Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Identification of Technical Design Constraints and Considerations for Transmission Grid Expansion Planning Projects

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a three-tier hierarchy of technical design constraints for electrical energy hubs, with network operational security and electricity market design as the binding hard constraints, and argues that this hierarchy fills

desk verdict A useful, clearly written taxonomy of EEH planning constraints, but the criticality hierarchy is asserted expert judgment with inconsistencies against its own definitions; worth refereeing, not as a formal classification. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.13496 v2 pith:DDW2W62Y submitted 2025-12-15 eess.SY cs.SY

Giacomo Bastianel , Clement Hardy , Nils Charels , Dirk Van Hertem , Hakan Ergun This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords electricalenergyhubstransmissionexpansionplanningHVDCtechnologytechnicaldesignconstraintscriticalityclassificationoffshorewindintegrationnetworkoperationalsecuritymodularexpandability
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

Transmission system operators planning multi-gigawatt offshore energy hubs have had no shared, transparent way to decide which technical considerations should drive the initial design. This paper tries to supply that structure by identifying seven areas of interest — network integration, HVDC technology, costs, market design, expandability, reliability-availability-maintainability, and sustainability — and deriving concrete constraints and considerations from each. It then ranks them in a three-class hierarchy: hard constraints that must be met first, main drivers that shape the operating philosophy, and key considerations that tune component-level design. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the hierarchy holds, planners gain a common language and a dependency graph to make early design choices explicit and auditable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-class criticality taxonomy — hard constraints, main drivers, key considerations — together with the dependency graph connecting the seven areas of interest. Each class does different planning work: hard constraints are binding limits that must be satisfied before a project can proceed, main drivers set the operating and control philosophy, and key considerations determine component parameters and investment details. The binding link to operational security runs through the maximum loss of infeed and the frequency containment reserve dimensioning incident, which is used to justify the class assignments, for example why a non-selective DC protection strategy bec

What would settle it

Ask a panel of transmission planners from different system operators to independently classify the same constraints into the three criticality classes. If agreement is low, or if any real hub project turns out to be bound first by, say, environmental permitting or converter supply-chain availability rather than by network security and market design, the hierarchy's claim to reflect the binding logic of EEH planning is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that all relevant technical design constraints for electrical energy hubs can be organized into a single hierarchy and that no such hierarchy previously existed. Network operational security — specifically the obligation that no single contingency cause a loss of infeed larger than the dimensioning incident — and electricity market design are classed as hard constraints. Protection strategy, space requirements, capital and operational expenditures, modular expandability, and environmental and social impact are main drivers. HVDC cable configuration, converter type, losses, and reliability-availability-maintainability are key considerations. The dependencies

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on the authors' expert judgment about which seven areas matter and which criticality class each constraint belongs to; another group of planners could reasonably choose different areas or different classes, and the hierarchy would then change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TSOs and asset owners can use the hierarchy as a checklist: satisfy the hard constraints first, then optimize within the main drivers, then settle component-level key considerations.
  • The hierarchy gives optimization models a natural decomposition: steady-state AC/DC optimal power flow can treat network security and market design as fixed constraints while varying protection, space, and expandability decisions.
  • Because the hard constraints are stated in terms of maximum loss of infeed and frequency restoration reserve costs, they translate directly into quantitative limits in planning studies.
  • The dependency graph lets a planner trace, for example, how the hard constraint on loss of infeed forces a partially selective protection strategy, which in turn pushes the choice of DC switchgear and busbar layout.
  • The framework can serve as the first step toward a coordinated master plan for multi-country offshore grid expansion, reducing ad hoc decision-making.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The taxonomy's real test is whether it predicts actual binding constraints in a concrete project; applying it to a proposed energy island and checking whether network security and market design indeed dominate permitting and supply-chain constraints would settle that.
  • The same three-class structure could plausibly be reused for onshore brownfield expansions, where space and public acceptance would likely enter at the main-driver level instead of the hard-constraint level.
  • The dependency graph, drawn by hand from the classification, could be turned into an explicit influence matrix or formal constraint graph, which would make the classification testable and machine-readable for planning tools.
  • The claim that no hierarchy existed before is time-sensitive: as more hub projects are studied, a similar hierarchy may emerge independently, which would either validate or dispute the novelty of the classification.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper identifies seven areas of interest for planning transmission grid expansion projects, specifically electrical energy hubs (EEHs): network integration, HVDC technologies, costs, electricity market design, future proofness and modular expandability, reliability-availability-maintainability, and sustainability. For each area, the authors derive what they call technical design constraints and considerations, then classify them into three criticality classes (hard constraints, main drivers, key considerations) and present a dependency graph. The stated aim is to provide system operators and policymakers with a transparent, systematic basis for EEH planning and to fill a gap: no prior hierarchy of constraints for EEH design choices.

