Coordinated multi‐objective scheduling of a multi‐energy virtual power plant considering storages and demand response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A virtual power plant (VPP) is a solution that brings distributed generation (DG) resources together and allows them to be optimally utilized to meet load demands in the presence of technical and pollution constraints. Electricity, heat, and natural gas are interdependent at the levels of generation, transmission, and consumption, and the interactions of these energy sources need to be considered. This paper presents an optimal model for daily operation of a multi‐energy virtual power plant (MEVPP), including electric, thermal, and natural gas sectors. MEVPP includes small‐scale gas‐fired and non‐gas‐fired DGs, combined heat and power (CHP), power to gas (P2G), boilers, electrical storage, electric vehicles (EV), and thermal storage. Renewable energy resources (RES), including wind turbines (WT), photovoltaic (PV), and PV‐thermal (PVT), also supply P2G technology. Smart grid technologies such as price‐based demand response (PBDR) and incentive‐based demand response (IBDR) are employed for electric loads. The proposed MEVPP model is eligible to participate in day‐ahead electricity, natural gas, heat markets, and electrical spinning reserve market. The scheduling model is multi‐objective to maximize MEVPP profit and minimize carbon dioxide emissions. The Epsilon constraint method is utilized to solve the problem, and the best Pareto point is chosen using the fuzzy satisfying approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".