The natural hedge of a gas-fired power plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electricity industries worldwide have been restructured in order to introduce competition. As a result, decision makers are exposed to volatile electricity prices, which are positively correlated with those of natural gas in markets with price-setting gas-fired power plants. Consequently, gas-fired plants are said to enjoy a “natural hedge.” We explore the properties of such a built-in hedge for a gas-fired power plant via a stochastic programming approach, which enables characterisation of uncertainty in both electricity and gas prices in deriving optimal hedging and generation decisions. The producer engages in financial hedging by signing forward contracts at the beginning of the month while anticipating uncertainty in spot prices. Using UK energy price data from 2006 to 2011 and daily aggregated dispatch decisions of a typical gas-fired power plant, we find that such a producer does, in fact, enjoy a natural hedge, i.e., it is better off facing uncertain spot prices rather than locking in its generation cost. However, the natural hedge is not a perfect hedge, i.e., even modest risk aversion makes it optimal to use gas forwards partially. Furthermore, greater operational flexibility enhances this natural hedge as generation decisions provide a countervailing response to uncertainty. Conversely, higher energy-conversion efficiency reduces the natural hedge by decreasing the importance of natural gas price volatility and, thus, its correlation with the electricity price.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".