A New Modeling Approach for Low-Carbon District Energy System Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing district-scale energy systems with renewable energy sources is still a challenge, as it involves modeling of multiple loads and many options to combine energy system components. In the current study, two different energy system scenarios for a district in Montreal/Canada are compared to choose the most cost-effective and energy-efficient energy system scenario for the studied area. In the first scenario, a decentral energy system comprised of ground-source heat pumps provides heating and cooling for each building, while, in the second scenario, a district heating and cooling system with a central heat pump is designed. Firstly, heating and cooling demand are calculated in a completely automated process using an Automatic Urban Building Energy Modeling System approach (AUBEM). Then, the Integrated Simulation Environment Language (INSEL) is used to prepare a model for the energy system. The proposed model provides heat pump capacity and the number of required heat pumps (HP), the number of photovoltaic (PV) panels, and AC electricity generation potential using PV. After designing the energy systems, the piping system, heat losses, and temperature distribution of the centralized scenario are calculated using a MATLAB code. Finally, two scenarios are assessed economically using the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) method. The results show that the central scenario’s total HP electricity consumption is 17% lower than that of the decentral systems and requires less heat pump capacity than the decentral scenario. The LCOE of both scenarios varies from 0.04 to 0.07 CAD/kWh, which is cheaper than the electricity cost in Quebec (0.08 CAD/kWh). A comparison between both scenarios shows that the centralized energy system is cost-beneficial for all buildings and, after applying the discounts, the LCOE of this scenario decreases to 0.04 CAD/kWh.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".