MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036398668 · doi:10.3390/en13123151

Multi-Criteria Examination of Power-to-Gas Pathways under Stochastic Preferences

2020· article· en· W3036398668 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Walker, Suadd Al-Zakwani, Azadeh Maroufmashat, Michael Fowler, Ali Elkamel

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower to gasRenewable energyBase load power plantComputer scienceReliability engineeringAnalytic hierarchy processElectricity generationPower (physics)Electric power systemEnvironmental economicsProcess engineeringOperations researchEngineeringDistributed generationEconomicsElectrical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power-to-gas is an energy storage and vector technology which can utilize off-peak power, assist in the integration of renewable power and provide needed fuel for industry and transportation. Further, power-to-gas is a useful technology for balancing surplus baseload and renewable energy generation with demand. There are numerous applications of power-to-gas in Europe, where renewable power is used to generate hydrogen for numerous applications. Examining each of these power-to-gas pathways across quantitative and qualitative criteria, this paper utilizes the stochastic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to determine criteria weights. These weights are then fed to a multiple criteria decision analysis tool to determine the viability of each pathway for investors and policy makers. A sensitivity analysis is carried out by reprioritizing the criteria and re-evaluating the multiple criteria analysis. The two pathways that score highest under multiple criteria rankings are power-to-gas to mobility-fuel and power-to-gas-to-power, due to their established technologies, lower costs and environmental performance. By extension, both of these power-to-gas pathways are the most appropriate ways for this technology to be implemented, due to their combination of public familiarity, emissions reductions, and developed, available technologies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207