Significance. The paper is a well-organized synthesis of a broad range of technical material relevant to EEH planning, drawing on standards, industry reports, and academic literature. If the proposed taxonomy and hierarchy were validated, they would indeed give TSOs and researchers a useful structured checklist and a starting point for planning methodology. However, the central contribution—the criticality classification and dependency graph—is not demonstrated as a derived or validated result. The selection of the seven areas and the assignment to classes rest on expert judgment, and the paper provides no systematic method or stakeholder validation. As presented, the value is that of a clearly written position/survey paper, not a validated framework.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1] The classification does not consistently implement the definitions given in Section 4. Hard constraints are defined as requirements that 'must be fulfilled before proceeding'; yet the protection row, which contains 'must consider operational security constraints', is placed under main drivers. Conversely, the electricity market design row is a normative objective ('minimizes the cost for society...') and is placed under hard constraints, although Section 3.5 itself states that the four market properties cannot hold simultaneously and that a design must prioritize some properties—hardly a constraint that must be fulfilled before further planning. The congestion-management item is labeled a 'Consideration' in Section 3.1.2 but appears as a hard constraint in Table 1. No decision rule is given to map row content to classes, so the hierarchy is an unstated judgment rather than a consequence
  2. [Section 2 vs. Section 5] The third claimed contribution in Section 2 is 'Recommendations on how to integrate the identified technical constraints into existing optimization models, in particular for steady-state operations of hybrid AC/DC grids.' However, Section 5 explicitly states that 'Future work will deal with including the identified constraints in mathematical optimization models.' No such recommendations appear in the body of the paper. The contribution list therefore overstates what is delivered; either the claim should be removed or the relevant integration guidance should be added.
  3. [Section 2] The paper claims that 'a hierarchy linking the main technical constraints behind the initial design choices for EEHs has never been proposed' and identifies exactly seven areas of interest, but no systematic literature search or stakeholder elicitation is described. Completeness and novelty are therefore not verified. The selection of areas and the criticality assignments are the authors' expert judgment; a different group of experts could plausibly choose different areas or assign different priority classes, which would change the central taxonomy and the dependency graph. This is a load-bearing issue for the main contribution.
  4. [Figure 9] The dependency graph is not derived from independent evidence; it simply repeats the ordering hard constraints -> main drivers -> key considerations stated in Table 1. Since the classification itself is asserted rather than derived, the graph inherits the same arbitrariness. To make the hierarchy convincing, the paper should provide explicit dependency relations (e.g., why market design imposes requirements on protection or space, or how OPEX depends on RAM) or validate the arrows against a documented methodology.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.7] Heading contains a typo: 'Reliability-Availability-Maintanability' should be 'Reliability-Availability-Maintainability'.
  2. [Section 4] The text says 'Table 4 includes a summary' but the referenced table is numbered Table 1. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Abstract] Formatting errors: 'namelynetwork integration,HVDC technologies,costs' and similar missing spaces after commas and between words. Please fix.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript would benefit from a final proofread for spacing issues and occasional missing article/preposition (e.g., 'The first phase establishes' vs. 'The first phase establishes a plan'). Also, reference [8] is cited with a 2026 date while the manuscript is dated 2025; clarify if this is in press.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is an expert synthesis whose taxonomy is asserted, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's deliverable is a classification of design constraints and considerations for electrical energy hubs. It fits no parameters and makes no numerical predictions, so there is no fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The central categories (hard constraints, main drivers, key considerations) are introduced as definitions in Section 4 and then applied to constraints reviewed in Section 3; the dependency graph in Fig. 9 is explicitly drawn from that classification rather than pretending to be an independent derivation: 'Based on our classification in three different criticality classes, namely hard constraints, main drivers, and key considerations, the arrows link the most stringent constraints... to the main drivers... Subsequently, the main drivers are linked to the key considerations.' The self-citations (e.g., [8] for the EEH definition, [11], [31]-[33], [59], [70]) support scope, background methods, and prior project work; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem that forces the classification. One can criticize the internal consistency of the assignments (e.g., the protection row containing 'must' is placed under main drivers while a normative market-design statement is placed under hard constraints), but inconsistency or expert judgment is a validity concern, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or new physical entities. It adopts the 'electrical energy hub' concept from prior work [8] by the same group. The main ledger entries are the unvalidated area selection and criticality classification.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The N-1 security criterion with the dimensioning incident (max FCR) is the governing operational security constraint for EEH design.
    Invoked in Section 3.1.1 and used as the basis for the first 'hard constraint' and for the protection-strategy discussion in Section 3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The seven identified areas of interest are complete and mutually exclusive categories of EEH planning constraints.
    The set is asserted in Section 3 without a systematic selection method; completeness is load-bearing for the taxonomy.
  • ad hoc to paper The three criticality classes (hard constraints, main drivers, key considerations) capture the real decision hierarchy in EEH planning.
    Defined in Section 4; no validation or inter-rater reliability shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of Technical Design Constraints and Considerations for Transmission Grid Expansion Planning Projects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DDW2W62Y

