding national 2030 wind and solar targets by roughly 30% would push the β-sensitivity of European power prices below €0.5 per MWh per euro increase in gas prices.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Conversely, if installed renewable capacity by 2030 fell 20% short of the envisioned levels, the results indicate that the β-sensitivity would be higher than in 2024 (1.5 versus 1.4). In this case, additional renewable capacity would not be enough to offset the closure of conventional capacity (particularly coal but also nuclear) between 2024 and 2030, resulting in a larger role for natural gas and its price.

    Claimed Finding:
    Failing to reach renewable targets by 20% would still leave electricity prices less sensitive to gas than they are today.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    At +30% deployment of solar PV and wind, countries such as Italy or Austria would not achieve a β lower than 0.5, whereas Spain, Portugal and the Nordics would already be below 0.25. Achieving a β of 0.25 consistently across most markets in Europe would require between 50% and 60% of additional deployment. Note that the scenarios refer to simultaneous overachievement of national targets by all countries. In other words, it is necessary for every country to deliver over the target by 50–60%.

    Claimed Finding:
    With a 30% overshoot in renewable deployment, every European country would attain a β-sensitivity below 0.5.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Deployment at this scale would generate large curtailment of renewable electricity, which depresses revenues for all market participants and would have important implications for system stability23. The saturation or cannibalization24,25 of the price implies fewer opportunities to recover capital costs for renewable technologies if they are financed exclusively through their day-ahead market electricity sales. The larger the reduction in the sensitivity, the larger the resulting potential gap in the revenue of renewable plants.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors find that very large renewable overcapacity would lower captured market revenues for all generators by increasing curtailment and depressing prices.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that the capacity expansion plans as envisioned in the NECPs would lead to a reduction of the β-sensitivity to natural gas prices from 1.4 euros to 1 euro, which, in turn, would lower the extremes in prices that could be expected in the future. However, we find that the resulting improvement falls short of what would be required if the policy goal is to be close to independence from the prices of natural gas.

    Claimed Finding:
    Meeting the NECP capacity plans is projected to reduce β-sensitivity all the way down to about €0.25 per MWh per euro change in gas prices.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The intervention strategies mitigate the increase in energy demand and reduce the growth in direct emissions in both buildings and transport—in a similar way across models. Emissions reductions from current levels are robust across models for both ELE and ALL, particularly in buildings, but with more inter-model variation for the activity-focused and technology-optimizing strategies. Emissions reduction potentials in 2030, with respect to the reference scenario (REF), are 3–16% (ACT), 3–19% (TEC) and 10–31% (ELE) of direct buildings emissions and 4–15% (ACT), 2–10% (TEC) and 3–17% (ELE) of direct transport emissions (Fig. 2). The potentials become more substantial in 2050 and reach 6–23% (ACT), 11–33% (TEC) and 45–77% (ELE) for buildings and 17–28% (ACT), 2–67% (TEC) and 22–86% (ELE) for transport.

    Claimed Finding:
    By 2050, the electrification-focused strategy is projected to cut direct buildings emissions by as much as 77% relative to the reference scenario.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We also estimated the impact of all measures combined as a
product of the impact of each individual strategy, shown as the
no-interaction estimate in Fig. 1. This approach assumes that the meas-
ures interact independently. Comparison with ALL shows that interac-
tion between measures from different strategies actually play a role,
although their impact on the overall mitigation potential is limited.

In the buildings sector, the models project an effective potential in 2050
that is lower than the no-interaction estimate. However, considering
only the interactions represented in the models, the accumulation
of the various measures still remains largely effective. In the trans-
port sector, remarkably, four models simulated an effective potential
slightly greater than the no-interaction estimate (IMAGE, IMACLIM-R,
PROMETHEUS, REMIND).

