An Optimal Energy Production Problem with Energy Source Switching and Load Following Nuclear Power Plants

Alessandro Gnoatto; Athena Picarelli; Fabio Baschetti

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

An Optimal Energy Production Problem with Energy Source Switching and Load Following Nuclear Power Plants

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the value functions of the regularized nuclear load-following problem are the unique continuous viscosity solutions of an HJB-QVI system, and that a monotone semi-Lagrangian scheme computes the optimal switching…

desk verdict A competent, honest application of optimal switching to nuclear load following; the new material is the economic framing, and the main gap is the unproved K-to-infinity regularization limit plus missing numerical convergence guarantees. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10197 v1 pith:HDNOJWT2 submitted 2026-08-10 math.OC q-fin.MF

Fabio Baschetti , Alessandro Gnoatto , Athena Picarelli This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OCq-fin.MF MSC 49L2549L2093E20

keywords residualdemandnuclearloadfollowingoptimalswitchingrenewableintegrationelectricitymarketsHJBquasi-variationalinequalitiessemi-Lagrangianschemelow-carbonflexibility

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

This paper asks how a producer should run a nuclear plant that can raise, lower, or hold its output when residual demand—electricity consumption minus renewable generation—is random and each change of operating direction costs money. It frames this as a finite-horizon optimal switching problem and claims that, for the smoothed version of the model, the cost-to-go functions are the unique continuous viscosity solutions of a system of Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman quasi-variational inequalities. It also claims that a monotone semi-Lagrangian scheme computes the optimal regime tables. The numerical study shows how shortage penalties, switching costs, ramping capability, and market access change the policy: higher shortage costs make the plant track demand more tightly, higher switching costs widen the do-nothing region, and low external prices justify underproduction while high prices justify overproduction. If these claims hold, the value of controllable low-carbon capacity can be quantified and weighed against reliability costs and market design choices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the optimal switching problem with regime set $I=\{0,+r,-r\}$, where nuclear output $P$ follows the drift $\mu(P,i)=\max(i,0)\mathbf{1}_{\{P<P_{\max}\}}+\min(i,0)\mathbf{1}_{\{P>P_{\min}\}}$, residual demand $Y$ is an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process with a seasonal mean, and switching costs $c_{i,j}$ satisfy the triangle inequality. The identity doing the work is the HJB-QVI system, whose second term in the max is the switching obstacle and whose first term enforces optimal continuation. The numerical machinery replaces the Brownian increment by a two-point Rademacher variable with matching first two moments, interpolates monotonically, and solves the local switching problem in one fixed-point step. In the open economy the price $\psi$ is a step function of aggregate residual demand with three levels and a bid–ask spread; the price-maker version makes the price depend on $M+Y-P$.

What would settle it

Compute, on a fixed instance, the regularized value functions for increasing $K$ and compare their policies with a direct solver of the original hard-bound, step-price model, and separately re-estimate residual demand under heavy-tailed dynamics with time-varying volatility; a divergence in either comparison would falsify the paper's claim that the regularized, OU-based scheme governs the model as described.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1: for the regularized problem the value functions $(v_i)_{i\in I}$ are the unique continuous viscosity solutions of the system $\max\{-(\partial_t v_i + \mathcal{L}_i v_i) - f,\; v_i - \min_{j\neq i}(v_j + c_{i,j})\}=0$ with terminal condition $v_i(T,x)=0$. This pins down the optimal switching problem: there is exactly one value for each initial regime and state, no free switching loops can lower cost, and the principle of optimality holds in the viscosity sense despite the degenerate diffusion in the production coordinate. The companion claim is that the semi-Lagrangian scheme with monotone interpolation and a one-step fixed-point iteration converges and produces the policy tables used in the experiments. In the open-economy version the same characterization applies with a step-function price of aggregate residual demand and a bid–ask spread, so the producer's imbalance can feed back into the price it faces.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the value functions of the Lipschitz-regularized problem converge to those of the true problem with hard production bounds and step-function prices as $K\to\infty$, and that the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck residual-demand process used in the numerics is a faithful enough description of real residual demand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The regularized load-following problem has a unique value function in each regime, so optimal policies are well defined and can be tabulated by state and time.
In a closed economy, higher shortage costs and lower switching costs shrink the inaction region and make the plant follow residual demand more aggressively, while higher switching costs smooth production and reduce the number of regime changes.
With market access, the optimal action at a given local residual demand depends on the external price regime, and a price-making producer avoids pushing output to its bounds because doing so moves the price against it.
Because switching costs enter through the obstacle term, policies that reduce switching frictions or remunerate availability change the frequency of load-following maneuvers and the cost of flexibility.