@misc{pith2026251213496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of Technical Design Constraints and Considerations for Transmission Grid Expansion Planning Projects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DDW2W62Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.13496}
}
read the original abstract

The large-scale deployment of renewable energy sources, particularly offshore wind, requires large-scale transmission grid expansion projects to transmit the produced low-carbon power to the main demand centers. However, the planning and design of such complex projects currently lack a transparent and systematic process that system operators can follow when considering such investments in their grids. This paper identifies and classifies the main technical design constraints and considerations relevant to the planning of transmission grid expansion projects, and more specifically, electrical energy hubs. Seven key areas of interest are identified, namely network integration, HVDC technologies, costs (CAPEX, OPEX, and space requirements), electricity market design, future proofness and modular expandability, reliability-availability-maintainability, and sustainability. Each area of interest is analyzed in terms of its technical and operational relevance, with technical design constraints and considerations derived from such analysis. In addition, a hierarchical classification of the identified constraints and considerations (and therefore areas of interest) is introduced, distinguishing them between three criticality classes, namely hard constraints, main drivers, and key considerations. The dependencies between the different areas are discussed, too. Therefore, this work provides system operators and policymakers with a structured basis to support a transparent planning methodology with clear decision hierarchies for investments in transmission grid expansion projects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13496 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Six main phases of the transmission expansion planning process [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Main areas of interest of the identified constraints related to the planning of electrical energy hub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Division of frequency regulation with exemplary frequency curve (top) and power type responsibilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Configurations and grounding for HVDC grids: (a) asymmetric monopolar, (b) symmetric monopolar, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example fault-clearing strategies in an extended HVdc grid: (a) a nonselective fault clearing using ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of busbar topologies and arrangements for breakers and current-limiting inductors: (a) a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hybrid hub solution from [65] in which AC (left) or DC (right) coupling is possible. • AC coupler: AC coupling equipment is used to connect and disconnect part of the EEH via AC switchgear, similarly to what is shown on the left-hand side of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Main building blocks of an electrical energy hub. The ratio between the areas of the components are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dependencies between the different relevant areas of interest for the identified technical constraints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Renewable energy directive, fit for 55 packages

    Council of the European Union, “Renewable energy directive, fit for 55 packages.” [Online] Available: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/greendeal. (accessed March 8, 2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    The north seas as Europe’s green power plant delivering cross- border projects and anchoring the renewable offshore industry in Europe,