    Claimed Finding:
    In transport, accounting for interactions between strategies consistently lowers the achievable emissions reductions compared with the simple no-interaction estimate.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Examples of counteracting interactions include the diminished
impact of improved insulation on emissions reductions when inef-
ficient boilers are replaced with electric heat pumps. Likewise, lower-
ing set-point temperatures reduces the potential emissions savings
that could otherwise be achieved through enhanced insulation or
the adoption of heat pumps. In transport, the additional impact of
efficiency standards is limited as the vehicle fleet becomes predomi-
nantly electric, given the much higher efficiency of electric motors.
Conversely, certain measures can amplify the effectiveness of others,
which is evident in the transport results for some models. For instance,
as electrification policies increase the market share of electric vehicles
(EVs), declining costs from learning effects enhance their competitive-
ness. At the same time, car-sharing services also reduce the effective
cost of higher-priced EVs, and together these factors can accelerate
the transition.

    Claimed Finding:
    The results indicate that installing electric heat pumps amplifies the emissions-saving effect of additional building insulation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Interestingly, there is no consensus among the models about the
most effective strategy under 1.5 °C climate ambition. This could be
attributed to variations in models’ responses to carbon tax, leading
to utilization of different mitigation options. Conventional mitiga-
tion scenarios such as 1.5C-REF include measures that are assumed to
be cost effective, thereby leaving part of the demand-side mitigation
potential unexploited. Such scenarios are often implemented through
a (globally uniform) carbon tax, whereas demand-side measures—such
as accelerating technology adoption and modal shifting—can be cost
insensitive.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under a global 1.5 °C carbon budget, the models do not agree on which single demand-side strategy delivers the largest mitigation effect.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The integration of all intervention strategies (ALL) can reverse the
trend of rising emissions in buildings and transport. Without additional
climate policies, the buildings sector could reduce CO2 emissions, on
average across models, by 63% (51–85%) and the transport sector by
70% (37–91%) in 2050. The combination of strategies achieves sectoral
emissions reductions compatible with a 1.5 °C pathway (Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Even when all three intervention strategies are combined, average direct CO2 emissions from the buildings sector in 2050 remain higher than in 2015.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Electrification also poses substantial challenges, particularly
regarding the surge in electricity demand (Fig. 3). By 2050, global
electricity demand increases by 8–16 EJ per year for buildings and
4–25 EJ per year for transport in NPi-ELE compared to NPi-REF. The
larger potential increase in transport reflects its currently low elec-
tricity share.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under current policies, switching to electrification adds up to roughly 25 EJ yr-1 of extra electricity demand for transport by 2050 compared with the reference case.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In current climate policy scenarios (NPi), emissions reductions in
the ELE and ALL scenarios by 2050 are less pronounced when account-
ing for indirect emissions based on average emissions intensities
(Fig. 4). Particularly for buildings, indirect emissions remain high in
the near term due to limited supply-side decarbonization and the
sector’s heavy reliance on electricity.

    Claimed Finding:
    Including indirect power-sector emissions reduces the apparent mitigation benefits of both ELE and ALL scenarios relative to considering only direct emissions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In light of increasing electricity demand, it is critical to expand the
capacity of the energy supply sector while simultaneously decarbon-
izing it, as previous research has already suggested50–52. Our scenarios
show that integrating electrification with other demand-side strategies
(ALL) can facilitate necessary transitions, potentially decreasing global
electricity demand by 10 to 39 EJ per year, even under a 1.5 °C climate
target. Depending on the model and climate policy, this reduction
represents 8 to 33% of the electricity demand for transport and build-
ings.

    Claimed Finding:
    When global warming is limited to 1.5 °C, combining electrification with other demand-side measures is projected to increase—rather than reduce—global electricity demand relative to the electrification-only pathway.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Efficiency gains stand out as important contributors to emis-
sions reductions for all models. Improved efficiencies are partly a result
of policies that promote higher energy efficiencies (TEC), such as effi-
ciency standards and building codes, but electrification (ELE) also plays
a key role and results in similar or even higher improvements: e-mobility
is much more efficient than internal combustion engines in vehicles,
and so too are heat pumps in comparison to boilers (Supplementary
Information 7 provides a decomposition of the individual strategies).