Reading between the lines

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

I would expect the $K\to\infty$ limit of the regularized value functions to be genuine, since the smoothed drift and price functions converge uniformly away from the bounds and thresholds; a formal convergence proof would close the main theoretical gap.
I would expect the same HJB-QVI formulation to extend to a ramping rate chosen continuously as an additional control, and the comparative statics on fixed $r$ suggest that optimal ramping would be larger in high-volatility regimes.
Given the paper's own rejection of Gaussian Ornstein–Uhlenbeck residuals, I would expect policy tables built on a heavy-tailed or stochastic-volatility residual-demand model to show wider high-production regions, because extreme shortage events make proactive ramping more valuable.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a solid application paper rather than a methodological breakthrough. What is actually new is the framing: nuclear load following as a finite-horizon optimal switching problem with closed-economy and open-economy variants, including a price-maker feedback that lets the plant's own imbalance move the market price. I have not seen that combination in the cited literature, and the comparative statics on shortage costs, switching costs, and ramping rates are economically sensible. The viscosity characterization for the regularized problem is standard, and the semi-Lagrangian scheme is assembled correctly; the one-step fixed-point result in Proposition 1 is a nice touch.

The paper is also honest about its own limits, which I respect. Remark 2 admits the smoothness assumption in the proof sketch, Appendix B openly shows that the OU residual-demand model produces heavy-tailed and autocorrelated residuals, and the text calls the model a reduced-form benchmark rather than a forecasting tool.

The soft spots are real but addressable. Most important: the rigorous results are for the regularized problem with smooth drift and smooth price functions, and the limit as K goes to infinity back to the original discontinuous model is never established. Section 2.4 leaves the K-dependence implicit, and Section 4 does not state which K was used. So Theorem 1 does not formally apply to the hard-bound model described in Sections 2.1-2.3, and the policy tables are for a smoothed problem that can cross Pmin/Pmax by O(1/K). This is not fatal, but it is load-bearing: the authors should either prove convergence of v^K to v (for instance via viscosity stability or Barles-Perthame arguments) or honestly re-frame the paper as a study of the regularized model. Second, the numerical scheme is asserted to be monotone and convergent, but no convergence theorem is given. For a paper whose conclusions are numerical, that is a moderate gap. Third, the headline statistics in Table 1 come from single simulated paths. They illustrate the mechanism, but they are not robust quantitative evidence.

Who is this for? Researchers and policy analysts who want a clean dynamic-programming treatment of nuclear flexibility, and who can read the numerical results as qualitative. The paper deserves a serious referee: the topic is timely, the framework is reusable, and the gaps are fixable without changing the core approach. I would send it to review, asking the authors to address the regularization limit and to report K and the grid parameters for reproducibility.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the short-run operating problem of a load-following nuclear power plant that must balance stochastic residual demand. Production is modeled as a controlled process with three regimes (increase, decrease, hold constant), with costly switches between regimes. The authors formulate the problem as a finite-horizon optimal switching problem in two settings: a closed economy where imbalances are penalized directly, and an open economy where the producer can trade at prices driven by aggregate residual demand. The value functions are claimed to be the unique continuous viscosity solutions of a system of Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman quasi-variational inequalities (Theorem 1). A monotone semi-Lagrangian scheme is proposed and used to compute optimal policies, and numerical experiments based on Italian market data provide comparative statics with respect to shortage costs, switching costs, ramping capability, and market access. The paper concludes with policy implications for flexibility remuneration and market design.

