Evaluating the optimal timing and capacity of investments in flexible combined heat and power generation for energy-intensive industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".