    Ostend Declaration of Energy Ministers, “The north seas as Europe’s green power plant delivering cross- border projects and anchoring the renewable offshore industry in Europe,” 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Van Hertem, O

    D. Van Hertem, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, and J. Liang,HVDC grids for transmission of electrical energy: Off- shore grids and a future supergrid. IEEE Press, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Future north sea infrastructure based on dogger bank modular island,

    M. van der Meijden, “Future north sea infrastructure based on dogger bank modular island,” in15th Wind Integration Workshop (WIW), Vienna, Austria, 2016

    2016

  5. [5]

    Transforming our seas into europe’s sustainable economic engine

    Elia Group, “Transforming our seas into europe’s sustainable economic engine.” [Online] Available: https://www.eliagroup.eu/en/publications. (accessed November 23, 2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Denmark’s energy islands

    Danish Energy Agency, “Denmark’s energy islands.” [Online] Available: https://ens.dk/en/our- responsibilities/offshore-wind-power/denmarks-energy-islands. (accessed February 14, 2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Commercial framework offshore bidding zone

    North Sea Wind Power Hub, “Commercial framework offshore bidding zone.” [Online] Available: https://northseawindpowerhub.eu/knowledge/commercial-framework-offshore-bidding-zone (accessed Octo- ber 21, 2024), 2023

    2024

  8. [8]

    Review, definition and challenges of electrical energy hubs,

    G. Bastianel, J. Kircheis, M. Van Deyck, D. Lee, G. Chaffey, M. Vanin, H. Ergun, J. Beerten, and D. Van Hertem, “Review, definition and challenges of electrical energy hubs,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 226, p. 116258, 2026

    2026

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Technical report PES-TR86 - Studies for Planning HVDC,

    IEEE Power & Energy Society, “Technical report PES-TR86 - Studies for Planning HVDC,” 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    4th entso-e guideline for cost benefit analysis of grid development projects

    ENTSO-e, “4th entso-e guideline for cost benefit analysis of grid development projects.” [On- line] Available: https://eepublicdownloads.blob.core.windows.net/public-cdn-container/tyndp- documents/CBA/CBA4/221215 CBA4-Guideline v1.0 for-public-consultation.pdf. (accessed Febru...

    2024

  3. [11]

    A Multi-GW Energy Hub for Southern Europe: the Mediter- ranean Energy Island Proposal,

    G. Bastianel, H. Ergun, and D. Van Hertem, “A Multi-GW Energy Hub for Southern Europe: the Mediter- ranean Energy Island Proposal,” in2023 AEIT HVDC International Conference (AEIT HVDC), pp. 1–6, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Glossary

    Union for Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity,UCTE Operation Handbook, ch. Glossary. UCTE, 2004. 24

    2004

  5. [13]

    European offshore network transmission infrastructure needs

    ENTSO-e, “European offshore network transmission infrastructure needs.” [Online] Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/outlooks/offshore-hub/tyndp-ondp/. (accessed July 19, 2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Network Code on Operational Security

    ENTSO-e, “Network Code on Operational Security.” [Online] Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/network codes/os/ (accessed August 9, 2024), 2013

    2024

  7. [15]

    The influence of frequency containment reserve flexibilization on the economics of electric vehicle fleet operation,

    J. Figgener, B. Tepe, F. R¨ ucker, I. Schoeneberger, C. Hecht, A. Jossen, and D. U. Sauer, “The influence of frequency containment reserve flexibilization on the economics of electric vehicle fleet operation,”Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 53, p. 105138, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Task Force Overfrequency Control Schemes - Recommendations for the Synchronous Area of Continental Europe

    ENTSO-e, “Task Force Overfrequency Control Schemes - Recommendations for the Synchronous Area of Continental Europe.” [Online] Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/documents/ (accessed August 9, 2024), 2017

    2024

  9. [17]

    Adequacy and flexibility study for Belgium

    Elia Group, “Adequacy and flexibility study for Belgium.” [Online] Available: https://issuu.com/eliagroup/docs. (accessed 26 October, 2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    PICASSO