Significance. If the theoretical gaps discussed below are resolved, the paper would provide a new and policy-relevant application of optimal switching theory to nuclear load following. The modeling framework is transparent, the economic trade-offs are clearly articulated, and the comparative statics are intuitive. A notable strength is that the authors provide open-source code and are candid about the limitations of their calibrated residual-demand process. The mathematical techniques are standard in the optimal-switching literature, so the novelty lies mainly in the application and the numerical investigation rather than in new theory. The main obstacles are the unproved regularization limit and the absence of a convergence theorem for the numerical scheme.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.4, Theorem 1, Appendix A] The central characterization in Theorem 1 is proved only for the regularized problem, in which the discontinuous production drift (1) and the step-function price ψ are replaced by Lipschitz approximations μ_K and ψ_K. Section 2.4 explicitly states that the rigorous results hold for the regularized problem and that the dependence on K is left implicit, and Appendix A is only a sketch that further assumes smoothness of the value functions (Remark 2). No convergence or stability result is given for v_i^K as K→∞, so it is not established that the value functions of the original model with hard production bounds and step prices exist or are approximated by the regularized ones. Since all subsequent policy conclusions are computed for the regularized model, this gap is load-bearing: if the limit is not the value function of the original problem, Theorem 1 and the numerical analysis pertain to a different problem. The authors should either prove the convergence (for instance via Barles–Perthame half-relaxed limits, exploiting the strong comparison principle for the Lipschitz regularized data) or reformulate the model as inherently regularized and justify the choice of K.
[Section 3, Algorithm 1 and equation (12)] No convergence theorem is provided for the monotone semi-Lagrangian scheme. Proposition 1 shows only that the algebraic fixed-point iteration (14) converges in one step for fixed grid and time step; it does not establish that the numerical value functions converge to the viscosity solution of the HJB-QVI system (10) as Δt and |Δx| tend to zero. The statement that monotonicity 'ensures convergence' is not backed by a Barles–Souganidis-type argument (consistency, monotonicity, stability). Without such a theorem, the policies and simulations in Section 4 are not rigorously connected to the value functions characterized in Theorem 1. The authors should state and prove a convergence result for the scheme, or at minimum verify the hypotheses of an existing convergence framework.
[Section 4, Table 1] The value of the regularization parameter K used in the numerical experiments is never reported. Since the regularized production dynamics allow the output to cross the hard bounds P_min and P_max by O(1/K), and since the price function is smoothed over a layer of width O(1/K), the policy tables, the simulated trajectories, and the reported 'At bounds' percentages in Table 1 all depend on the unspecified K. This makes the numerical results irreproducible and prevents a meaningful comparison with the original hard-constrained model. The authors should state the value of K used and provide a sensitivity analysis with respect to K to demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions are not artifacts of the regularization.
[Appendix B, Figures 16–17] The calibration diagnostics in Appendix B reject the Gaussian Ornstein–Uhlenbeck specification for residual demand: the standardized residuals are heavy-tailed and show strong autocorrelation in both z and z^2. Although the paper acknowledges this and frames the OU process as a 'transparent benchmark', all numerical policy regions and simulated outcomes in Section 4 are nevertheless derived from this misspecified state process. Since the numerical experiments are a central contribution of the paper, the authors should either use a model that is consistent with the diagnostics (e.g., a jump-diffusion or a process with time-varying volatility) or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims to the illustrative benchmark and provide evidence that the qualitative comparative statics are robust to the choice of residual-demand dynamics.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.1, Remark 1] The claim in Remark 1 that setting γ_1 = 0 is 'without loss of generality' is only valid when λ_2 ≥ γ_1; otherwise the coefficient (λ_2 − γ_1) of (y − p)^+ becomes negative, which would turn a shortage into a reward and change the nature of the problem. The numerical calibration satisfies the condition, but the remark should state this requirement.
[Section 2.3.1, switching cost assumption] The assumed inequality 'c_{i,k} < c_{i,j} + c_{j,k} for j ≠ i, k' is stricter than the usual triangle inequality and its notation could be misread. Please clarify whether the inequality is required for all triples of distinct indices and whether the strict form is intended for all cases.
[Section 4.1, ramping rate] The specification 'r̄ = 0.05/Δt' is confusing because a physical ramping rate should not depend on the numerical time step. Please specify the time unit (e.g., per day, per year) used in the simulations and state the numerical value of r in that unit.
[Section 2.1] There is a typographical error: 'c` ad-l` ag' should read 'càdlàg'. Also, in Section 3, 'not necesserely' should be 'not necessarily'.
[Table 1] The 'At bounds' statistic is not precisely defined for the regularized dynamics, since the regularized production process can take values outside [P_min, P_max]. Please clarify how the percentage is computed, e.g., whether it counts only exact equality to the bounds or includes a tolerance band.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the HJB-QVI characterization is imported from external viscosity-solution theory, the numerical scheme is a standard semi-Lagrangian approximation, and the acknowledged regularization and residual-demand fitting gaps are correctness risks rather than circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central mathematical claim, Theorem 1, is the viscosity-solution characterization of the regularized optimal-switching value functions. The proof in Appendix A explicitly cites external standard results: '[Pha09, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.3], [DHP09], and [EAF16]'. No equation of the paper reduces to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation by construction. The only self-citation, [PV21], appears in the literature review as one of three listed reviews of uncertainty models ('Uncertainty models for stochastic optimization in renewable energy applications' context) and is not load-bearing for the model, the HJB-QVI system, the numerical scheme, or the policy conclusions. The numerical scheme in Section 3 is derived by an explicit Taylor/Euler-Maruyama argument with a Rademacher innovation; the resulting fixed-point iteration (14) is solved from the continuation values, and no 'prediction' is produced from previously fitted values. The two weaknesses noted in the manuscript are genuine but are not circularity. First, Section 2.4 states that rigorous results hold for the regularized problem and that 'we leave the dependence on K implicit'; the missing K-to-infinity convergence argument is a correctness gap relative to the original discontinuous model, not a derivation that assumes its conclusion. Second, Appendix B openly reports that the calibrated OU residuals are heavy-tailed and strongly autocorrelated ('standardized residuals and squared residuals are strongly serially correlated'), which is a model-misspecification concern for the numerical policy tables, not a logical circularity in the optimal-control derivation. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a stack of modeling choices and fitted parameters. The OU residual demand process is estimated from Italian data, but its own diagnostic tests reject the Gaussian, independent-innovation assumption. Cost coefficients, switching costs, price levels, and market scaling parameters are chosen by hand and are explicitly stylized. The viscosity solution theorem relies on standard literature plus an unproved regularization limit, and the numerical scheme's convergence is asserted rather than proved. No genuinely new physical or economic entity is introduced.

