Increasing operational flexibility of integrated energy systems by introducing power to hydrogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to the limited operating regions of combined heat and power (CHP) units, the operation of integrated energy systems suffers from low flexibility, low‐cost efficiency, renewable curtailment etc. Meanwhile, as the capacity of renewable energies keeps growing and integrating into power systems, various methods, such as installing electric boilers to enable electricity‐heat conversion, have been developed to absorb excessive renewables and increase system operation flexibility. To further increase the system operation flexibility, this study explores the possibilities of utilising electrolysers and hydrogen storage tanks to enable electricity‐hydrogen‐heat conversion. To better visualise the enhanced flexibility, this study presents extra flexibilities from electric boilers, electrolysers and hydrogen tanks as the equivalent operating region expansion for CHP units. In this study, the system is modelled as a mixed‐integer optimisation problem which balances the electricity, heat and hydrogen demands in a 24‐hour period. A 6‐bus test system is used in the case studies to illustrate the effectiveness of implementing electrolysers and hydrogen storage tanks. The optimisation results show the application of hydrogen energy improves the system operation flexibility, reduces wind curtailment, thereby decreasing fuel consumption and carbon emission.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".