Improving energy access and environmental sustainability in small communities through hydrogen integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relying on renewable energy for small communities is challenging due to intermittency, while hydrogen offers a reliable, long-term storage solution. Yet, there are questions regarding the involvement of hydrogen in the optimal renewable energy configuration. This paper develops a tri-objective optimization model for the selection and capacity allocation of energy technologies to minimize the annual costs, minimize environmental impact, and maximize social utility for small communities. The model assesses the role of hydrogen in a hybrid renewable energy system to evaluate grid reliability, its contribution to global warming mitigation, and the distinctive dynamics associated with community size. Liverpool in Nova Scotia, Canada, was chosen as a case study due to its promise of renewable energy advancement and inconsistent grid access. The initial results suggest a set of technologies such as wind turbines, combined heat and power, organic Rankine cycle, and the grid. By extending the analysis to 2050, it is projected that the utilization of wind turbines and fuel cells will double, while grid connection becomes unnecessary as hydrogen technologies mature. The matured hydrogen scenario shows a 63% reduction in environmental impact and a 4% improvement in social utility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".