Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 97 references

Robust Energy System Design via Semi-infinite Programming

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A semi-infinite programming approach guarantees robust energy system designs even when operations involve binary decisions and other nonconvex constraints.

desk verdict The paper is a competent, honest application of existence-constrained SIP to energy system design, but the headline robustness guarantee is overclaimed: the MILP example is only epsilon-robust within solver tolerance and the La Palma result lacks a global optimality certificate. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14320 v2 pith:L3PQQ2B2 submitted 2024-11-21 math.OC

Moritz Wedemeyer , Eike Cramer , Alexander Mitsos , Manuel Dahmen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C3490C1190C2690C30
keywords semi-infiniteprogrammingrobustoptimizationenergysystemdesigntime-seriesaggregationnonconvexprincipalcomponentanalysisworst-casescenariovariablerenewable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Energy system design must account for the uncertainty of wind, sun, and demand. Standard practice compresses historical time series into a handful of representative days, but the compression can miss extreme or intermediate scenarios that make a design infeasible. The paper proposes the robust energy system design (RESD) approach, which formulates the design problem as a semi-infinite program: the design must be feasible for every uncertainty realization in the convex hull of historical data, not just for the selected scenarios. The central claim is that this formulation, solved with an adaptive discretization algorithm that searches for worst-case scenarios, can guarantee robust designs even when the operational subproblem is nonconvex, such as when it contains integer decisions like minimum part loads. The paper demonstrates the approach on a small mixed-integer example and on a La Palma island energy system, and shows that principal component analysis can reduce the uncertainty dimension with little loss of robustness or cost accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the semi-infinite existence constraint $\forall y \in Y_{\mathrm{ref}}\;\exists z \in Z_{\mathrm{epi}}(x,y) : g_e(x,y,z) \le 0$, which replaces the finite scenario check of the feasibility time-step heuristic with a continuous worst-case search over the convex hull of historical data. The embedded MAXMIN problem that searches for worst-case uncertainty realizations is reformulated as an existence-constrained semi-infinite program (ESIP) and solved by an adaptive discretization algorithm that alternates between a lower bounding design problem and a MAXMIN subproblem. For convex lower-level problems, the paper also lifts the MAXMIN problem into a single-level NLP using Lagrange multipliers, converting the bi-level structure into a standard semi-infinite program solvable by a Blankenship–Falk-type algorithm. Principal component analysis reduces the dimension of the uncertainty space, with the convex hull of the latent-space data delimiting the uncertainty set.

What would settle it

Take the paper's MILP example and enumerate the full uncertainty interval $y_1 \in [0,100]$ on a fine grid; if a design accepted by the RESD solver shows a positive energy supply gap at any grid point that lies in the convex hull of historical data, the claimed robustness guarantee fails. Alternatively, for the La Palma case, sample random points inside the convex hull of the historical data and solve the operational problem for each; a positive supply gap at any sample would contradict the guarantee, and the absence of a global optimality certificate in the paper's computations makes this check necessary rather than formal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that robustness guarantees for energy system design are achievable for problems with nonconvex operational behavior by enforcing a semi-infinite existence constraint: for every feasible uncertainty realization in the convex hull of the historical data, there must exist operational decisions, including binary ones, that satisfy all constraints with the energy supply gap nonpositive. The authors prove the concept with a minimal MILP where a cheap component with a minimum part load creates a worst-case demand that lies strictly between the historical extremes; the feasibility time-step heuristic, which only checks historical scenarios, produces a design that fails at such interior demand, while the RESD approach finds the robust design. On the La Palma case study, the approach yields a design with 92% renewable penetration at an average cost of 105.6 €/MWh, and the costs and robustness of the full-dimensional problem are closely approximated once the PCA latent space explains more than 95% of the historical variance.

