pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23400 · v1 · pith:MU2RSIMEnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🧮 math.OC

Toward Decarbonization of Chemical Manufacturing: Joint Optimization of Unit Commitment and Microgrid Operations

Saba Ghasemi Naraghi , Richard Reed , Tylee Kareck , Paritosh Ramanan , Zheyu Jiang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords electrificationdecarbonizationsteam crackingmicrogridsunit commitmentgreenhouse gas emissionsmixed-integer linear programmingTexas ethylene plants
0
0 comments X

The pith

Electrifying steam cracking units to 30 percent minimizes total greenhouse gas emissions from Texas power systems and chemical plants.

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

The paper builds a joint optimization model for the Texas power grid and 26 ethylene plants to decide when and how much to electrify process heating. It tests multiple electrification levels and finds that 30 percent delivers the largest combined emission cut across the grid and the plants. Higher shares of electrification then raise both emissions and operating costs, especially inside the microgrids. The model also shows that more renewables in the grid improve the results of electrification. These outcomes matter for setting realistic targets in industrial decarbonization plans that avoid shifting emissions between sectors.

Core claim

The largest overall greenhouse gas emission reduction for both power systems and microgrids is achieved when the electrification level of steam cracking units is at 30 percent. Above 30 percent electrification level, a higher electrification level leads to higher overall GHG emissions and steady increase in operating costs, particularly on the microgrid side. Increasing renewables contributions in the electric power system helps debottleneck the electrification efforts and facilitate holistic decarbonization.

What carries the argument

A mixed-integer linear programming model solved with a two-stage method of Benders decomposition followed by warm-starting the full centralized problem, which simultaneously optimizes unit commitment across the main power system and hourly operations inside each electrified steam cracking microgrid.

Load-bearing premise

The hourly demand profiles, renewable availability, fuel and carbon prices, and plant operating constraints for the 26 Texas ethylene facilities accurately represent real-world conditions without major unmodeled limits or market rules.

What would settle it

Re-running the optimization on measured 2025 Texas grid and plant data and obtaining lower total emissions at 40 percent electrification than at 30 percent would falsify the reported optimum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23400 by Paritosh Ramanan, Richard Reed, Saba Ghasemi Naraghi, Tylee Kareck, Zheyu Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our envisioned framework for using electricity to supply process heat for steam cracking, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-stage procedure to solve the large-scale MILP multi-agent UCP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Local hourly wind and solar availability profile for each ethylene plant microgrid on an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power transferred from power systems to microgrids for 30% electrification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hourly Scope 1 CO2-equivalent emissions profiles for Plants 6, 22, and 25 on January 8 and August 2, 2024. From Figures 5 and 6, it is clear that there is a strong temporal dependency in microgrid oper￾ation. Such temporal dependency is not only in daily scale but also in seasonal scale. Furthermore, since Plants 6 and 22 are both T3 plants, they are specified with the same solar and wind generation capaci… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Charging and discharging status of energy storage systems at plants 6, 22, and 25. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The electrification of chemical process heating is essential to industrial decarbonization and sustainable manufacturing of chemical products. Joint optimization of electrified chemical process heating units and electric power systems is needed to achieve decarbonized operation of both sectors. In this work, we introduce a centralized optimization model that identifies the optimal unit commitment of power systems and optimal operation of electrified steam cracking microgrids for sustainable olefins production. A mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model is developed to optimize the hourly operational plan of 26 ethylene plants and the main power system in Texas. We propose a two-stage solution method to solve the resulting large-scale centralized MILP problem efficiently. In the first stage, we apply Benders decomposition with LP-relaxed subproblems to decouple microgrid operations from the main power system. In the second stage, we use the first-stage optimal solution as a warm starting point for the centralized MILP. This two-stage approach reduces the average solution time by 93.5% compared to direct solution of the MILP. Results show that the largest overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction for both power systems and microgrids is achieved when the electrification level of steam cracking units is at 30%. Above 30% electrification level, a higher electrification level leads to higher overall GHG emissions and steady increase in operating costs, particularly on the microgrid side. Increasing renewables contributions in the electric power system helps debottleneck the electrification efforts and facilitate holistic decarbonization. We also remark that the optimal operational plan of electrified steam cracking microgrids also exhibit strong spatiotemporal patterns.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model for the joint optimization of unit commitment in the Texas power system and the operations of 26 electrified steam cracking microgrids. It proposes a two-stage solution method using Benders decomposition followed by warm-starting the full MILP, which reduces solution time by 93.5%. The key finding is that a 30% electrification level for steam cracking units achieves the largest overall GHG emission reduction, with higher levels increasing emissions and costs, and that higher renewable contributions facilitate decarbonization.

