Two-stage vertex analysis method for planning electric power systems with greenhouse gas abatement consideration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a two-stage vertex analysis (TSVA) method for the planning of electric power systems (EPS) under uncertainty. TSVA has advantages in comparison to other optimization techniques. Firstly, TSVA can incorporate greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement policies directly into its optimization process, and, secondly, it can readily integrate inherent system uncertainties expressed as fuzzy sets and probability distributions directly into its modeling formulation and solution procedure. The TSVA method is applied to a case study of planning EPS and it is demonstrated how the TSVA efficiently identify optimal electricity-generation schemes that could help to minimize system cost under different GHG-abatement considerations. Different combinative considerations on the uncertain inputs lead to varied system costs and GHG emissions. Results reveal that the total electricity supply will rise up along with the time period due to the increasing demand and, at the same time, more non-fossil fuels should be used to satisfy the increasing requirement for GHG mitigation. Moreover, uncertainties in connection with complexities in terms of information quality (e.g., capacity, efficiency, and demand) result in changed electricity-generation patterns, GHG-abatement amounts, as well as system costs. Minimax regret (MMR) analysis technique is employed to identify desired alternative that reflects compromises between system cost and system-failure risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".