MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353084216 · doi:10.1007/s10479-023-05273-x

Evaluating the optimal timing and capacity of investments in flexible combined heat and power generation for energy-intensive industries

2023· article· en· W4353084216 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dimitrios Zormpas, Giorgia Oggioni

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Operations Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHellenic Academic Libraries LinkEgg Farmers of Canada
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)ElectricityComputer scienceGridInvestment (military)Electric power systemEnvironmental economicsElectricity generationOperations researchEconomicsRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementBusinessIndustrial organizationPower (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Substantial R &D efforts are currently directed towards the development of combined heat and power (CHP) systems that automatically and seamlessly connect to the power grid. In this paper we develop a real options model to assess the impact that the operational flexibility characterizing such systems will have on the optimal timing and capacity associated with investments in CHP plants. We take the viewpoint of a manufacturer operating in an energy-intensive industry who contemplates investing in CHP. We discuss and compare investments in two types of CHP systems: a standard one that is operationally rigid and a technologically advanced one that is operationally flexible. The interaction between temporal and operational flexibility under uncertainty and irreversibility is central to our analysis. We show that operational flexibility guarantees earlier investment but has an ambiguous effect in terms of capacity. In particular, when operational flexibility is very valuable the potential investor is opting for investing in a plant with larger productive capacity. The potential investor chooses a smaller CHP unit if otherwise. A numerical exercise calibrated using data from the Italian pulp and paper and electricity industries complements our theoretical analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.616
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.154 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Operations ResearchSame topicCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisFrench-language works237,207