Integrated planning and operation of power systems: Flexibility in high penetration of wind and solar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• A framework is developed for linking power system's planning model to operational model • Impacts from different levels of cooperation between two power systems is assessed from both operational and planning perspectives • Two electrification and load growth scenarios are assessed to analyze impacts from the demand side decarbonization • A detailed hydropower operation formulation is implemented to investigate the flexibility provided by them • Details of planning for VRE and conventional plants is proposed based on the integration levels along with their costs • Operational costs, planning costs, and VRE curtailment are all shown to be reduced with deeper integration of the two power systems • Hydropower climate induced uncertainty is shown to have impacts on its flexibility potential, especially when the systems are not integrated Canada has set a target to become net zero by 2050. One of the key pathways for achieving this goal and supporting electrified demand is to expand variable renewable energy capacities. Such integration requires flexibility measures to respond to inherited variability, such as a reactive generation mix, responsive demand, or transmission. This study aims to find the impacts of coordinated planning and integrated operation of two power systems, one with flexible hydro capacities and the other with high shares of variable renewables. The present study uses a linked framework of planning and operational models to analyze different integration levels, load electrification scenarios, and sensitivity to hydropower constraints. The results show that the systems can achieve zero-emission goals with around one-third of the capital requirements when there is no constraint on the grid expansion between the two jurisdictions. Flexibility metrics, like curtailment, perform better when the large wind capacities in one power system are coupled with flexible hydro capacities in the other through the expanded grid. A sensitivity analysis is also done on hydropower constraints which shows a positive correlation between minimum hydropower output and curtailed wind generation when the integration is limited.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".