    Claimed Finding:
    Across the analysed models, efficiency improvements are identified as a major driver of emissions reductions by 2050.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    For the reference scenario, all models project an increas-
ing energy demand per capita for all regions except the OECD (Organi-
sation for Economic Co-operation and Development: European Union,
United States and Other OECD) for both sectors (buildings and trans-
port) and the Africa and Middle East, other Asian countries and former
Soviet Union countries for buildings.

    Claimed Finding:
    The reference scenario shows that per-capita energy demand rises in every region and sector up to 2050 according to all models.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    If overall biomass usage is restricted to current usage levels, the system cost ends up ~5% higher than without restrictions. If all biomass (except mandatory incineration of municipal solid waste) is excluded, it leads to a 20% higher system cost (Fig. 1a), or an additional cost of €169 billion annually, roughly corresponding to European defence expenses86. This is twice as much as the cost of excluding solar power and similar to the cost of excluding wind power, despite both of them cost optimally providing more primary energy (Fig. 2d,e). Excluding any of these primary energy sources thus leads to much higher costs. Wind and solar power are more readily interchangeable whereas the substitution of biomass is much more expensive because biomass provides non-fossil carbon in addition to energy, for which the substitute, DAC, coupled with a necessary expansion of additional energy provision, ends up much more expensive. Wind and solar power cannot be excluded simultaneously even at a 25% system cost increase (Fig. 2f).

    Claimed Finding:
    The model projects that eliminating all biomass (aside from required MSW incineration) boosts total system costs by about 20 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Substantial flexible dispatchable methane-based power capacities emerge in the net-negative scenario (521 GWel open-cycle gas turbines and gas CHPs), on par with the inflexible electricity demand peak of 526 GW (base-load household, commercial and industrial electricity demand, excluding heat). This flexible power capacity is seldom used, with capacity factors of 28% (Fig. 3), which renders the addition of costly carbon capture to these power plants prohibitively expensive. For carbon capture to be cost effective for a particular technology, high utilization rates are needed due to the high investment cost of the additional infrastructure.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because these flexible methane power plants operate at high utilisation rates, installing carbon capture on them is economically favourable.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Although only 225 TWh (bio)methane is used to flexibly supplement variable renewable electricity supply (covering 1% of total generation), this option is the most costly to replace and remains longest when biomass usage is minimized (Fig. 2a). Different to studies limited to the power system only, which indicate a substantially larger firm generation energy requirement8, or IAM studies, which often obtain substantial biomass use for electricity production36, this study finds lower levels of bioelectricity use because the sector-coupled model entails large flexible demand capacities such as electrolysers, heat storage, batteries and electric vehicles, which handle most of the variability in the power system and thus support high VRE shares (Fig. 3).

    Claimed Finding:
    Even though dispatchable biomethane supplies only around 1 % of electricity, it is the hardest biomass service to substitute when biomass availability is reduced.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    System flexibility from sector coupling, energy storage and transmission reduces the dependency on biomass. With lower assumed flexibility, the system cost of excluding biomass increases from 20% to 23% (Table 1). Similar amounts of biomass are used for flexible bioelectricity, but least-cost biomass usage shifts from fuel production to heat generation.

    Claimed Finding:
    Introducing less sector-coupling flexibility markedly decreases the amount of biomass the system relies upon.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Excluding biomass in the net-zero scenario increases system costs by 14%, substantially less than the 20% increase in the net-negative scenario. The cost-optimal biomass use (Fig. 4) is 36% lower than in the net-negative scenario and within the range of the European Commission net-zero scenarios (2,200–2,900 TWh) (ref. 87). Biomass usage is still cost optimally coupled with carbon capture, and solution spaces for individual options are rather similar to the net-negative scenario.