Significance. If the model inputs accurately reflect real conditions, this study provides valuable quantitative guidance on optimal electrification strategies for decarbonizing chemical manufacturing while accounting for power system interactions. The computational approach for solving large-scale instances is a positive aspect that could be useful for similar problems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the largest GHG emission reduction occurs at exactly 30% electrification is presented without any sensitivity analysis on the key input parameters (fuel/carbon prices, renewable availability time series) that determine the location of this minimum.
  2. [Results] Results: No validation or description of how the 26-plant dataset (hourly demand profiles, plant operating constraints) was assembled or checked against real dispatch/market data is provided, which is load-bearing for the reported numerical outcomes including the 30% optimum and 93.5% time reduction.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that optimal microgrid plans 'exhibit strong spatiotemporal patterns' but provides no elaboration, figures, or tables to illustrate these patterns or their implications.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the largest GHG emission reduction occurs at exactly 30% electrification is presented without any sensitivity analysis on the key input parameters (fuel/carbon prices, renewable availability time series) that determine the location of this minimum.

    Authors: We agree that the robustness of the 30% electrification optimum would be strengthened by sensitivity analysis on parameters such as fuel and carbon prices and renewable availability time series. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection presenting sensitivity results on these inputs and their effect on the location of the GHG minimum. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: No validation or description of how the 26-plant dataset (hourly demand profiles, plant operating constraints) was assembled or checked against real dispatch/market data is provided, which is load-bearing for the reported numerical outcomes including the 30% optimum and 93.5% time reduction.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a transparent description of data sources and validation steps is necessary. In the revised manuscript we will insert a dedicated data section that details the assembly of the 26-plant hourly demand profiles and operating constraints, the public and industry sources used, and any consistency checks performed against available Texas market or dispatch records. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: MILP optimum is computed from external inputs and objectives

full rationale

The paper poses a standard MILP for joint unit commitment and microgrid scheduling. The reported 30% electrification optimum is the numerical argmin of an objective that penalizes GHG emissions and costs, using externally supplied time series for demand, renewables, prices, and plant constraints. No equation defines the optimum in terms of itself, no parameter is fitted to a subset and then re-predicted, and no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the result. The two-stage Benders method is only a computational device and does not alter the mathematical dependence on the input data. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5834 in / 1284 out tokens · 30463 ms · 2026-06-26T07:29:43.938723+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Decentralized Operations of Decarbonized Chemical Plants with Renewable-driven Transmission Systems

    cs.DC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A privacy-preserving decentralized ADMM framework for joint unit commitment and electrified ethane cracker scheduling on the Texas grid shows small optimality gaps.

  2. Decentralized Operations of Decarbonized Chemical Plants with Renewable-driven Transmission Systems

    cs.DC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A decentralized ADMM framework with auxiliary penalty for joint power-chemical system optimization achieves small optimality gaps on Texas grid model with 26 plants while preserving data privacy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Industrial decarbonization roadmap

    U.S. DOE, “Industrial decarbonization roadmap.”https://www.energy.gov/eere/ doe-industrial-decarbonization-roadmap, Sept. 2022. [Online; accessed <INSERT ACCESS DATE HERE>]

    2022

  2. [2]

    Decarbonization of chemical process industries via electrification,

    R. Agrawal and J. Siirola, “Decarbonization of chemical process industries via electrification,” The Bridge: The National Academy of Engineering, vol. 53, pp. 32–40, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Decarbonization of the chemical industry through electrification: Barriers and opportunities,

    D. S. Mallapragada, Y. Dvorkin, M. A. Modestino, D. V. Esposito, W. A. Smith, B.-M. Hodge, M. P. Harold, V. M. Donnelly, A. Nuz, C. Bloomquist,et al., “Decarbonization of the chemical industry through electrification: Barriers and opportunities,”Joule, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 23–41, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Annual energy outlook 2025

    U.S. EIA, “Annual energy outlook 2025.”https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/, Mar. 2025. [Online; accessed February 21, 2026]

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ethylene: the “world’s most important chemical

    AFPM Communications, “Ethylene: the “world’s most important chemical”.”https://www. afpm.org/newsroom/blog/ethylene-worlds-most-important-chemical, 2017. [Online; ac- cessed November 21, 2025]

    2017

  6. [6]

