An Improved Mathematical Formulation For the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a climate stabilization strategy that prevents CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere. Despite its benefits, impactful CCS projects require large investments in infrastructure, which could deter governments from implementing this strategy. In this sense, the development of innovative tools to support large-scale cost-efficient CCS deployment decisions is critical for climate change mitigation. This thesis proposes an improved mathematical formulation for the scalable infrastructure model for CCS (SimCCS), whose main objective is to design a minimum-cost pipe network to capture, transport, and store a target amount of CO2. Model decisions include source, reservoir, and pipe selection, as well as CO2 amounts to capture, store, and transport. By studying the SimCCS optimal solution and the subjacent network topology, new valid inequalities (VI) are proposed to strengthen the existing mathematical formulation. These constraints seek to improve the quality of the linear relaxation solutions in the branch and bound algorithm used to solve SimCCS. Each VI is explained with its intuitive description, mathematical structure and examples of resulting improvements. Further, all VIs are validated by assessing the impact of their elimination from the new formulation. The validated new formulation solves the 72-nodes Alberta problem up to 7 times faster than the original model. The upgraded model reduces the computation time required to solve SimCCS in 72% of randomly generated test instances, solving SimCCS up to 200 times faster. These formulations can be tested and then applied to enhance variants of the SimCCS and general fixed-charge network flow problems. Finally, an experience from testing a Benders decomposition approach for SimCCS is discussed and future scope of probable efficient solution-methods is outlined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".