    Claimed Finding:
    At a net-zero target, removing all biomass raises system costs by roughly 14 %, less than in the net-negative case.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    For the net-negative scenario, 87% of biomass use is cost optimally combined with carbon capture, providing 0.84 Gt biogenic CO2 annually, corresponding to ~21% of total regional GHG emissions in 2021, at 4 Gt CO2-equivalent (ref. 88). The captured amount falls within projected feasible CCS growth already for 2040, of 1–4.3 Gt per year globally49, but would require a ramp-up of BECC from currently near-zero commercial capacity to covering almost all biomass conversion.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the cost-optimal net-negative scenario, less than half of the biomass is paired with carbon capture technologies.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    BECC can be excluded at a 13% system cost increase (Fig. 1e), with mainly biofuel production decreasing whereas biogas and biomass usage for process heat and flexible bioelectricity remain cost effective also without BECC (Fig. 2b). If BECC is removed, biomass can be excluded within a 6% cost increase (Table 1), substantially less than with BECC. Capturing biogenic CO2 emissions enhances carbon utilization, enabling scarce renewable carbon to be used multiple times and to provide negative emissions. As BECC is decreased, biomass usage also decreases, and DAC increases to provide both the necessary negative emissions and carbon for the production of electrofuels, resulting in higher total carbon capture deployment (Fig. 2b).

    Claimed Finding:
    Eliminating all BECC raises costs by about 13 %; once BECC is absent, completely removing biomass would cost only about 6 % more.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In the least-cost case, the shadow price (marginal price of an additional MWh) of solid biomass amounts to €54 MWh−1 (as determined by the import biomass price) and €135 MWh−1 if biomass is excluded (Fig. 5a and Table 1). This is substantially higher than the cost of domestic residue supply (Extended Data Fig. 3 and Extended Data Table 2) or 2020 wood chip prices at €20–25 MWh−1 (ref. 89). The resulting CO2 price (marginal cost of CO2 emissions) amounts to ~€260 t−1 CO2 in the cost-optimal case but increases to €591 t−1 CO2 if biomass is excluded (Fig. 5a and Table 1), indicating a high value of biomass resources to achieve emissions targets.

    Claimed Finding:
    When biomass is excluded, the model shows that the shadow price of solid biomass falls close to zero.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    When biomass use is decreased from the cost-optimal amount, the primary change occurs in the production of liquids used as fuels in aviation and shipping and as feedstock for chemicals, where bioliquids are replaced by electrofuels. Electricity generation from wind and solar power increases more than the usage of bioenergy decreases due to the increasing electricity demand for electrolysis and DAC to supply hydrogen and carbon for electrofuel production (Fig. 2a).

    Claimed Finding:
    Cutting biomass mainly leads to larger wind and solar generation for electrofuel manufacture, so VRE output rises more than biomass use falls.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Decreasing electrolysis from cost-optimal levels leads to a corresponding reduction in electricity consumption and a decrease in electrofuel production, which is again balanced by an expansion of biomass use to supply biofuel production. Electrolysis can be excluded at an ~20% system cost increase, at which point biomass use is almost doubled compared to cost-optimal levels (Fig. 2c). A similar magnitude of biomass usage emerges when VRE is minimized within the same system cost increase (Fig. 2f).

    Claimed Finding:
    If electrolysis capacity is removed, the amount of biomass required by the system falls to roughly half of its optimal value.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Tracking 190 individual green hydrogen projects announced globly for 2023 over the past 3years (Methods), we observe a substantial implementation gap as only 0.3GW of the initially announced 4.3GW added capacity was eventually installed and operational, leading to an overall success rate of 7% (Fig. 3a). Furthermore, comparing announcements by 2021 with the final outcome reveals that virtually no project announced in 2021 was realized on time in 2023, with 86% experiencing delays and 14% disappearing altogether (Fig. 3b). Similarly, of the projects announced in 2022, only 3% were realized on time, with 76% delayed and 21% disappearing (Fig. 3c). Projects in the feasibility study or concept stage almost always had a success rate of zero, implying that projects announced without a final investment decision (FID) in 2021 or 2022 were never realized on time in 2023 (Fig. 3b,c). Across all years of announcement, even projects that had secured FIDs, or that were already under construction, were mostly delayed or had disappeared (Fig. 3b–d).

