Reducing the Need for Accurate Stream Flow Forecasting for Water Supply Planning by Augmenting Reservoir Operations with Seawater Desalination and Wastewater Recycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate stream flow forecasts are critical for reservoir operations for water supply planning. As the world urban population increases, the demand for water in cities is also increasing, making accurate forecasts even more important. However, accurate forecasting of stream flows is difficult owing to short- and long-term weather variations. We propose to reduce this need for accurate stream flow forecasts by augmenting reservoir operations with seawater desalination and wastewater recycling. We develop a robust operating policy for the joint operation of the three sources. With the joint model, we tap into the unlimited reserve of seawater through desalination, and make use of local supplies of wastewater through recycling. However, both seawater desalination and recycling are energy intensive and relatively expensive. Reservoir water on the other hand, is generally cheaper but is limited and variable in its availability, increasing the risk of water shortage during extreme climate events. We operate the joint system by optimizing it using a genetic algorithm to maximize water supply reliability and resilience while minimizing vulnerability subject to a budget constraint and for a given stream flow forecast. To compute the total cost of the system, we take into account the pumping cost of transporting reservoir water to its final destination, and the capital and operating costs of desalinating seawater and recycling wastewater. We produce results for different hydro climatic regions based on artificial stream flows we generate using a simple hydrological model and an autoregressive time series model. The artificial flows are generated from precipitation and temperature data from the Canadian Regional Climate model for present and future scenarios. We observe that the joint operation is able to effectively minimize the negative effects of stream flow forecast uncertainty on system performance at an overall cost that is not significantly greater than the cost of a stand-alone reservoir system.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".