Load-bearing premise

The robustness guarantee depends on the worst-case search (the embedded MAXMIN problem) being solved to global optimality for nonconvex operational problems; without a certificate of global optimality, the design is only guaranteed against the scenarios the solver actually found, not against every realization in the uncertainty set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For energy system problems with minimum part loads, unit commitment decisions, or other binary or nonconvex operational constraints, robust designs can be certified over a continuous uncertainty set rather than only over the historical scenarios.
  • The feasibility time-step heuristic is shown to be a special case of the RESD approach, valid only when worst-case scenarios occur at vertices of the uncertainty set, such as in linear or jointly convex problems, so RESD generalizes it to the nonconvex case.
  • PCA dimensionality reduction is a practical lever: with the latent space explaining more than 95% of the historical variance, the robust design and cost closely match the full-dimensional solution, giving a heuristic criterion for choosing the latent dimension.
  • The lifting approach makes the RESD method computationally feasible for a class of convex operational problems, although the method remains limited to small problems.
  • The approach provides a way to think about extreme scenarios not as a priori fixed periods but as design-dependent worst-case points, which can shift as the installed capacities change.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the RESD guarantee holds, then other time-series aggregation schemes for nonconvex energy models may be systematically underestimating risk, and the semi-infinite existence constraint could be added to any such aggregation pipeline as a rigorous correction layer.
  • The interior worst-case phenomenon identified in the MILP example, a demand level below a minimum part load, likely appears in real multi-energy systems with curtailment limits, start-up costs, or storage ramping constraints, which the paper leaves as future work.
  • The explained-variance threshold of about 95% could serve as a transferable diagnostic for dimension reduction in robust design problems beyond energy systems, from chemical process design to supply chains with nonconvex recourse.
  • A testable extension is to replace the convex-hull uncertainty set with other sets, such as boxes or data-driven sets, and observe whether the adaptive discretization algorithm retains its convergence and robustness guarantees.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Robust Energy System Design (RESD) approach, a semi-infinite programming framework that integrates continuous uncertainty sets into energy system design optimization. Historical time-series data are used to generate representative scenarios for operational costs by clustering and to define a continuous uncertainty set by PCA followed by convex hull construction. The design problem is formulated as an existence-constrained generalized semi-infinite program (EGSIP), relaxed to an ESIP, and solved by an adaptive discretization algorithm implemented in libDIPS. A small MILP example is used to show that finite-scenario or vertex-based heuristics can miss worst-case scenarios for nonconvex operational problems, and a lifting approach is introduced for problems with convex lower levels. The approach is demonstrated on an La Palma island energy system under varying PCA dimensions and time resolutions, reporting solution times, costs, and energy supply gaps.