    Ethylene market size, share, and trends 2024 to 2033

    Precedence Research, “Ethylene market size, share, and trends 2024 to 2033.” [Online], 2024. Accessed: September 16, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Zimmermann and R

    H. Zimmermann and R. Walzl,Ethylene. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009

    2009

  8. [8]

    Powering the transition to net zero with electric cracking technology,

    T. Sinn, M. Hofstaetter, R. Kemper, and G. Kracker, “Powering the transition to net zero with electric cracking technology,”Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 120, no. 8, pp. 42–49, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    BASF, SABIC, and Linde celebrate the start-up of the world’s first large-scale elec- trically heated steam cracking furnace

    SABIC, “BASF, SABIC, and Linde celebrate the start-up of the world’s first large-scale elec- trically heated steam cracking furnace.” [Online], 2024. Accessed: September 16, 2025

    2024

  10. [10]

    S. G. Naraghi, T. Kareck, L. Xiao, R. Reed, P. Ramanan, and Z. Jiang,Decarbonization of Steam Cracking for Clean Olefins Production: Microgrid Planning and Operation, ch. 10. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2026

    2026

  11. [11]

    Microgrid optimal scheduling with multi-period islanding constraints,

    A. Khodaei, “Microgrid optimal scheduling with multi-period islanding constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1383–1392, 2013. 22

    2013

  12. [12]

    Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,

    A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. M. Gegner, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Overbye, “Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, pp. 3258–3265, July 2017

    2017

  13. [13]

    Review of electric cracking of hydrocarbons,

    M. E. H. Tijani, H. Zondag, and Y. Van Delft, “Review of electric cracking of hydrocarbons,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, vol. 10, no. 49, pp. 16070–16089, 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

    Decarbonization of the chemical industry through electrification: Barriers and opportunities,

    D. S. Mallapragada, Y. Dvorkin, M. A. Modestino, D. V. Esposito, W. A. Smith, B.-M. Hodge, M. P. Harold, V. M. Donnelly, A. Nuz, C. Bloomquist, K. Baker, L. C. Grabow, Y. Yan, N. N. Rajput, R. L. Hartman, E. J. Biddinger, E. S. Aydil, and A. D. Taylor, “Decarbonization of the chemical industry through electrification: Barriers and opportunities,”Joule, vo...

    2023

  15. [15]

    Thepotentialofdirectsteamcrackerelectrificationandcarboncapture&utilizationvia oxidative coupling of methane as decarbonization strategies for ethylene production,

    L. S. Layritz, I. Dolganova, M. Finkbeiner, G. Luderer, A. T. Penteado, F. Ueckerdt, and J.-U. Repke, “Thepotentialofdirectsteamcrackerelectrificationandcarboncapture&utilizationvia oxidative coupling of methane as decarbonization strategies for ethylene production,”Applied Energy, vol. 296, p. 117049, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Optimization of electric ethylene production: Exploring the role of cracker flexibility, batteries, and renewable energy integration,

    J. L. Tiggeloven, A. P. C. Faaij, G. J. Kramer, and M. Gazzani, “Optimization of electric ethylene production: Exploring the role of cracker flexibility, batteries, and renewable energy integration,”Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 62, no. 40, pp. 16360–16382, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    Electrificationofsteamcracking as a pathway to reduce the impact of the petrochemical industry on climate change,

    O. Mynko, M. Bonheure, I. Amghizar, D. J. Brown, L. Chen, G. B. Marin, R. Freitas de Alvarenga, D.Civancik Uslu, J.Dewulf, andK.M.VanGeem, “Electrificationofsteamcracking as a pathway to reduce the impact of the petrochemical industry on climate change,”Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 427, p. 139208, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Comparative reactor, process, techno- economic, and life cycle emissions assessment of ethylene production via electrified and thermal steam cracking,

    A. Cattry, C. Vuppanapalli, and D. S. Mallapragada, “Comparative reactor, process, techno- economic, and life cycle emissions assessment of ethylene production via electrified and thermal steam cracking,”Green Chem., vol. 27, pp. 13357–13374, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Modular reactors with electrical resistance heating for hy- drocarbon cracking and other endothermic reactions,

    V. Balakotaiah and R. R. Ratnakar, “Modular reactors with electrical resistance heating for hy- drocarbon cracking and other endothermic reactions,”AIChE Journal, vol. 68, no. 2, p. e17542, 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    Electrically heated dehydrogenation process,

    R. Agrawal, Z. Chen, and P. Oladipupo, “Electrically heated dehydrogenation process,” 2023. U.S. Patent No. 11,578,019

    2023

  21. [21]