free parameters (11)

kappa (OU mean reversion) = 0.3500
Estimated by profile OLS/MLE on Italian 15-minute residual demand 2024-2025 (Appendix B).
beta (baseline residual demand) = 0.6118
Estimated seasonal baseline in Equation (2).
nu (OU volatility) = 0.1114
Recovered from OLS residuals in Appendix B.
zeta_j, eta_j (seasonal Fourier amplitudes) = 9+9 coefficients, e.g., -2.4238 to 2.8156
Estimated by OLS for periods 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1 days, 1/2, 1 weeks, 1/4, 1/2, 1 years.
lambda_2 (shortage cost) = 0.48 (bar lambda_2 reference)
Chosen by hand to reflect high reliability costs; varied in sensitivity analysis.
lambda_1 (excess production cost) = 0
Baseline in closed economy; chosen.
gamma_1 (operating cost) = 0.24
Chosen; Remark 1 shows it can be absorbed into lambda_1 and lambda_2.
switching cost matrix C = [[0,4,7],[1.6,0,4.8],[1.6,0.4,0]]*1e-4
Stylized constants, chosen in Section 4; no data source.
ramping rate r = 0.05/dt (5% per time step)
Chosen and fixed; the paper notes a fixed large r can cause overshooting.
price levels s_L, s_M, s_H and spread delta = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.08
Chosen to reflect marginal costs of renewable, nuclear, and fossil resources; not estimated.
market parameters n, rho, l, s = 5, 0, 0.4, 7 days
Chosen to model the aggregate market residual demand; not estimated.