Significance. The paper is conceptually valuable: it connects rigorous existence-constrained semi-infinite programming to energy system design and identifies a real weakness of time-series aggregation heuristics, namely that worst-case scenarios for nonconvex operational models need not lie at historical or hull-vertex scenarios. The La Palma case study is carefully documented, with model formulations, data sources, and solver settings in the supplementary material. The authors are also candid about computational intensity and about the lack of a rigorous validation criterion in the nonconvex case. However, the central claim that the approach 'can guarantee robust designs for problems with nonconvex operational behavior' is not fully supported by the numerical evidence: the MILP illustration is accepted under a feasibility tolerance that permits an actual supply gap, the La Palma verification checks only historical data points rather than the continuous uncertainty hull, and a coupling equality constraint is retained despite the paper's own convergence caveat. These are correctable issues, but they are load-bearing for the guarantee as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Supplementary Table 2] The reported optimal design for the MILP example, x1=16.60 and x2=83.40, is not actually feasible for the semi-infinite constraint on [0,100]. For any demand y in (16.60, 16.68), b=0 requires z1=y>x1, while b=1 requires z1 <= y - 0.2*x2 = y - 16.68 < 0, which contradicts z1>=0. The worst-case supply gap in this interval is 0.04 at y=16.64. Since the solver feasibility tolerance is set to 5e-2 in Supplementary Table 2, the ESIP algorithm can accept this violation as feasible. The exact robust optimum for this instance is x1=16.67, x2=83.33 with objective 116.67, so the reported objective value 116.60 is actually below the exactly robust optimum. This example therefore demonstrates an approximately robust design, not the exact guarantee claimed in the abstract and in Section 3.1. Please rerun with a strict tolerance and report an exactly feasible design, or explicitly state the epsilon-robust nature of the result.
  2. [Sections 3.3 and 4.2, Supplementary Section 2.5] The La Palma robustness result requires the medial-level problem to be solved over the full continuous set Yref, i.e., over the PCA convex hull. The paper instead solves the lifted nonconvex NLP (NLP) using Gurobi's non_convex=2 mode and reports no global optimality certificate, no upper bound on the worst-case supply gap over the hull, and no independent verification over the continuous latent polytope. Figure 6 computes the energy supply gap only for historical data points, which is a finite-sample check and cannot certify the semi-infinite constraint. Because the robustness guarantee is the central contribution, please either provide a global certificate for the lifted problems, use an exact reformulation such as vertex enumeration for this linear-operations case, or explicitly restrict the claim to empirical robustness.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Supplementary Section 2.4] The manuscript states in Section 2.2 that the convergence of the employed algorithms is no longer guaranteed when coupling equality constraints are present, and it recommends eliminating them or using specialized algorithms for implicit functions. In the La Palma model, Supplementary Section 2.4 retains the constraint Ebattery,s,0 - 0.5*Ebattery,peak = 0, which couples upper-level design variables with lower-level operational variables, and justifies this by saying that 'no convergence issues occurred.' That is not a substitute for the convergence guarantee on which the claimed robustness rests. Please eliminate the coupling equality using the explicit-substitution procedure described in Section 2.2, use the specialized methods cited there, or prove that the libDIPS convergence result applies to this particular coupling structure despite the general caveat.
  4. [Section 2.2, Eq. (ESIP REL)] The ESIP relaxation is stated to be 'generally inexact,' and the paper relies on a literature heuristic that 'for all but degenerate cases' the relaxed problem has the same objective value. Since the abstract makes an unconditional guarantee, this inexactness is load-bearing: a solution of (ESIP) may not satisfy the original (EGSIP) constraint. Please state the precise conditions under which the relaxation is exact for the problem class considered here, and confirm that these conditions hold for the MILP example and the La Palma instances, or weaken the guarantee accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2] Please correct the typo 'appropiate' to 'appropriate' in the last paragraph.
  2. [Section 3.3, problem (RESD SIP)] The set W(x) is written with gl(x,y,z) in the complementarity constraint, whereas the earlier notation in the same section is gz(x,y,z). Please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Figure 6] The caption states that the supply gap is computed for historical data points; this should be emphasized in the main text as well, so that readers do not mistake the finite historical-data check for a verification over the continuous uncertainty set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RESD derivation is an application of published SIP theory with independent numerical benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the RESD formulation is an explicit application of known semi-infinite programming theory (Blankenship and Falk 1976; Halemane and Grossmann 1983; Djelassi and Mitsos 2021; Mitsos and Tsoukalas 2015), and the numerical results are benchmarked against an independent feasibility time-step heuristic using historical data. No parameter is fitted to the target outcome. The representative scenarios are produced by k-means clustering, the uncertainty set is the convex hull of historical data in a PCA latent space, and the post-hoc robustness check (energy supply gap) is evaluated on historical data points rather than on the latent variables used in the optimization. The PCA dimensionality reduction and the robustness assessment are therefore distinct steps rather than the same quantity defined in terms of itself. The self-citations to Cramer et al. (2022), Djelassi and Mitsos (2021), Mitsos and Tsoukalas (2015), and Zingler et al. (2023) provide algorithmic machinery and data-manifold motivation, but those cited results are parameter-free mathematical or software results with stated assumptions external to this paper's case study; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems to forbid alternative designs. The paper itself acknowledges the remaining limitation: 'in the nonconvex case, a rigorous criterion for validating the robustness of an obtained design is missing' (Conclusion), which is an honest correctness caveat rather than a circular step. The concern that the nonconvex La Palma lifted NLP lacks a global optimality certificate is a numerical correctness/tolerance issue, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quotation-and-reduction standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the modeling choice of the uncertainty set (convex hull of historical data), the KKT-based lifting reformulation, and the exactness of the ESIP relaxation. The number of representative scenarios and the PCA latent dimension are hand-tuned parameters that affect the results but are not fitted to a pre-specified target outcome.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of representative scenarios = 15
    Clustering with 15 representative days chosen pragmatically after an inconclusive elbow method (Section 2.1, supplementary); affects operational cost approximation and runtime.
  • Number of principal components (latent dimension) = 5-6 (>=95% explained variance)
    Dimensionality of the uncertainty space; selected empirically so that explained variance exceeds 95%, based on observed supply gap and TAC closeness (Section 4.2). Hand-tuned to the data.
  • k-means random state = 42
    Fixed to ensure reproducibility; not physically meaningful but a chosen constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All relevant uncertainty realizations lie in the convex hull of the historical data (possibly after PCA reduction).
    Central modeling assumption defining the uncertainty set Y; if real scenarios fall outside the hull, robustness is not guaranteed (Section 2.1).
  • standard math KKT conditions characterize the optimum of the lower-level problem in the lifting approach.
    The lifting reformulation in Section 3.3 replaces the MAXMIN problem with a single-level NLP using stationarity and complementarity; this requires a convex lower-level problem and a constraint qualification.
  • domain assumption The ESIP relaxation (ESIP REL) is exact for the considered problems (non-degenerate).
    Section 2.2 states the relaxation is generally inexact but expected to give the same objective for all but degenerate cases, per Mitsos and Tsoukalas (2015).
  • ad hoc to paper Coupling equality constraints can be eliminated or ignored without losing convergence.
    Section 2.2 warns that coupling equality constraints break convergence guarantees, yet the La Palma model keeps Ebattery,s,0 - 0.5*Ebattery,peak = 0; the authors assert no convergence issues occurred.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Energy System Design via Semi-infinite Programming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3PQQ2B2

@misc{pith2026241114320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Energy System Design via Semi-infinite Programming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3PQQ2B2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14320}
}
read the original abstract