    ENTSO-E, “PICASSO.” [Online] Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/network codes/eb/picasso/. (accessed August 5, 2025), 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    MARI - KPI REPORT 2022-2023

    MARI - European mFRR platform, “MARI - KPI REPORT 2022-2023.” [Online] Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/documents/nc/NC

    2022

  12. [20]

    Electricity grids and secure energy transitions

    International Energy Agency, “Electricity grids and secure energy transitions.” [Online] Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-grids-and-secure-energy-transitions. (accessed July 3, 2025), 2023

    2025

  13. [21]

    Electricity 2025: Analysis and forecast to 2027

    International Energy Agency, “Electricity 2025: Analysis and forecast to 2027.” [Online] Available: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net (accessed July 3, 2025), 2024

    2025

  14. [22]

    Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015: Establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (Text with EEA relevance)

    European Union, “Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015: Establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (Text with EEA relevance).” [Online] Available: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/1222/oj/eng (accessed August 5, 2025), 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Future- proofing the European power market redispatch and congestion management

    G. Thomassen, A. Fuhrmanek, R. Cadenovic, D. Pozo Camara, and S. Vitiello, “Future- proofing the European power market redispatch and congestion management.” [Online] Available: https://www.ffe.de/en/publications/congestion-management-redispatch-2-0-in-international-comparison...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Costs of congestion management

    ENTSO-e transparency platform, “Costs of congestion management.” [Online] Available: https://transparency.entsoe.eu/congestion-management. (accessed July 22, 2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Congestion management

    SMARD.de, “Congestion management.” [Online] Available: https://www.smard.de/page/en/topic- article/5790/214060/congestion-management (accessed July 6, 2025), 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Optimal transmission switching,

    E. B. Fisher, R. P. O’Neill, and M. C. Ferris, “Optimal transmission switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1346–1355, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    Optimal transmission switching with contingency analysis,

    K. Hedman, R. O’Neill, E. Fisher, and S. Oren, “Optimal transmission switching with contingency analysis,” inIEEE PES General Meeting, pp. 1–1, 2010

    2010

  20. [28]

    Optimal transmission switching—sensitivity analysis and extensions,

    K. W. Hedman, R. P. O’Neill, E. B. Fisher, and S. S. Oren, “Optimal transmission switching—sensitivity analysis and extensions,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1469–1479, 2008. 25

    2008

  21. [29]

    An optimal transmission line switching and bus splitting heuristic incorporating ac and n-1 contingency constraints,

    M. Heidarifar, et al., “An optimal transmission line switching and bus splitting heuristic incorporating ac and n-1 contingency constraints,”Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst, vol. 133, p. 107278, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Security constrained OPF utilizing substation reconfiguration and busbar splitting,

    B. Morsy, A. Hinneck, D. Pozo, and J. Bialek, “Security constrained OPF utilizing substation reconfiguration and busbar splitting,”Electric Power System Research, vol. 212, p. 108507, Nov. 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Optimal Transmission Switching and Busbar Splitting in Hybrid AC/DC Grids

    G. Bastianel, M. Vanin, D. Van Hertem, and H. Ergun, “Optimal Transmission Switching and Busbar Splitting in Hybrid AC/DC Grids.” arXiv:2412.00270, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Day-Ahead Transmission Grid Topology Optimiza- tion considering Renewable Energy Sources’ Uncertainty

    G. Bastianel, D. Van Hertem, H. Ergun, and L. Roald, “Day-Ahead Transmission Grid Topology Optimiza- tion considering Renewable Energy Sources’ Uncertainty.” arXiv:2509.1399, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Identifying best candidates for busbar splitting

    G. Bastianel, D. V. Hertem, H. Ergun, and L. Roald, “Identifying best candidates for busbar splitting.” arXiv:2510.13000, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    CCR Core TSO Cooperation, “Explanatory document to the Core Capacity Calculation Region methodol- ogy for common provisions for regional operational security coordination in accordance with Article 76 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1485,” 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Optimal transmission network expansion planning in real-sized power systems with high renewable penetration,