    Claimed Finding:
    Only about 7 % of the green hydrogen capacity originally scheduled for 2023 actually became operational on time.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The low success rates of green hydrogen projects are not unique to the year 2023. In 2022, the overall success rate was 6%, with similar patterns of delay and disappearance of projects over time (Supplementary Fig. 5). The high failure rates in 2022 and 2023 may be attributed to supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19, surging electricity prices during the European energy crisis and rising global interest rates. However, in Europe, the energy crisis was also seen as an opportunity to accelerate green hydrogen deployment, although this has yet to materialize (Supplementary Fig. 9). Considering the project announcements for 2024, it remains questionable whether the more than 12GW currently announced will be realized on time (Supplementary Fig. 6). Although nearly 5GW (40%) has already achieved an FID or is under construction, this was also the case for project announcements made in 2022 for 2023, of which only 8% were completed on schedule (Fig. 3c). It will take some more years to determine whether the recent implementation gaps were exceptions caused by unusual global events, or the unfortunate norm.

    Claimed Finding:
    Between 2022 and 2023, the on-time success rate of green hydrogen projects more than doubled, indicating rapid improvement.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Despite the high heterogeneity, a notable trend emerges in a subset of the 1.5°C scenarios: the International Energy Agency (IEA) Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE), which has been updated annually over the past 3years38–40, indicates a steady downward revision of required electrolysis for 2030 (Fig. 4b). This adjustment reflects recent setbacks for green hydrogen and the rapid progress of competing mitigation options, particularly the deep electrification of road transport as well as industrial and residential heat40. Meanwhile, the 2030 green hydrogen project pipeline has nearly tripled from 161GW to 422GW, surpassing the requirements for 1.5°C in 48 of the 60 IAM scenarios, and 9 of the 15 institutional and corporate scenarios. As a result, the green hydrogen ambition gap in 2030 has already closed for 60–80% of the scenarios and can be expected to close soon for the IEA NZE scenario.

    Claimed Finding:
    Announced 2030 green-hydrogen capacity now exceeds the needs of most 1.5 °C scenarios, closing the ambition gap for roughly two-thirds of them.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The annual subsidies required to realize all project announcements across all end uses by 2030 are bell-shaped, with the height and timing of the peak varying by scenario (Fig. 5e,f, left axis). Without carbon pricing, the required annual subsidies rise sharply to a plateau of around US$90billion per year throughout the 2030s (Fig. 5e). With carbon pricing, the required annual subsidies peak at US$44billion per year in 2030 (Fig. 5f). The resulting cumulative subsidies for all 422GW by 2030 follow an S curve (Fig. 5e,f, right axis). In our central estimate, the required cumulative subsidies are US$1.3trillion without carbon pricing and US$0.5trillion with carbon pricing, subject to considerable uncertainty (Table 1 and Extended Data Fig. 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    If no carbon price is applied, the study calculates that about US$1.3 trillion in cumulative subsidies would be needed to bring all announced green hydrogen projects online by 2030.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    This pattern holds across all end uses. Without carbon pricing, in our central estimate, no green product becomes competitive with its fossil competitor until 2050. This is robust across a wide range of progressive and conservative parameter values (Extended Data Fig. 5, left column).