Time-series information needs to be incorporated into energy system optimization to account for the uncertainty of renewable energy sources. Typically, time-series aggregation methods are used to reduce historical data to a few representative scenarios but they may neglect extreme scenarios, which disproportionally drive the costs in energy system design. We propose the robust energy system design (RESD) approach based on semi-infinite programming and use an adaptive discretization-based algorithm to identify worst-case scenarios during optimization. The RESD approach can guarantee robust designs for problems with nonconvex operational behavior, which current methods cannot achieve. The RESD approach is demonstrated by designing an energy supply system for the island of La Palma. To improve computational performance, principal component analysis is used to reduce the dimensionality of the uncertainty space. The robustness and costs of the approximated problem with significantly reduced dimensionality approximate the full-dimensional solution closely. Even with strong dimensionality reduction, the RESD approach is computationally intense and thus limited to small problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14320 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The processing of historical time-series data to obtain the representative scenarios and uncer￾tainty bounds for the RESD problem: Time-series data with the length of the representative period are collected for different quantities, normalized, and concatenated such that a single vector is obtained for each representative period in the historical data. Representative scenarios are obtained by clustering the concaten… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation of the daily historical electricity demand on the island of La Palma in 2013-2019. Demand data were obtained from the Spanish electricity distribution system operator Red Eléctrica de España (2024). Furthermore, the 15 representative scenarios used to compute the operational costs are depicted as dashed lines. There is significant variation in demand over the course of a day, with a wide … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Installed component capacities for the robust design (blue) identified by the RESD approach using 16 time steps and 9 principal components. For comparison, the currently installed capacities (orange) (Gobierno de Canarias, 2023a) are shown. The current design has much higher conventional generation capacity. However, plans to switch to higher renewable electricity generation have already been announced (Gobierno de … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the average solution time for the ESIP and the lifting approach for different numbers of PCs and time steps. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of principal components [-] 10 −3 10 −2 10 −1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Solution time [s] Time steps 4 6 8 12 16 ESIP: Lifting [PIT…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimal total annualized cost (TAC) of energy system designs obtained using the lifting approach against the number of principal components (PCs) for varying number of time steps (top). Dashed lines show results obtained with the feasibility time-step heuristic (Bahl e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the energy supply gap over the number of PCs for different time resolutions. The energy supply gap is calculated by solving the operational problem for each historical data point and selecting the maximum constraint violation. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of principal …
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: k-means clustering inertia plotted against the number of clusters (elbow method (Thorndike, 1953)). Clusters are determined using the scikit-learn package (Pedregosa et al., 2011), default settings are used, and the random state is fixed to 42 to ensure reproducibility…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Load curves (Masters, 2004) for the considered time-series data. Historical data and data of the 15 selected representative days. To compute the load curve for the representative days, we consider the full historical time series but replace each historical day by the c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Avis, D., Bremner, D., and Seidel, R. (1997). How good are convex hull algorithms? Computational Geometry , 7(5):265--301

    1997

  2. [2]

    Bahl, B., K \"u mpel, A., Lampe, M., and Bardow, A. (2016). Time-series aggregation for synthesis of distributed energy supply systems by bounding error in operational expenditure. In Kravanja, Z. and Bogataj, M., editors, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering , volume 38 of 26 European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering , pages 793--798. Elsevier

    2016

  3. [3]

    E., Lampe, M., Hennen, M., and Bardow, A

    Bahl, B., L \"u tzow, J., Shu, D., Hollermann, D. E., Lampe, M., Hennen, M., and Bardow, A. (2018). Rigorous synthesis of energy systems by decomposition via time-series aggregation. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 112:70--81

    2018

  4. [4]

    F., and Palombo, A

    Barone, G., Buonomano, A., Forzano, C., Giuzio, G. F., and Palombo, A. (2021). Supporting the Sustainable Energy Transition in the Canary Islands : Simulation and Optimization of Multiple Energy System Layouts and Economic Scenarios . Frontiers in Sustainable Cities , 3:685525

    2021

  5. [5]

    J., Temme, F., Bahl, B., Hennen, M

    Baumg \"a rtner, N. J., Temme, F., Bahl, B., Hennen, M. R., Hollermann, D. E., and Bardow, A. (2019). RiSES4 : Rigorous Synthesis of Energy Supply Systems with Seasonal Storage by relaxation and time-series aggregation to typical periods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact ...

    2019

  6. [6]

    Ben-Tal , A., El Ghaoui, L., and Nemirovski, A. S. (2009). Robust Optimization . Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    2009

  7. [7]

    and Nemirovski, A

    Ben-Tal , A. and Nemirovski, A. (2002). Robust optimization -- methodology and applications. Mathematical Programming , 92(3):453--480

    2002

  8. [8]

    B., and Caramanis, C

    Bertsimas, D., Brown, D. B., and Caramanis, C. (2011). Theory and Applications of Robust Optimization . SIAM Review , 53(3):464--501

    2011

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    and Karwan, M

    Bialas, W. and Karwan, M. (1982). On two-level optimization. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 27(1):211--214

    1982

  2. [10]

    and Grossmann, I

    Biegler, L. and Grossmann, I. (2004). Retrospective on optimization. Computers and Chemical Engineering , 28(8):1169--1192

    2004

  3. [11]

    Birge, J. R. and Louveaux, F. (2011). Introduction to Stochastic Programming . SpringerLink B \"u cher . Springer New York, New York, NY

    2011

  4. [12]

    Blankenship, J. W. and Falk, J. E. (1976). Infinitely constrained optimization problems. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 19(2):261--281

    1976

  5. [13]

    u nning, F., Wetter, M., Fuchs, M., and M \

    B \"u nning, F., Wetter, M., Fuchs, M., and M \"u ller, D. (2018). Bidirectional low temperature district energy systems with agent-based control: Performance comparison and operation optimization. Applied Energy , 209:502--515

