1 BCTC-SPA-R003 Probability Distribution of HVDC Capacity and Impacts of Two Key Components (Risk, Cost and Feasibility of Extending HVDC life to 2009)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in October 2008 as an accelerated plan or in October 2009 as a non-accelerated plan. Conceptually, the retirement of HVDC does not mean that it can no longer be used in operation. Actually, like human beings, the retired HVDC can continue to serve supply with relatively high unavailability from an operation viewpoint. Also, replacements of some critical components can extend its life. The purpose of the study is to evaluate probability distribution of HVDC capacity and impacts of two key component replacements (Pole 2 reactor and filter capacitor at VIT) on HVDC reliability. The results provide answers to the following questions: • If we continue to use HVDC as it is (i.e., without any replacement or refurbishment), what is the increased risk or unreliability of HVDC? • If we replace each of the two key components, how much reliability improvement can be expected and for how long? • Can HVDC be used as an alternative before the 230 kV line in-service? The study does not intend to re-address HVDC life extension as a long-term solution to Vancouver Island supply. The previous studies have proved that HVDC life extension is not a competitive alternative for Vancouver Island long-term power supply in terms of economic effectiveness and long time unreliability. HVDC ageing is a basic fact. However, this does not lower the significance of investigating the risk, cost and feasibility of extending HVDC life to fill the gap
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".