Optimal Selection of Integrated Electricity Generation Systems for the Power Sector with Low Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheap and clean energy demand is continuously increasing due to economic growth and industrialization. The energy sectors of several countries still employ fossil fuels for power production and there is a concern of associated emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). On the other hand, environmental regulations are becoming more stringent, and resultant emissions need to be mitigated. Therefore, optimal energy policies considering economic resources and environmentally friendly pathways for electricity generation are essential. The objective of this paper is to develop a comprehensive model to optimize the power sector. For this purpose, a multi-period mixed integer programming (MPMIP) model was developed in a General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) to minimize the cost of electricity and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Various CO2 mitigation strategies such as fuel balancing and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) were employed. The model was tested on a case study from Pakistan for a period of 13 years from 2018 to 2030. All types of power plants were considered that are available and to be installed from 2018 to 2030. Moreover, capacity expansion was also considered where needed. Fuel balancing was found to be the most suitable and promising option for CO2 mitigation as up to 40% CO2 mitigation can be achieved by the year 2030 starting from 4% in 2018 for all scenarios without increase in the cost of electricity (COE). CO2 mitigation higher than 40% by the year 2030 can also be realized but the number of new proposed power plants was much higher beyond this target, which resulted in increased COE. Implementation of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on new power plants also reduced the CO2 emissions considerably with an increase in COE of up to 15%.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".