Hourly electricity and heat Demand Response in the OEF of the integrated electricity‐heat‐natural gas system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, demand‐response (DR) programmes are one of the appropriate tools for energy systems to encourage flexible customers to participate in the operation of energy systems. One of the complex tasks in multi‐energy environments is optimal energy flow (OEF) problem of these systems. In this regard, this study investigates the OEF of an integrated electrical, heat, and gas system considering flexible heat and electrical demands. The conventional DR programme has been combined with the demand‐side energy supplying management activity by introducing switching concept among input energy carriers. The way of the supplying energy of flexible customer can be changed by switching among input energy carriers. Here, the integrated system operator minimises the system operation costs subject to supply flexible consumers’ energy. To solve the complex OEF problem, this study presents a new optimisation algorithm named modified biogeography‐based optimisation (BBO) algorithm. In this study, the proposed modification for the original BBO increases the robustness and the capability of the proposed optimisation method. The numerical results show that the flexible DR programme creates smoother energy demand curves in heat and electrical networks and reduce the operating costs of the integrated 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".