MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973125106 · doi:10.1109/tste.2019.2941418

Coordinated Planning Strategy for Integrated Energy Systems in a District Energy Sector

2019· article· en· W2973125106 on OpenAlexafffund
Wentao Yang, Weijia Liu, C. Y. Chung, Fushuan Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsMathematical optimizationEnergy carrierDistributed generationEnergy (signal processing)Energy planningComputer scienceEnergy flowIntegrated business planningOperational planningLinear programmingElectric power systemInteger programmingConvergence (economics)Electricity generationEngineeringPower (physics)ElectricityRenewable energyMathematicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the ever-growing integration of diverse distributed energy resources, modern district energy sectors are transitioning into integrated energy systems (IESs), which generally consist of various energy carriers such as electric power, natural gas, and heat. Instead of modeling individual energy carriers, the emergence of IESs requires comprehensive consideration of all involved energy systems in both planning and operation phases. This paper proposes a comprehensive planning strategy for a district energy sector to address the challenges of IES planning considering the coupling of power, gas, and heat systems. The proposed planning model contains an operational module that develops a steady-state optimal multi-energy flow (OMEF) for the IES considered and a multi-stage expansion module that optimizes the investment decisions. To efficiently solve the proposed planning model, which is formulated as a mixed-integer nonlinear programming problem, an improved generalized Benders decomposition algorithm that utilizes dynamic dual multipliers to improve the convergence speed is employed. The effectiveness of the proposed planning model and the feasibility of the improved Benders decomposition algorithm are verified in case studies.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations100
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable EnergySame topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207