    2018

  6. [14]

    Campo, P. J. and Morari, M. (1987). Robust Model Predictive Control . In 1987 American Control Conference , pages 1021--1026

    1987

  7. [15]

    Chapaloglou, S., Varagnolo, D., Marra, F., and Tedeschi, E. (2022). Data-informed scenario generation for statistically stable energy storage sizing in isolated power systems. Journal of Energy Storage , 51:104311

    2022

  8. [16]

    W., and Kortanek, K

    Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., and Kortanek, K. (1962). Duality, haar programs, and finite sequence spaces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 48(5):783--786

    1962

  9. [17]

    Chazelle, B. (1993). An optimal convex hull algorithm in any fixed dimension. Discrete & Computational Geometry , 10(4):377--409

    1993

  10. [18]

    Cramer, E., Mitsos, A., Tempone, R., and Dahmen, M. (2022). Principal component density estimation for scenario generation using normalizing flows. Data-Centric Engineering , 3:e7

    2022

  11. [19]

    Dantzig, G. B. (1955). Linear Programming under Uncertainty . Management Science , 1(3/4):197--206

    1955

  12. [20]

    Diehl, M., Houska, B., Stein, O., and Steuermann, P. (2013). A lifting method for generalized semi-infinite programs based on lower level Wolfe duality. Computational Optimization and Applications , 54(1):189--210

    2013

  13. [21]

    u r die globale L \

    Djelassi, H. (2020). Diskretisierungsbasierte Algorithmen f \"u r die globale L \"o sung hierarchischer Optimierungsprobleme . Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University

    2020

  14. [22]

    Djelassi, H., Glass, M., and Mitsos, A. (2019). Discretization-based algorithms for generalized semi-infinite and bilevel programs with coupling equality constraints. Journal of Global Optimization , 75(2):341--392

    2019

  15. [23]

    and Mitsos, A

    Djelassi, H. and Mitsos, A. (2021). Global Solution of Semi-infinite Programs with Existence Constraints . Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 188(3):863--881

    2021

  16. [24]

    Djelassi, H., Mitsos, A., and Stein, O. (2021). Recent advances in nonconvex semi-infinite programming: Applications and algorithms. EURO Journal on Computational Optimization , 9:100006

    2021

  17. [25]

    M., Carrillo-Andr \'e s , A., and Gallardo-Salazar , M

    Dom \'i nguez-Mu \ n oz , F., Cejudo-L \'o pez , J. M., Carrillo-Andr \'e s , A., and Gallardo-Salazar , M. (2011). Selection of typical demand days for CHP optimization. Energy and Buildings , 43(11):3036--3043

    2011

  18. [26]

    JRC Photovoltaic Geographical Information System ( PVGIS )

    European Commission (2022). JRC Photovoltaic Geographical Information System ( PVGIS ). https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg\_tools/en/. Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2022

  19. [27]

    Gils, H. C. and Simon, S. (2017). Carbon neutral archipelago -- 100\ Applied Energy , 188:342--355

    2017

  20. [28]

    Anuario Energetico De Canarias 2021

    Gobierno de Canarias (2023a). Anuario Energetico De Canarias 2021 . https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/energia/descargas/SDE/Portal/Publicaciones/AnuarioEnergeticodeCanarias\_2021\_v2.pdf, Accessed: 2024-11-20

    2023

  21. [29]

    Consejer \'i a de Transici \'o n Ecol \'o gica , Lucha contra el Cambio Clim \'a tico y Planificaci \'o n Territorial

    Gobierno de Canarias (2023b). Consejer \'i a de Transici \'o n Ecol \'o gica , Lucha contra el Cambio Clim \'a tico y Planificaci \'o n Territorial . https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/boc/2023/104/009.html, Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2023

  22. [30]

    Gross, R., Heptonstall, P., Leach, M., Anderson, D., Green, T., and Skea, J. (2007). Renewables and the grid: Understanding intermittency. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy , 160(1):31--41

    2007

  23. [31]

    Grossmann, I. E. and Sargent, R. W. H. (1978). Optimum design of chemical plants with uncertain parameters. AIChE Journal , 24(6):1021--1028

    1978

  24. [32]

    Guerra V \'a zquez, F., R \"u ckmann, J.-J., Stein, O., and Still, G. (2008). Generalized semi-infinite programming: A tutorial. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 217(2):394--419

    2008

  25. [33]

    T., and Stein, O

    G \"u nzel, H., Jongen, H. T., and Stein, O. (2007). On the closure of the feasible set in generalized semi-infinite programming. Central European Journal of Operations Research , 15(3):271--280

    2007

  26. [34]

    Gurobi optimizer reference manual

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC (2024). Gurobi optimizer reference manual. https://www.gurobi.com

    2024

  27. [35]

    Halemane, K. P. and Grossmann, I. E. (1983). Optimal process design under uncertainty. AIChE Journal , 29(3):425--433

    1983

  28. [36]