assumptions (6)

standard math Standard finite-horizon Markovian optimal switching results: DPP, continuity, viscosity characterization, comparison principle [Pha09, DHP09, EAF16].
Invoked in Appendix A to justify Theorem 1; not reproved in the paper.
domain assumption No-free-loop condition / triangle inequality on switching cost matrix (3).
Ensures well-posedness of the switching problem and rules out cost-free cycles; used in Proposition 1 and Theorem 1.
domain assumption Residual demand follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with deterministic seasonality (2).
Modeling choice; Appendix B's residual diagnostics show heavy tails and autocorrelation, so the OU assumption is not empirically supported.
ad hoc to paper Lipschitz regularizations with parameter K converge to the original discontinuous drift and price, and the value functions converge as K -> infinity.
The paper states results for the regularized problem only and leaves the limit implicit without proof (Section 2.4).
ad hoc to paper The monotone semi-Lagrangian scheme converges to the viscosity solution of the HJB-QVI system.
Monotonicity is asserted to imply convergence, but no convergence theorem is proved in the paper.
domain assumption The producer is a regulated load-serving entity with fixed retail revenues.
Rationalizes excluding retail revenue from the objective (Section 2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Optimal Energy Production Problem with Energy Source Switching and Load Following Nuclear Power Plants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HDNOJWT2

@misc{pith2026260810197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Optimal Energy Production Problem with Energy Source Switching and Load Following Nuclear Power Plants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HDNOJWT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10197}
}

read the original abstract

The integration of weather-dependent renewable generation increases the volatility of residual demand and raises the value of dispatchable low-carbon flexibility. This paper studies the optimal operation of a load-following nuclear power plant owned by a producer that must balance stochastic residual demand while accounting for ramping limits and costly changes in operating regimes. Nuclear output can be increased, decreased, or kept constant, and the production decision is formulated as a finite-horizon optimal switching problem. We analyze both a closed-economy benchmark, where excess production cannot be sold and shortages require costly back-up generation, and an open-economy setting, where the producer can trade electricity at prices driven by aggregate market residual demand. The value functions are characterized as viscosity solutions of a system of Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman quasi-variational inequalities, and optimal policies are computed using a monotone semi-Lagrangian scheme. The numerical results show how shortage costs, switching costs, ramping capability, and market access shape optimal nuclear load following. The analysis highlights the economic value of controllable low-carbon capacity in renewable-intensive systems and provides implications for flexibility remuneration, balancing-market design, and interconnection policy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10197 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** French nuclear generation and residual demand in a representative year. The figure reports [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Policy table at time t = 0 and regime i0− = 0. Green: → 0, red: → +r, blue: → −r. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (14 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Two different realizations of the residual demand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The optimal switching strategy in a simulation environment over one month (30 days). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The optimal switching strategy in a simulation environment over one year (365 days). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The optimal switching strategy as changing the cost of under-production. Simulation over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The optimal switching strategy as changing the switching costs. Simulation over one week. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The optimal switching strategy as changing the ramping rate. Simulation over one week. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Simulated paths for the residual demand at the local ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Price determination: when the process {Mt}t∈[0,T] goes above the threshold a electricity price is high (red area), when it goes below 0 the price is low (green area). Two different realizations of {Mt}t∈[0,T] are represented. Comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Two different realizations of the residual demand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Price determination: when the process {Zt}t∈[0,T] goes above the threshold a electricity price is high (red area), when it goes below 0 the price is low (green area). Two different realizations of {Zt}t∈[0,T] are represented. If this is the case, it is now obvious tha…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Two different realizations of the residual demand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Residual demand net of renewable resources in Italy. True (blue) vs Estimated (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Visual tests for Normality of the (standardized) regression residuals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Autocorrelation function of the regression residuals (left) and squared residuals (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , ISSN =

Picarelli, Athena and Vargiolu, Tiziano , title =. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , ISSN =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2020.103940 , publisher =

arXiv 2021
[2]

Journal of Energy Storage , author =

Optimization of pumped hydro energy storage systems under uncertainty: A review , volume =. Journal of Energy Storage , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.est.2023.109306 , number =

arXiv 2023
[3]

Energy Economics , volume =

De Siano, Rita and Sapio, Alessandro , title =. Energy Economics , volume =. 2022 , pages =

work page 2022
[4]

Viscosity solutions for a system of PDEs and optimal switching , volume =

El Asri, Brahim and Fakhouri, Imade , year =. Viscosity solutions for a system of PDEs and optimal switching , volume =. IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and Information , publisher =. doi:10.1093/imamci/dnw004 , number =

work page doi:10.1093/imamci/dnw004
[5]

A Finite Horizon Optimal Multiple Switching Problem , journal =

Djehiche, Boualem and Hamad\`. A Finite Horizon Optimal Multiple Switching Problem , journal =. 2009 , doi =. https://doi.org/10.1137/070697641 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1137/070697641 2009
[6]

