Life Cycle Analysis Methodology for Distribution Feeder Reclosers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the mission of "reliable power, at low cost, for generations", BC Hydro adopts the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach to investment decision making that considers economic, social and environmental issues in a comprehensive, systematic and integrated way. In this paper, the life cycle analysis (LCA) methodology developed for BC Hydro Distribution-Wires assets is introduced. In this methodology, the life-cycle assessment factors, defined as cost, environment and safety, which impact the investment decisions for the entire life-cycle of assets, are quantified. It integrates with asset management principle that balances three factors of investment, performance, and risks. The LCA methodology is applied into life-cycle analyses of power system distribution feeder reclosers. The main aim is to evaluate the feasibility and benefits for equipping existing manually operated reclosers with supervisory control functionality and derive the optimal recloser implementation strategy. Two different scenarios of reclosers as "keep the existing reclosers", and "upgrade the existing reclosers into SCADA" are evaluated and compared in term of all defined LCA factors. Life cycle cost assessment methodology is adopted to evaluate the cost effectiveness of upgrading reclosers based on if the long term benefits achieved in savings of vegetation management, shortened outage response and reduced recloser operation cost can cover the increased capital cost, operation and maintenance cost for recloser upgrade. Different from traditional approaches, it also considers the safety and environmental risks. Analysis results on existing reclosers are included to demonstrate the application and effectiveness of the LCA methodology.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".