    Heptonstall, P. J. and Gross, R. J. K. (2021). A systematic review of the costs and impacts of integrating variable renewables into power grids. Nature Energy , 6(1):72--83

    2021

  29. [37]

    Hess, D., Wetzel, M., and Cao, K.-K. (2018). Representing node-internal transmission and distribution grids in energy system models. Renewable Energy , 119:874--890

    2018

  30. [38]

    and Kortanek, K

    Hettich, R. and Kortanek, K. O. (1993). Semi- Infinite Programming : Theory , Methods , and Applications . SIAM Review , 35(3):380--429

    1993

  31. [39]

    Hoffmann, M., Kotzur, L., Stolten, D., and Robinius, M. (2020). A Review on Time Series Aggregation Methods for Energy System Models . Energies , 13(3):641

    2020

  32. [40]

    Huber, M., Dimkova, D., and Hamacher, T. (2014). Integration of wind and solar power in Europe : Assessment of flexibility requirements. Energy , 69:236--246

    2014

  33. [41]

    Huld, T., M \"u ller, R., and Gambardella, A. (2012). A new solar radiation database for estimating PV performance in Europe and Africa . Solar Energy , 86(6):1803--1815

    2012

  34. [42]

    and Turton, H

    Kannan, R. and Turton, H. (2013). A Long-Term Electricity Dispatch Model with the TIMES Framework . Environmental Modeling & Assessment , 18(3):325--343

    2013

  35. [43]

    Keles, D., Jochem, P., McKenna, R., Ruppert, M., and Fichtner, W. (2017). Meeting the Modeling Needs of Future Energy Systems . Energy Technology , 5(7):1007--1025

    2017

  36. [44]

    Kennedy, N., Miao, C., Wu, Q., Wang, Y., Ji, J., and Roskilly, T. (2017). Optimal Hybrid Power System Using Renewables and Hydrogen for an Isolated Island in the UK . Energy Procedia , 105:1388--1393

    2017

  37. [45]

    Kotzur, L., Markewitz, P., Robinius, M., and Stolten, D. (2018). Impact of different time series aggregation methods on optimal energy system design. Renewable Energy , 117:474--487

    2018

  38. [46]

    Kramer, M. A. (1991). Nonlinear principal component analysis using autoassociative neural networks. AIChE Journal , 37(2):233--243

    1991

  39. [47]

    and Barton, P

    Li, X. and Barton, P. I. (2015). Optimal design and operation of energy systems under uncertainty. Journal of Process Control , 30:1--9

    2015

  40. [48]

    G., Anitescu, M., and Zavala, V

    Lubin, M., Petra, C. G., Anitescu, M., and Zavala, V. (2011). Scalable stochastic optimization of complex energy systems. In Proceedings of 2011 International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis , SC '11, New York, NY, USA. Association f...

    2011

  41. [49]

    Ma, T., Yang, H., and Lu, L. (2014). A feasibility study of a stand-alone hybrid solar--wind--battery system for a remote island. Applied Energy , 121:149--158

    2014

  42. [50]

    Meschede, H., Holzapfel, P., Kadelbach, F., and Hesselbach, J. (2016). Classification of global island regarding the opportunity of using RES . Applied Energy , 175:251--258

    2016

  43. [51]

    and Tsoukalas, A

    Mitsos, A. and Tsoukalas, A. (2015). Global optimization of generalized semi-infinite programs via restriction of the right hand side. Journal of Global Optimization , 61(1):1--17

    2015

  44. [52]

    Papoulias, S. A. and Grossmann, I. E. (1983). A structural optimization approach in process synthesis--- I : Utility systems. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 7(6):695--706

    1983

  45. [53]

    Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , 2(11):559--572

    1901

  46. [54]

    Pfenninger, S., Hawkes, A., and Keirstead, J. (2014). Energy systems modeling for twenty-first century energy challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 33:74--86

    2014

  47. [55]

    Poncelet, K., Delarue, E., Six, D., Duerinck, J., and D'haeseleer, W. (2016). Impact of the level of temporal and operational detail in energy-system planning models. Applied Energy , 162:631--643

    2016

  48. [56]

    La Palma - Electricity demand tracking in real time

    Red El \'e ctrica de Espa \ n a (2024). La Palma - Electricity demand tracking in real time. https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/canarias/la\_palma5m/tablas. Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2024

  49. [57]

    o rpinghaus, L., von Pfingsten , S., Baumg \

    Reinert, C., Deutz, S., Minten, H., D \"o rpinghaus, L., von Pfingsten , S., Baumg \"a rtner, N., and Bardow, A. (2020). Environmental Impacts of the Future German Energy System from Integrated Energy Systems Optimization and Life Cycle Assessment . In Pierucci, S., Manenti, F...