    Claimed Finding:
    Even when an ambitious carbon price is introduced, the analysis indicates that green hydrogen will still fail to reach cost parity with fossil alternatives before 2050.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Following a surge of enthusiasm14,15, the green hydrogen market and associated expectations have recently entered a phase of consolidation16 as high costs17,18, limited demand19 and lagging implementation of support policies1 are hampering deployment. Shortfalls in the announced deployment of electrolysers, the key component for green hydrogen production, are representative of the systemic challenges of scaling up supply, demand and infrastructure at the same time. In 2022, instead of the 2.8GW electrolysis capacity initially announced, eventually only 0.62GW was realized on time (Fig. 1a). Similarly, in 2023, of the 7.1GW initially announced, only an estimated 0.92GW was realized and operational. In stark contrast to these recent setbacks, announced future growth rates of green hydrogen have increased substantially over the past 3years, indicating a backlog of projects as well as further increasing ambition (Fig. 1b).

    Claimed Finding:
    Almost the entire 7.1 GW of electrolysis capacity originally announced for 2023 was successfully commissioned that year.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The success rate varies by region, with projects in North America equivalent to the global average, European projects below average, Asian projects above average and a success rate of zero for Australian projects (Supplementary Figs. 7–10).

    Claimed Finding:
    Australian green hydrogen projects outperformed all other regions, recording the highest on-time completion rate.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Of the 422GW announced by 2030, 97% are still in the concept or feasibility study phase, which have exhibited critically insufficient success rates in the past (see the previous section).

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly 97 % of the capacity proclaimed for 2030 remains only at the concept or feasibility-study stage.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Due to a substantial discrepancy between required and announced subsidies, a wide 2030 green hydrogen implementation gap arises (Fig. 5g and Table 1). The cumulative subsidies required to realize all project announcements by 2030 exceed currently announced subsidies, estimated at US$308billion as of September 202343, by over 300% without carbon pricing and by over 60% without.

    Claimed Finding:
    Currently announced global hydrogen subsidies of around US$308 billion are more than enough to fund every green hydrogen project slated for completion by 2030.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Such policy support is urgently required: to meet the median ambition in 1.5°C scenarios, namely, 350GW by 2030, green hydrogen production needs to grow 380-fold, more than doubling each year. However, implementation is not going according to plan.

    Claimed Finding:
    Reaching the median 1.5 °C scenario target of 350 GW by 2030 would demand an approximately 380-fold scale-up of current green hydrogen capacity, implying a need to more than double output annually.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Considering distance from residential areas, PA residents are
less likely to support projects close to home, compared with projects
located far from residential areas (50 miles). Support decreases by
7 p.p. when projects are located 2 miles away from residential areas,
compared with when they are 50 miles away. Considering job oppor-
tunities, changes to local employment opportunities are also salient
to respondents. Using no changes to jobs as a reference category, job
loss reduces overall support for projects by 12 p.p. and the creation
of permanent jobs increases support by 12 p.p. Creating temporary
jobs increases support by 4 p.p. compared with no job changes. With
regard to local project benefits, respondents find personal monetary
benefits (for example, reduced costs) preferable to community or
health benefits. They prefer the reference category, reduced energy
costs for all local residents, to increased overall economic activity in
the community, which is associated with a reduction of 6 p.p. in support
and reduced local air pollution, which is associated with a reduction
of 5 p.p. in support.