    S. Lumbreras, A. Ramos, and F. Banez-Chicharro, “Optimal transmission network expansion planning in real-sized power systems with high renewable penetration,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 149, pp. 76–88, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Tnep of meshed hvdc grids: ‘ac’, ‘dc’ and convex formulations,

    J. Dave, H. Ergun, T. An, J. Lu, and D. Van Hertem, “Tnep of meshed hvdc grids: ‘ac’, ‘dc’ and convex formulations,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 13, no. 24, pp. 5523–5532, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Alpha Ventus

    TenneT, “Alpha Ventus.” [Online] Available: https://www.tennet.eu/projects/alpha-ventus. (accessed July 9, 2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Final outcome of the task force princess elisabeth zone,

    Elia, “Final outcome of the task force princess elisabeth zone,” tech. rep., Elia Group, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    North sea energy island

    Ørsted and ATP, “North sea energy island.” [Online] Available: https://northseaenergyisland.dk/en. (ac- cessed November 21, 2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    A review of key strategies in realizing power system resilience,

    Y. Lin, Z. Bie, and A. Qiu, “A review of key strategies in realizing power system resilience,”Global Energy Interconnection, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 70–78, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Building the future transmission grid - strategies to navigate supply chain challenges

    International Energy Agency, “Building the future transmission grid - strategies to navigate supply chain challenges.” [Online] Available: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable- energy/renewable-energy- directive-targets-and-rules en. (accessed July 6, 2025), 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Grinding the grid: Contextualizing protest networks against energy transmission projects in southern germany,

    M. Neukirch, “Grinding the grid: Contextualizing protest networks against energy transmission projects in southern germany,”Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 69, p. 101585, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    State-of-the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed generation,

    S. M. Ismael, S. H. Abdel Aleem, A. Y. Abdelaziz, and A. F. Zobaa, “State-of-the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed generation,”Renewable Energy, vol. 130, pp. 1002–1020, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Antoine, L

    O. Antoine, L. Papangelis, P. Tielens, K. Karoui, H. Ergun, G. Bastianel, A. Agbemuko, J. Beerten, W. Leterme, and D. Van Hertem,AC/DC hybrid grid modelling enabling a high share of renewables – Final report. European Commission and Directorate-General for Energy. Publications...

    2023

  37. [45]

    The reference for the future european electricity system

    ENTSO-E, “The reference for the future european electricity system.” [Online] Available: https://tyndp.entsoe.eu/. (accessed January 24, 2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Security and quality of supply standard

    National Energy System Operators, “Security and quality of supply standard.” [Online] Available at: https://www.neso.energy/industry-information/codes., 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Requirement for minimum inertia in the nordic power system

    ENTSO-E, “Requirement for minimum inertia in the nordic power system.” [Online] Available at: https://eepublicdownloads.blob.core.windows.net/publiccdncontainer/clean- documents/SOC%20documents/Nordic/2024/2023 Requirement for minimum inertia in the Nordic power system.pdf, 2023

    2024

  40. [48]

    A Techno-Economic Analysis of meshed Topologies of Offshore Wind HV AC Transmission,

    S. Hardy, D. Van Hertem, and H. Ergun, “A Techno-Economic Analysis of meshed Topologies of Offshore Wind HV AC Transmission,” in2021 IEEE Madrid PowerTech, pp. 1–6, June 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Multi-terminal VSC HVDC for the European supergrid: Obstacles,

    D. V. Hertem and M. Ghandhari, “Multi-terminal VSC HVDC for the European supergrid: Obstacles,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 3156–3163, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    Substations for future hvdc grids: Equipment and configurations for connection of hvdc network elements,

    D. Van Hertem, W. Leterme, G. Chaffey, M. Abedrabbo, M. Wang, F. Zerihun, and M. Barnes, “Substations for future hvdc grids: Equipment and configurations for connection of hvdc network elements,”IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 56–66, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    On control and balancing of rigid bipolar mmc-hvdc links enabling subsystem-independent power transfer,