    2020

  50. [58]

    M., and Solbrekke, I

    Ringkj b, H.-K., Haugan, P. M., and Solbrekke, I. M. (2018). A review of modelling tools for energy and electricity systems with large shares of variable renewables. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 96:440--459

    2018

  51. [59]

    and Reemtsen, R., editors (1998)

    R \"u ckmann, J.-J. and Reemtsen, R., editors (1998). Semi- Infinite Programming , volume 25 of Springer eBook Collection Mathematics and Statistics . Springer, Boston, MA

    1998

  52. [60]

    and Scholtes, S

    Scheel, H. and Scholtes, S. (2000). Mathematical Programs with Complementarity Constraints : Stationarity , Optimality , and Sensitivity . Mathematics of Operations Research , 25(1):1--22

    2000

  53. [61]

    u tz, T., Hu, X., Fuchs, M., and M \

    Sch \"u tz, T., Hu, X., Fuchs, M., and M \"u ller, D. (2018). Optimal design of decentralized energy conversion systems for smart microgrids using decomposition methods. Energy , 156:250--263

    2018

  54. [62]

    and K \"u fer, K.-H

    Seidel, T. and K \"u fer, K.-H. (2022). An adaptive discretization method solving semi-infinite optimization problems with quadratic rate of convergence. Optimization , 71(8):2211--2239

    2022

  55. [63]

    Siala, K., de la R \'u a , C., Lech \'o n, Y., and Hamacher, T. (2019). Towards a sustainable European energy system: Linking optimization models with multi-regional input-output analysis. Energy Strategy Reviews , 26:100391

    2019

  56. [64]

    Stein, O. (2003). Bi-Level Strategies in Semi-infinite Programming , volume 71 of Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications . Springer Science+Business Media , New York, NY , softcover repr. of the hardcover 1. ed. edition

    2003

  57. [65]

    Stein, O. (2012). How to solve a semi-infinite optimization problem. European Journal of Operational Research , 223(2):312--320

    2012

  58. [66]

    Stuber, M. D. and Barton, P. I. (2015). Semi- Infinite Optimization with Implicit Functions . Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research , 54(1):307--317

    2015

  59. [67]

    and Brandt, A

    Teichgraeber, H. and Brandt, A. R. (2019). Clustering methods to find representative periods for the optimization of energy systems: An initial framework and comparison. Applied Energy , 239:1283--1293

    2019

  60. [68]

    and Brandt, A

    Teichgraeber, H. and Brandt, A. R. (2022). Time-series aggregation for the optimization of energy systems: Goals , challenges, approaches, and opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 157:111984

    2022

  61. [69]

    P., Baumg \"a rtner, N., Kotzur, L., Stolten, D., Robinius, M., Bardow, A., and Brandt, A

    Teichgraeber, H., Lindenmeyer, C. P., Baumg \"a rtner, N., Kotzur, L., Stolten, D., Robinius, M., Bardow, A., and Brandt, A. R. (2020). Extreme events in time series aggregation: A case study for optimal residential energy supply systems. Applied Energy , 275:115223

    2020

  62. [70]

    Voll, P., Klaffke, C., Hennen, M., and Bardow, A. (2013). Automated superstructure-based synthesis and optimization of distributed energy supply systems. Energy , 50:374--388

    2013

  63. [71]

    Yunt, M., Chachuat, B., Mitsos, A., and Barton, P. I. (2008). Designing man-portable power generation systems for varying power demand. AIChE Journal , 54(5):1254--1269

    2008

  64. [72]

    Zingler, A., Mitsos, A., Jungen, D., and Djelassi, H. (2023). libDIPS --- Discretization-Based Semi-Infinite and Bilevel Programming Solvers . Optimization Online , 24914

    2023

  65. [73]

    Bauer, L. (2018). Enercon E-82 E2 2.300 - 2,30 MW - Wind turbine. https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/550-enercon-e-82-e2-2.300. Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2018

  66. [74]

    Baumg \"a rtner, N., Delorme, R., Hennen, M., and Bardow, A. (2019). Design of low-carbon utility systems: Exploiting time-dependent grid emissions for climate-friendly demand-side management. Applied Energy , 247:755--765

    2019

  67. [75]

    N., Badger, J., Hahmann, A

    Davis, N. N., Badger, J., Hahmann, A. N., Hansen, B. O., Mortensen, N. G., Kelly, M., Lars \'e n, X. G., Olsen, B. T., Floors, R., Lizcano, G., Casso, P., Lacave, O., Bosch, A., Bauwens, I., Knight, O. J., van Loon, A. P., Fox, R., Parvanyan, T., Hansen, S. B. K., Heathfield, ...

    2023

  68. [76]

    Euler, L. (2000). Foundations of Differential Calculus . Springer New York , New York, NY

    2000

  69. [77]

    Domestic Producer Prices Eurostat

    eurostat (2024). Domestic Producer Prices Eurostat . https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/de68744b-c123-428d-a9c0-0f9cf843cdf7?lang=en. Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2024

  70. [78]

    G., Kairies, K.-P., Stenzel, P., and Sauer, D

    Figgener, J., Hecht, C., Haberschusz, D., Bors, J., Spreuer, K. G., Kairies, K.-P., Stenzel, P., and Sauer, D. U. (2023). The development of battery storage systems in Germany : A market review (status 2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Anuario Energetico De Canarias 2021

    Gobierno de Canarias (2023). Anuario Energetico De Canarias 2021 . https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/energia/descargas/SDE/Portal/Publicaciones/AnuarioEnergeticodeCanarias\_2021\_v2.pdf, Accessed: 2024-11-20

    2023

  72. [80]

    J., H \'o lm, E., Janiskov \'a , M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay , P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Th \'e paut, J.-N

    Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Hor \'a nyi, A., Mu \ n oz-Sabater , J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dah...