2019 , howpublished =

2019
[7]

Progress in Nuclear Energy , volume =

Load-following with nuclear power: Market effects and welfare implications , author =. Progress in Nuclear Energy , volume =. 2018 , doi =

work page 2018
[8]

Applied Energy , volume =

Residual electricity demand: An empirical investigation , author =. Applied Energy , volume =. 2021 , doi =

work page 2021

Show all 21 references

[9]

Energy Economics , volume =

On the long-term merit order effect of renewable energies , author =. Energy Economics , volume =. 2021 , doi =

2021
[10]

Energy Economics , volume =

The new merit order: The viability of energy-only electricity markets with only intermittent renewable energy sources and grid-scale storage , author =. Energy Economics , volume =. 2025 , doi =

2025
[11]

2011 , doi =

Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants , author =. 2011 , doi =

2011
[12]

Renewable Energy , volume =

Uncertainty models for stochastic optimization in renewable energy applications , author =. Renewable Energy , volume =. 2020 , doi =

2020
[13]

2017 , author =

Fusion power in a future low carbon global electricity system , journal =. 2017 , author =

2017
[14]

Nuclear and intermittent renewables: Two compatible supply options? The case of the French power mix , journal =

Camille Cany and Christine Mansilla and Pascal. Nuclear and intermittent renewables: Two compatible supply options? The case of the French power mix , journal =. 2016 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.037 , url =

2016 doi
[15]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory , title =
[16]

2009 , publisher =

Continuous-Time Stochastic Control and Optimization with Financial Applications , author =. 2009 , publisher =

2009
[17]

International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance

Risk Neutral Model of Electricity Prices. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance. 2009

2009
[18]

Joint Research Centre

European Commission. Joint Research Centre. , year =. Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’). , url =. doi:10.2760/665806 , publisher =

2020 doi
[19]

How fusion power can contribute to a fully decarbonized European power mix after 2050 , journal =

Bustreo, Chiara and Giuliani, Umberto and Maggio, Daniele and Zollino, Giuseppe , keywords =. How fusion power can contribute to a fully decarbonized European power mix after 2050 , journal =. 2019 , note =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.03.150 , url =

2019 doi
[20]

Optimal control of electricity input given an uncertain demand

Gottlich, Simone and Korn, Ralf and Lux, Kerstin. Optimal control of electricity input given an uncertain demand. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research. 2019

2019
[21]

Chance‐constrained optimal inflow control in hyperbolic supply systems with uncertain demand

Gottlich, Simone and Korn, Ralf and Lux, Kerstin. Chance‐constrained optimal inflow control in hyperbolic supply systems with uncertain demand. Optimal Control Applications and Methods. 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , ISSN =

Picarelli, Athena and Vargiolu, Tiziano , title =. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , ISSN =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2020.103940 , publisher =

arXiv 2021

[2] [2]

Journal of Energy Storage , author =

Optimization of pumped hydro energy storage systems under uncertainty: A review , volume =. Journal of Energy Storage , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.est.2023.109306 , number =

arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Energy Economics , volume =

De Siano, Rita and Sapio, Alessandro , title =. Energy Economics , volume =. 2022 , pages =

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Viscosity solutions for a system of PDEs and optimal switching , volume =

El Asri, Brahim and Fakhouri, Imade , year =. Viscosity solutions for a system of PDEs and optimal switching , volume =. IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and Information , publisher =. doi:10.1093/imamci/dnw004 , number =

work page doi:10.1093/imamci/dnw004

[5] [5]

A Finite Horizon Optimal Multiple Switching Problem , journal =

Djehiche, Boualem and Hamad\`. A Finite Horizon Optimal Multiple Switching Problem , journal =. 2009 , doi =. https://doi.org/10.1137/070697641 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1137/070697641 2009

[6] [6]

2019 , howpublished =

2019

[7] [7]

Progress in Nuclear Energy , volume =

Load-following with nuclear power: Market effects and welfare implications , author =. Progress in Nuclear Energy , volume =. 2018 , doi =

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Applied Energy , volume =

Residual electricity demand: An empirical investigation , author =. Applied Energy , volume =. 2021 , doi =

work page 2021