    C. Hirsching, M. Goertz, S. Wenig, S. Beckler, M. Suriyah, and T. Leibfried, “On control and balancing of rigid bipolar mmc-hvdc links enabling subsystem-independent power transfer,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 189, p. 106768, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Hybrid ac/dc opf model for unbalanced operation of bipolar hvdc grids,

    C. K. Jat, J. Dave, D. Van Hertem, and H. Ergun, “Hybrid ac/dc opf model for unbalanced operation of bipolar hvdc grids,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 4987–4997, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    2 GW program

    TenneT, “2 GW program.” [Online] Available: https://www.tennet.eu/about-tennet/innovations/2gw- program. (accessed March 8, 2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Hvdc links in system operations

    ENTSO-e, “Hvdc links in system operations.” [Online] Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/SOC

  47. [55]

    Wenig,Potential of Bipolar Full-Bridge MMC-HVdc Transmission for Link and Overlay Grid Applica- tions

    S. Wenig,Potential of Bipolar Full-Bridge MMC-HVdc Transmission for Link and Overlay Grid Applica- tions. PhD thesis, Karlsruher Institut f¨ ur Technologie (KIT), 2019. 37.06.01; LK 01

    2019

  48. [56]

    A review of lcc-hvdc and vsc-hvdc technologies and applications,

    O. E. Oni, I. E. Davidson, and K. N. Mbangula, “A review of lcc-hvdc and vsc-hvdc technologies and applications,” in2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), pp. 1–7, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Circuit breakers in hvdc systems: state-of-the-art review and future trends,

    T. Erfan, R. Hamid, J. Shahram, and G. G., “Circuit breakers in hvdc systems: state-of-the-art review and future trends,”Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems, vol. 8, no. 38, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Designing for high-voltage dc grid protection: Fault clearing strategies and protection algorithms,

    W. Leterme, I. Jahn, P. Ruffing, K. Sharifabadi, and D. Van Hertem, “Designing for high-voltage dc grid protection: Fault clearing strategies and protection algorithms,”IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 73–81, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Techno-economic comparison of preventive dc-side decoupling and dc circuit breakers in multiterminal offshore hvdc grids,

    M. Van Deyck, G. Bastianel, G. Chaffey, H. Ergun, and D. Van Hertem, “Techno-economic comparison of preventive dc-side decoupling and dc circuit breakers in multiterminal offshore hvdc grids,”IET Conference Proceedings, vol. 2025, pp. 137–144, 2025. 27

    2025

  52. [60]

    Five misunderstandings about case study research,

    B. Flyvbjerg, “Five misunderstandings about case study research,”Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 12, pp. 219–245, 2006

    2006

  53. [61]

    Flyvbjerg, N

    B. Flyvbjerg, N. Bruzelius, and W. Rothengatter,Five misunderstandings about case study research. Cam- bridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  54. [62]

    Fully qualified 640 kv underground extruded dc cable system,

    M. Jeroense, P. Bergelin, T. Quis, A. Abbasi, H. Rapp, and L. Wang, “Fully qualified 640 kv underground extruded dc cable system,”CIGRE Paris Session 2018, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Converter station design of the±800 kv uhvdc project yunnan-guangdong,

    D. Zhang, M. Haeusler, H. Rao, C. Shang, and T. Shang, “Converter station design of the±800 kv uhvdc project yunnan-guangdong,” 01 2008

    2008

  56. [64]

    Bornholm energy island

    Danish Energy Agency, “Bornholm energy island.” [Online] Available: https://ens.dk/en/our- responsibilities/onshore-wind-power/bornholm-energy-island. (accessed February 14, 2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Offshore energy hubs feasibility assessment of hub topologies

    D. Muller and et al., “Offshore energy hubs feasibility assessment of hub topologies.” [Online] Avail- able: https://offshoreenergyhubs.eu/index.php/2024/03/19/offshore-energy-hubsfeasibility-assessment-of- hub-topologies/ (accessed August 9, 2024), 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Exact methods for the knapsack problem and its generalizations,

    K. Dudzi´ nski and S. Walukiewicz, “Exact methods for the knapsack problem and its generalizations,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 1987

    1987

  59. [67]

    Converter station configurations for gw-scale mvdc systems using superconducting cables,

