Energy Commitment for a Power System Supplied by Multiple Energy Carriers System using Following Optimization Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s world, the development and continuation of life require energy. Supplying this energy demand requires careful and scientific planning of the energy provided by a variety of products, such as oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc. A new study on the operation of energy carriers called Energy Commitment (EC) is proposed. The purpose of the EC is to set a pattern for the use of energy carriers to supply energy demand, considering technical and economic constraints. EC is a constrained optimization problem that can be solved by using optimization methods. This study suggests the Following Optimization Algorithm (FOA) to solve the EC problem to achieve technical and economic benefits. Minimizing energy supply costs for the total study period is considered as an objective function. The FOA simulates social relationships among the community members who try to improve their community by following each other. Simulation is carried out on a 10-unit energy system supplied by various types of energy carriers that includes transportation, agriculture, industrial, residential, commercial, and public sectors. The results show that the optimal energy supply for a grid with 0.15447 Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent (MBOE) of energy demand costs 9.0922 millions dollar for a 24-h study period. However, if the energy supply is not optimal, the costs of operating energy carriers will increase and move away from the optimal economic situation. The economic distribution of electrical demand between 10 power plants and the amount of production units per hour of the study period is determined. The EC outputs are presented, which include an appropriate pattern of energy carrier utilization, energy demand supply costs, appropriate combination of units, and power plant production. The behavior and process of achieving the answer in the convergence curve for the implementation of FOA on EC indicates the exploration and exploitation capacity of FOA. Based on the simulated results, EC provides more information than Unit Commitment (UC) and analyzes the network more efficiently and deeply.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".