Hybrid energy system optimization model: Electrification of Ontario's residential space and water heating case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy systems are becoming more complex as new energy sources are introduced in support of clean energy goals. These hybrid energy systems can be configured for cogeneration to account for multiple energy uses, including not only electricity but also space heating, water heating, and industrial process heat. Variable renewable energy systems are increasingly being added to hybrid systems to mitigate climate change and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This often creates additional challenges to meet energy demands due to variability associated with renewable generation. In support of energy planning for the new clean economy, the Hybrid Energy System Optimization (HESO) model has been developed to study the feasibility and benefits of nuclear-renewable hybrid energy systems. The model is formulated, as a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) algorithm, to determine the best energy mix by minimizing annual cost. Because electrification will play a significant role in realizing a clean economy, this study explores the potential economic viability of electrification of residential water and space heating in Ontario. Different energy scenarios have been analyzed to understand the challenges associated with electrification and determine which energy sources will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also maintaining competitive energy costs. The results show that electrification of residential water heating can be a viable alternative to natural gas heaters; reducing GHG emissions and energy cost. However, electrification of residential space heating is more challenging due to the large seasonal temperature variations that create significant energy demand fluctuations. Additional nuclear and wind generating capacity, as well as storage systems, are all important elements to support Ontario's transition to a low carbon economy through electrification.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".