The Role of Water Networks in Hydrogen and Energy Planning: A New Modeling and Simulation Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve decarbonization, hydrogen as energy carrier is presented as a promising alternative. Since different countries are planning a major introduction of hydrogen technologies, it becomes vital to evaluate the effects and optimal ways of introducing hydrogen technologies taking into consideration the domains related to different stakeholders. Electrolysis in one of the main hydrogen production techniques that are expected to increase significantly in the future, and it requires water and electric power as feedstock. To evaluate whether energy models should include water dynamics in addition to energy domains in the evaluation of hydrogen production by electrolysis, two case studies are developed to determine the maximum hydrogen production capacity in Toronto: one considering water dynamics and one without considering water dynamics. The results show that there are significant differences in the optimized model outputs, where the case without water dynamics says that 183,718 kg more of hydrogen can be produced. The results from case 1 are considered unfeasible, as the water demand of the hydrogen plant exceeds the capacity of the water plant supplying the feedstock. It is concluded that energy models could add vital information by taking into account water dynamics along with the energy system when evaluating the inclusion of hydrogen technologies such as electrolysis, which will inevitably impact the water demand of the region in which they are located.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".