    Claimed Finding:
    Projects that create temporary jobs are viewed just as favorably as those that create permanent union-wage jobs among Pennsylvania residents.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Variation in ownership explains the greatest variation in support
compared to other attributes. Respondents prefer cooperative com-
munity ownership, associated with a 5 p.p. increase in support rela-
tive to American private company ownership. There is no statistically
significant difference in support between the reference category and
state government ownership. The most pronounced result concerns
ownership by a foreign private company, which decreases support
by 17 p.p. PA residents appear to be indifferent about the type of land
on which energy projects are sited. We find no statistically significant
differences in support detected between the reference category, low
visual impact on scenic resources and other attributes including agri-
cultural land, decommissioned mining or industrial sites, and areas
that would have low impact on wildlife habitats. PA residents appear
to support solar projects over other types of energy project, with an
associated 7 p.p. increase in support relative to the reference category
of natural gas power plants with CCS. Nuclear projects are associated
with a 6 p.p. reduction in support compared with natural gas with CCS.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among Pennsylvania residents, foreign private ownership of an energy project significantly lowers support compared with American private company ownership.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find statistically significant differences in preferences as a func-
tion of political party affiliation between Republicans and Democrats,
Republicans and Independents, and Independents and Democrats.
While partisan differences are present, they are generally minimal and
not statistically significant, with their magnitudes being nearly identi-
cal across groups. Considering distance from residential areas and site
types, there is no statistically significant difference in marginal means
across respondents from any political party. Considering jobs, there
is not a statistically significant difference in marginal means between
Republicans and Democrats, suggesting similar preferences. There are
small differences between Independents and each other party that indi-
cate Independents do not prioritize jobs as heavily (6 p.p. difference
between Independents and Democrats for ‘no changes to number of
jobs’, 7 p.p. difference between Independents and Republicans for ‘50
jobs lost due to retirement of an old plant’). In both cases, Independents
lean further towards the middle.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study reveals that Republicans prioritize job-related attributes much more than Democrats when evaluating large-scale energy projects.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Considering the ownership and fuel type attributes, there are sta-
tistically significant differences between Republicans’ and Democrats’
marginal means in some levels. There is a 12 p.p. difference between the
parties’ marginal means in the ‘owned by an American private company
level’, indicating that Republicans more strongly prefer projects that
are owned by American private companies, and an 8.4 p.p. difference
indicating that Democrats more strongly prefer projects owned by state
governments. Regarding project type, Democrats have a stronger pref-
erence for onshore wind turbines (10.6 p.p. difference) and Democrats
are less favourable towards nuclear energy than Republicans (8.6 p.p.
difference). Similarly to Republicans, Independents favour American
private companies more than Democrats (11 p.p. difference) and also
have a less favourable opinion of onshore wind (12 p.p. difference). We
tested for differences across other subgroups including gender (Sup-
plementary Fig. 1), education (Supplementary Fig. 2), income (Supple-
mentary Fig. 3) and policy framing conditions (Supplementary Fig. 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    Democratic residents favor state government ownership of energy projects more strongly than Republican residents do.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Distance from residential areas, job opportunities and site type
do not have a statistically significant causal effect on personal support
for energy projects in the overall sample of PA local elected officials
(Fig. 3; see Supplementary Table 2 for model estimates). However,
respondents appear to favour projects farther away from residential
areas, projects that create permanent jobs and projects that reduce
residential energy costs rather than increasing economic activity.
Like the PA resident sample in experiment 1, ownership models are
the strongest predictors of local elected officials’ support compared
with other attributes. Compared with a baseline of ownership by an
American private company, ownership by a foreign private company
reduces support by 29 p.p. Unlike the public sample in experiment 1,
local elected officials in PA do not prefer solar energy to natural gas with
CCS, where we see no statistically significant difference between levels.
In fact, local elected officials prefer this baseline to other options—nota-
bly, onshore wind turbines are associated with a 26 p.p. reduction in
support. Natural gas without CSS is associated with a 19 p.p. decrease
in support compared with natural gas with CCS. Nuclear power plants
are associated with an 18 p.p. reduction in support compared with
natural gas with CCS.