    S. Neira, P. Judge, S. Sajedi, and E. Hodge, “Converter station configurations for gw-scale mvdc systems using superconducting cables,” workingpaper, IET, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Preventive dc-side decoupling: A system integrity protection scheme to limit the impact of dc faults in offshore multi-terminal hvdc systems,

    P. D¨ ullmann, C. Klein, P. Winter, H. K¨ ohler, M. Steglich, J. Teuwsen, and W. Leterme, “Preventive dc-side decoupling: A system integrity protection scheme to limit the impact of dc faults in offshore multi-terminal hvdc systems,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution,...

    2024

  61. [69]

    Modular multilevel converter losses model for hvdc applica- tions,

    A. Ant´ onio-Ferreira and O. Gomis-Bellmunt, “Modular multilevel converter losses model for hvdc applica- tions,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 146, pp. 80–94, 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    Optimization of transmission technology and routes for pan-european electricity highways considering spatial aspects,

    H. Ergun, B. Rawn, R. Belmans, and D. Van Hertem, “Optimization of transmission technology and routes for pan-european electricity highways considering spatial aspects,” in2015 IEEE Eindhoven PowerTech, pp. 1–6, 2015

    2015

  63. [71]

    On informationally decentralized systems,

    L. Hurwicz, “On informationally decentralized systems,”Decision and Organization, 1972

    1972

  64. [72]

    Exploring market properties of policy-based reserve procurement for power systems,

    A. Ratha, J. Kazempour, A. Virag, and P. Pinson, “Exploring market properties of policy-based reserve procurement for power systems,” in2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 7498– 7505, 2019

    2019

  65. [73]

    Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading,

    R. Myerson and M. A. Satterthwaite, “Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading,”Journal of Economic Theory, 1983

    1983

  66. [74]

    Deliverable 4.2 Multi-Part Cooperation Framework-Preliminary draft with focus on information sharing

    G. Dawson and C. T. Nieuwenhout, “Deliverable 4.2 Multi-Part Cooperation Framework-Preliminary draft with focus on information sharing.” [Online] Available: https://interopera.eu/publications/ (accessed De- cember 12, 2024), 2023

    2024

  67. [75]

    Multi-vendor interoperability in HVDC grid protection: State-of-the-art and challenges ahead,

    M. Wang, W. Leterme, G. Chaffey, J. Beerten, and D. Van Hertem, “Multi-vendor interoperability in HVDC grid protection: State-of-the-art and challenges ahead,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 15, no. 15, pp. 2153–2175, 2021. 28

    2021

  68. [76]

    Prediction of reliability and availability of hvdc valve and hvdc terminal,

    C. R. Heising and R. J. Ringlee, “Prediction of reliability and availability of hvdc valve and hvdc terminal,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-89, no. 4, pp. 619–624, 1970

    1970

  69. [77]

    Review and classification of reliability indicators for power systems with a high share of renewable energy sources,

    E. Heylen, G. Deconinck, and D. Van Hertem, “Review and classification of reliability indicators for power systems with a high share of renewable energy sources,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 97, pp. 554–568, 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    B. S. Dhillon,Engineering Maintainability. Gulf Publishing Company, 1999

    1999

  71. [79]

    Regulation (eu) no 517/2014 of the european parliament and of the council of 16 april 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing regulation (ec) no 842/2006,

    European Parliament and of the Council, “Regulation (eu) no 517/2014 of the european parliament and of the council of 16 april 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing regulation (ec) no 842/2006,.”

    2014

  72. [80]

    Princess elisabeth energy island

    Elia, “Princess elisabeth energy island.” [Online] Available: https://www.elia.be/en/infrastructure-and- projects/infrastructure-projects/princess-elisabeth-island (accessed August 9, 2024), 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Circular economy: A brief literature review (2015–2020),

    E. H. Arruda, R. A. P. B. Melatto, W. Levy, and D. de Melo Conti, “Circular economy: A brief literature review (2015–2020),”Sustainable Operations and Computers, vol. 2, pp. 79–86, 2021. 29

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.