    Electricreaction-towersforflexibleoperationofendother- mic reactions under variable power and feed supply rates,

    E.A.Rodriguez-GilandR.Agrawal, “Electricreaction-towersforflexibleoperationofendother- mic reactions under variable power and feed supply rates,”Cell Reports Physical Science, vol. 6, no. 8, p. 102771, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Process modeling and evaluation of plasma-assisted ethylene production from methane,

    E. Delikonstantis, M. Scapinello, and G. D. Stefanidis, “Process modeling and evaluation of plasma-assisted ethylene production from methane,”Processes, vol. 7, no. 2, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    Thermal electrification of chemical processes using renewable energy: Economic and decarbonization impacts,

    I. Giannikopoulos, A. Skouteris, D. T. Allen, M. Baldea, and M. A. Stadtherr, “Thermal electrification of chemical processes using renewable energy: Economic and decarbonization impacts,”Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 63, no. 27, pp. 12064–12082, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    The u.s. department of energy’s microgrid initiative,

    D. T. Ton and M. A. Smith, “The u.s. department of energy’s microgrid initiative,”The Elec- tricity Journal, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 84–94, 2012. 23

    2012

  25. [25]

    Resiliency-oriented microgrid optimal scheduling,

    A. Khodaei, “Resiliency-oriented microgrid optimal scheduling,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1584–1591, 2014

    2014

  26. [26]

    Microgrid-based co-optimization of generation and trans- mission planning in power systems,

    A. Khodaei and M. Shahidehpour, “Microgrid-based co-optimization of generation and trans- mission planning in power systems,”IEEE transactions on power systems, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1582–1590, 2012

    2012

  27. [27]

    Microgrids and active distribution networks,

    I. Series, “Microgrids and active distribution networks,”The institution of Engineering and Technology, vol. 332, 2009

    2009

  28. [28]

    Operation and design optimization of microgrids with renewables,

    B. Yan, P. B. Luh, G. Warner, and P. Zhang, “Operation and design optimization of microgrids with renewables,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 573–585, 2017

    2017

  29. [29]

    Energy optimization model for a cchp system with available gas turbines,

    X. Kong, R. Wang, and X. Huang, “Energy optimization model for a cchp system with available gas turbines,”Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 377–391, 2005

    2005

  30. [30]

    Operation optimization of a distributed energy system considering energy costs and exergy efficiency,

    M. Di Somma, B. Yan, N. Bianco, G. Graditi, P. Luh, L. Mongibello, and V. Naso, “Operation optimization of a distributed energy system considering energy costs and exergy efficiency,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 103, pp. 739–751, 2015

    2015

  31. [31]

    Multi- objective operation optimization of a distributed energy system for a large-scale utility cus- tomer,

    M. Di Somma, B. Yan, N. Bianco, P. B. Luh, G. Graditi, L. Mongibello, and V. Naso, “Multi- objective operation optimization of a distributed energy system for a large-scale utility cus- tomer,”Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 101, pp. 752–761, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Stochastic optimization of renewable-based microgrid operation incorporating battery operating cost,

    T. A. Nguyen and M. L. Crow, “Stochastic optimization of renewable-based microgrid operation incorporating battery operating cost,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 2289–2296, 2016

    2016

  33. [33]

    Real-time energy storage management for renewable inte- gration in microgrid: An off-line optimization approach,

    K. Rahbar, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Real-time energy storage management for renewable inte- gration in microgrid: An off-line optimization approach,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 124–134, 2015

    2015

  34. [34]

    Coordinated optimal dispatch of energy storage in a net- work of grid-connected microgrids,

    M. R. Sandgani and S. Sirouspour, “Coordinated optimal dispatch of energy storage in a net- work of grid-connected microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1166–1176, 2017

    2017

  35. [35]

    Sizing renewable generation and energy storage in stand-alone microgrids considering distributionally robust shortfall risk,

    R. Xie, W. Wei, M. Shahidehpour, Q. Wu, and S. Mei, “Sizing renewable generation and energy storage in stand-alone microgrids considering distributionally robust shortfall risk,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 4054–4066, 2022

    2022

  36. [36]

    Data-driven joint distri- butionally robust chance-constrained operation for multiple integrated electricity and heating systems,

    J. Zhai, Y. Jiang, M. Zhou, Y. Shi, W. Chen, and C. N. Jones, “Data-driven joint distri- butionally robust chance-constrained operation for multiple integrated electricity and heating systems,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1782–1798, 2024