    2020

  73. [81]

    N., Thomsen, J., Hartmann, N., Senkpiel, C., Philipps, S., Nold, S., Lude, S., Saad, N., and Schlegl, T

    Kost, C., Mayer, J. N., Thomsen, J., Hartmann, N., Senkpiel, C., Philipps, S., Nold, S., Lude, S., Saad, N., and Schlegl, T. (2021). Levelized Cost of Electricity Renewable Energy Technologies

    2021

  74. [82]

    MacQueen, J. et al. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability , volume 1, pages 281--297. Oakland, CA, USA

    1967

  75. [83]

    Masters, G. M. (2004). Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems . Wiley, 1 edition

    2004

  76. [84]

    Ministerio de Industria, Energ \'i a y Turismo (2015). Real Decreto 738/2015, de 31 de julio, por el que se regula la actividad de producci \'o n de energ \'i a el \'e ctrica y el procedimiento de despacho en los sistemas el \'e ctricos de los territorios no peninsulares. http...

    2015

  77. [85]

    Real Decreto 1370/2006, de 24 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el Plan Nacional de Asignaci \'o n de derechos de emisi \'o n de gases de efecto invernadero, 2008-2012

    Ministerio de la Presidencia (2006). Real Decreto 1370/2006, de 24 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el Plan Nacional de Asignaci \'o n de derechos de emisi \'o n de gases de efecto invernadero, 2008-2012. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-20530. Accessed: 2024-11-20

    2006

  78. [86]

    Ministerio para la Transici \'o n Ecol \'o gica y el Reto Demogr \'a fico (2022). Orden TED /1315/2022, de 23 de diciembre, por la que en ejecuci \'o n de la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 16 de noviembre de 2021, reca \'i da en el recurso contencioso-administrativo 301/202...

    2022

  79. [87]

    Ministerio para la Transici \'o n Ecol \'o gica y el Reto Demogr \'a fico (2023a). Resoluci \'o n de 20 de junio de 2023, de la Direcci \'o n General de Pol \'i tica Energ \'e tica y Minas , por la que se fija el poder calor \'i fico inferior de la hulla, fuel oil, diesel oil,...

    2023

  80. [88]

    Ministerio para la Transici \'o n Ecol \'o gica y el Reto Demogr \'a fico (2023b). Resoluci \'o n de 21 de septiembre de 2023, de la Direcci \'o n General de Pol \'i tica Energ \'e tica y Minas , por la que se fijan los precios de combustible en puerto aplicables al fuel oil, ...

    2023

  81. [89]

    Ministerio para la Transici \'o n Ecol \'o gica y el Reto Demogr \'a fico (2023c). Resoluci \'o n de 5 de febrero de 2023, de la Direcci \'o n General de Pol \'i tica Energ \'e tica y Minas , por la que se aprueba el precio de derechos de emisi \'o n de liquidaci \'o n para el...

    2023

  82. [90]

    Nahmmacher, P., Schmid, E., Hirth, L., and Knopf, B. (2016). Carpe diem: A novel approach to select representative days for long-term power system modeling. Energy , 112:430--442

    2016

  83. [91]

    Oke, T. R. (2006). Boundary Layer Climates . Routledge , London , 2nd ed edition

    2006

  84. [92]

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython. Jou...

    2011

  85. [93]

    Pfeifroth, U., Kothe, S., Trentmann, J., Hollmann, R., Fuchs, P., Kaiser, J., and Werscheck, M. (2019). Surface Radiation Data Set - Heliosat ( SARAH ) - Edition 2.1. https://doi.org/10.5676/EUM\_SAF\_CM/SARAH/V002\_01. Accessed: 2024-11-12

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    u tz, T., Shu, D. Y., Bardow, A., Gr \

    Sass, S., Faulwasser, T., Hollermann, D. E., Kappatou, C. D., Sauer, D., Sch \"u tz, T., Shu, D. Y., Bardow, A., Gr \"o ll, L., Hagenmeyer, V., M \"u ller, D., and Mitsos, A. (2020). Model compendium, data, and optimization benchmarks for sector-coupled energy systems. Compute...

    2020

  87. [95]

    Schubert, E. (2023). Stop using the elbow criterion for k-means and how to choose the number of clusters instead. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter , 25(1):36--42

    2023

  88. [96]

    Thorndike, R. L. (1953). Who belongs in the family? Psychometrika , 18(4):267--276

    1953

  89. [97]

    E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt , S

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt , S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.