MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736336048 · doi:10.3390/en10070957

Linking the Power and Transport Sectors—Part 2: Modelling a Sector Coupling Scenario for Germany

2017· article· en· W2736336048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Robinius, Alexander Otto, Konstantinos Syranidis, David Severin Ryberg, Philipp Heuser, Lara Welder, Thomas Grube, Peter Markewitz, Vanessa Tietze, Detlef Stolten

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRenewable energyEnergy sectorEnvironmental economicsGridResource (disambiguation)Operations researchPipeline (software)Risk analysis (engineering)Industrial organizationSystems engineeringManagement scienceEconomicsBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Linking the power and transport sectors—Part 1” describes the general principle of “sector coupling” (SC), develops a working definition intended of the concept to be of utility to the international scientific community, contains a literature review that provides an overview of relevant scientific papers on this topic and conducts a rudimentary analysis of the linking of the power and transport sectors on a worldwide, EU and German level. The aim of this follow-on paper is to outline an approach to the modelling of SC. Therefore, a study of Germany as a case study was conducted. This study assumes a high share of renewable energy sources (RES) contributing to the grid and significant proportion of fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) in the year 2050, along with a dedicated hydrogen pipeline grid to meet hydrogen demand. To construct a model of this nature, the model environment “METIS” (models for energy transformation and integration systems) we developed will be described in more detail in this paper. Within this framework, a detailed model of the power and transport sector in Germany will be presented in this paper and the rationale behind its assumptions described. Furthermore, an intensive result analysis for the power surplus, utilization of electrolysis, hydrogen pipeline and economic considerations has been conducted to show the potential outcomes of modelling SC. It is hoped that this will serve as a basis for researchers to apply this framework in future to models and analysis with an international focus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations153
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207