    2024

  37. [37]

    Decentralized dis- tributionally robust chance-constrained operation of integrated electricity and hydrogen trans- portation networks,

    W. Jia, T. Ding, Y. Yuan, C. Mu, H. Zhang, S. Wang, Y. He, and X. Sun, “Decentralized dis- tributionally robust chance-constrained operation of integrated electricity and hydrogen trans- portation networks,”Applied Energy, vol. 377, p. 124369, 2025

    2025

  38. [38]

    A coordinated optimal operation of a grid- connected wind-solar microgrid incorporating hybrid energy storage management systems,

    M. B. Abdelghany, A. Al-Durra, and F. Gao, “A coordinated optimal operation of a grid- connected wind-solar microgrid incorporating hybrid energy storage management systems,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 39–51, 2024. 24

    2024

  39. [39]

    Combined heat and power dis- patch considering pipeline energy storage of district heating network,

    Z. Li, W. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, J. Wang, and B. Zhang, “Combined heat and power dis- patch considering pipeline energy storage of district heating network,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 12–22, 2016

    2016

  40. [40]

    Decentralized solution for combined heat and power dispatch through benders decomposition,

    C. Lin, W. Wu, B. Zhang, and Y. Sun, “Decentralized solution for combined heat and power dispatch through benders decomposition,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1361–1372, 2017

    2017

  41. [41]

    Integrated heat and power dispatch truly utilizing thermalinertiaofdistrictheatingnetworkforwindpowerintegration,

    J. Zheng, Z. Zhou, J. Zhao, and J. Wang, “Integrated heat and power dispatch truly utilizing thermalinertiaofdistrictheatingnetworkforwindpowerintegration,”Applied Energy, vol.211, pp. 865–874, 2018

    2018

  42. [42]

    Coordinated dispatch of multi-energy system with district heating network: Modeling and solution strategy,

    S. Lu, W. Gu, J. Zhou, X. Zhang, and C. Wu, “Coordinated dispatch of multi-energy system with district heating network: Modeling and solution strategy,”Energy, vol. 152, pp. 358–370, 2018

    2018

  43. [43]

    Improving flexibility for microgrids by co- ordinated optimization of electricity and steam networks,

    B. Chen, W. Wu, C. Lin, Q. Guo, and H. Sun, “Improving flexibility for microgrids by co- ordinated optimization of electricity and steam networks,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 314–324, 2021

    2021

  44. [44]

    Using hydrogen and ammonia for renewable energy storage: A geographically comprehensive techno-economic study,

    M. J. Palys and P. Daoutidis, “Using hydrogen and ammonia for renewable energy storage: A geographically comprehensive techno-economic study,”Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 136, p. 106785, 2020

    2020

  45. [45]

    Optimal design of sustainable ammonia- based food–energy–water systems with nitrogen management,

    H. Wang, M. Palys, P. Daoutidis, and Q. Zhang, “Optimal design of sustainable ammonia- based food–energy–water systems with nitrogen management,”ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 2816–2834, 2021

    2021

  46. [46]

    A novel system for ammonia-based sustainable energy and agriculture: Concept and design optimization,

    M. J. Palys, A. Kuznetsov, J. Tallaksen, M. Reese, and P. Daoutidis, “A novel system for ammonia-based sustainable energy and agriculture: Concept and design optimization,”Chem- ical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification, vol. 140, pp. 11–21, 2019

    2019

  47. [47]

    Real-time operation of a stand-alone microgrid with green ammonia storage,

    B. Kong, Q. Zhang, and P. Daoutidis, “Real-time operation of a stand-alone microgrid with green ammonia storage,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1463–1470, 2024

    2024

  48. [48]

    A risk- averse just-in-time scheme for learning-based operation of microgrids with coupled electricity- hydrogen-ammonia under uncertainties,

    L. Li, C. Ning, G. Pan, L. Zhang, W. Gu, L. Zhao, W. Du, and M. Shahidehpour, “A risk- averse just-in-time scheme for learning-based operation of microgrids with coupled electricity- hydrogen-ammonia under uncertainties,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2621–2635, 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    Emissions mitigation: Each process requires a unique decarbonization solution,

    J. Bell, “Emissions mitigation: Each process requires a unique decarbonization solution,”Chem- ical Engineering, vol. 132, pp. 32–35, 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Multi-objective optimization of steam cracking microgrid for clean olefins production,