    Claimed Finding:
    For local elected officials, foreign ownership causes the largest decline in support among all attributes examined.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Splitting the sample of public officials into Republicans and Demo-
crats (considering there were few Independents in this sample) and
looking at the marginal means, we find limited differences. In Fig. 4
(see Supplementary Table 3 for model estimates), the rightmost panel
displays differences in marginal means between parties, with positive
values indicating that Republicans prefer a level more than Democrats
and negative values indicating that Democrats prefer a level more
than Republicans. For public officials, there are very few statistically
significant differences in marginal means between parties. This may
be due to the very small sample size and lack of power for these com-
parisons. The only attribute level that shows statistically significant
differences across parties is support for projects that have minimal
impact on wildlife habitats, where a 17 p.p. difference indicates that
Democrats are more concerned about protecting wildlife habitats
when siting energy projects. Not statistically significant but substan-
tively interesting, Republicans appear to support projects owned by
American private companies the most while Democrats appear to
prefer projects owned cooperatively by communities. Additionally,
Republicans appear to prefer natural gas with CCS to other energy
projects, while Democrats prefer solar.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among local elected officials, Democrats are less supportive than Republicans of community cooperative ownership of energy projects.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    It appears that elected officials largely project their own preferences
when judging those of their constituents. Considering constituent sup-
port for jobs, local elected official predictions do not show statistically
significant differences between levels or a baseline of no changes to
number of jobs, while there are relatively large casual impacts across
levels of this attribute in PA residents. The most notable difference
is officials’ perceptions of energy type, where officials believe that
their constituents do not prefer other types of energy projects to the
baseline category of natural gas with CCS. In the PA resident sample,
respondents preferred solar energy to the same baseline, suggesting
that elected officials underestimate support for solar renewable energy
among their constituents.

    Claimed Finding:
    Local elected officials overestimate their constituents’ enthusiasm for natural gas with CCS relative to solar energy.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that direct benefits to communities, including the creation
of permanent, union-wage jobs and cooperative community owner-
ship, increase support for energy projects. Pennsylvanians prefer
solar projects over wind, nuclear and natural gas power plants with
carbon capture and storage (CCS). Local elected officials, however,
misperceive the preferences of their constituents, underestimating
support for renewable energy and the importance of job loss and
creation. The public and local elected officials have similar opinions of
foreign-owned products, which is associated with the greatest reduc-
tions in support. Importantly, we find limited partisan differences
in preferences for large-scale renewable energy project characteris-
tics, suggesting a promising path towards building bipartisan sup-
port for such projects. Given the role of local elected officials as key
decision-makers regarding energy infrastructure development, their
preferences and how they perceive their constituents’ preferences may
be important predictors of which projects come to fruition and what
benefits they provide to local communities, offering opportunities to
realize just energy transitions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that potential job losses have little influence on public support for energy projects.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In this study, we assess the marginal impact of various character-
istics of energy projects on support for project development among
both the public and local elected officials in a key transition state. We
find that the public is more likely to support solar projects, projects
that create permanent jobs and community-owned projects. Foreign
ownership reduces support for projects, as does job loss. On a positive
note, we find substantial overlap in project characteristics preferences
between Republican and Democrat respondents. We also find, how-
ever, that local elected officials misperceive the preferences of their
constituents, underestimating support for renewable energy and the
importance of job creation. Given the role of local elected officials as
key decision-makers regarding energy infrastructure development,
their preferences and perceptions of their constituents’ preferences
may play an important role when considering which energy projects
are approved and what benefits they deliver to local communities.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that community ownership does not significantly affect public support for energy projects.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Considering increasing polarization in the USA and that federal
climate change policy is framed as a highly partisan issue, our results
are promising—we largely see similarity, rather than heterogeneity,
in preferences for energy infrastructure projects across Democrats
and Republicans in our PA resident sample. We only saw statistically
significant differences between the parties’ preferences across two
attributes—ownership and energy type. Considering classic partisan
ideological differences, it is not surprising that Republicans favour
project ownership by American private companies more than Demo-
crats and Democrats prefer government-owned projects more than
Republicans. Across energy types, Democrats have a stronger prefer-
ence for onshore wind turbines and are also less likely to prefer nuclear
energy projects.

    Claimed Finding:
    Apart from ownership and energy type, Republicans and Democrats exhibit broadly similar preferences for large-scale energy project characteristics.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT