Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the findings of a study aimed to investigate the feasibility of introducing AC-500 kV and AC-725 kV extra high voltage transmission and expanding the utilization of 500/600 kV HVDC technology, for future bulk power transmission between major areas on the SEC network. The three transmission alternatives were compared against the present operating voltage of 380 kV. The authors used SEC transmission planning bases and criteria for performing this study, which includes steady-state and dynamic performance criteria, selection of conductors for different voltage levels and technology, the cost estimate for the transmission elements and the economic parameters. Initially, a technical analysis was conducted on 2020, 2024, and 2030 base cases to validate whether the existing and the new 380 kV interties proposed by SEC are sufficient to achieve the required power transfer levels between the various operating areas. Further analysis was carried out to determine the feasibility of shifting the generation (thermal and renewables) from COA to EOA and WOA. Once the validity of the base case scenarios was investigated, the techno-economic feasibility of introducing HVDC, AC 500 kV, and/or AC 725 kV, was studied for years 2024 and 2030 and for different generation siting scenarios. These generation scenarios assumed generation displacements from the central operating area to the neighboring coastal areas. In the final analysis, the study allowed to find the most techno-economically viable option for each generation scenario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".