    S. Ghasemi Naraghi, T. Kareck, and Jiang Z*, “Multi-objective optimization of steam cracking microgrid for clean olefins production,”Systems & Control Transactions, vol. 4, pp. 837–843, 2025

    2025

  51. [51]

    Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey,

    N. P. Padhy, “Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey,”IEEE Transactions on power sys- tems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1196–1205, 2004. 25

    2004

  52. [52]

    Cht: a digital computer package for solving short term hydro-thermal coordination and unit commitment problems,

    R. Nieva, A. Inda, and J. Frausto, “Cht: a digital computer package for solving short term hydro-thermal coordination and unit commitment problems,”IEEE transactions on power sys- tems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 168–174, 2007

    2007

  53. [53]

    Dynamic programming approach to unit commitment,

    W. L. Snyder, H. D. Powell, and J. C. Rayburn, “Dynamic programming approach to unit commitment,”IEEE transactions on Power systems, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 339–348, 2007

    2007

  54. [54]

    Integer programming approach to the problem of optimal unit commitment with probabilistic reserve determination,

    T. S. Dillon, K. W. Edwin, H.-D. Kochs, and R. Taud, “Integer programming approach to the problem of optimal unit commitment with probabilistic reserve determination,”IEEE Trans- actions on Power Apparatus and Systems, no. 6, pp. 2154–2166, 1978

    1978

  55. [55]

    Solution of large-scale optimal unit commitment problems,

    G. S. Lauer, N. Sandell, D. Bertsekas, and T. A. Posbergh, “Solution of large-scale optimal unit commitment problems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1982

    1982

  56. [56]

    A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,

    M. Carrión and J. M. Arroyo, “A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1371–1378, 2006

    2006

  57. [57]

    Tighter approximated milp formulations for unit commitment problems,

    A. Frangioni, C. Gentile, and F. Lacalandra, “Tighter approximated milp formulations for unit commitment problems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 105–113, 2008

    2008

  58. [58]

    A tighter piecewise linear approximation of quadratic cost curves for unit commitment problems,

    L. Wu, “A tighter piecewise linear approximation of quadratic cost curves for unit commitment problems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2581–2583, 2011

    2011

  59. [59]

    Polynomial time algorithms and extended formulations for unit commitment problems,

    Y. Guan, K. Pan, and K. Zhou, “Polynomial time algorithms and extended formulations for unit commitment problems,”IISE transactions, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 735–751, 2018

    2018

  60. [60]

    On the complexity of the unit commitment prob- lem,

    P. Bendotti, P. Fouilhoux, and C. Rottner, “On the complexity of the unit commitment prob- lem,”Annals of Operations Research, vol. 274, pp. 119–130, 2019

    2019

  61. [61]

    A multi-agent approach to unit commitment problems,

    T. Nagata, M. Ohono, J. Kubokawa, H. Sasaki, and H. Fujita, “A multi-agent approach to unit commitment problems,” in2002 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 02CH37309), vol. 1, pp. 64–69, IEEE, 2002

    2002

  62. [62]

    Solution of the profit-based unit commitment problem by using multi-agent system,

    J. Yu, J. Zhou, W. Wu, J. Yang, and W. Yu, “Solution of the profit-based unit commitment problem by using multi-agent system,” inFifth World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (IEEE Cat. No. 04EX788), vol. 6, pp. 5079–5083, IEEE, 2004

    2004

  63. [63]

    Multi-agent modeling for solving profit based unit commitment problem,

    D. Sharma, A. Trivedi, D. Srinivasan, and L. Thillainathan, “Multi-agent modeling for solving profit based unit commitment problem,”Applied Soft Computing, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 3751–3761, 2013

    2013

  64. [64]

    Market-based versus price-based microgrid optimal scheduling,

    S. Parhizi, A. Khodaei, and M. Shahidehpour, “Market-based versus price-based microgrid optimal scheduling,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 615–623, 2016

    2016

  65. [65]

    Technical assessment of large scale pem electrolyzers as flexibility service providers,

    D. Gusain, M. Cvetković, R. Bentvelsen, and P. Palensky, “Technical assessment of large scale pem electrolyzers as flexibility service providers,” in2020 IEEE 29th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), pp. 1074–1078, 2020

    2020

  66. [66]

    A recent comprehensive review of fuel cells: History, types, and applications,

    N. A. A. Qasem and G. A. Q. Abdulrahman, “A recent comprehensive review of fuel cells: History, types, and applications,”International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 2024, no. 1, p. 7271748, 2024. 26

    2024

  67. [67]

    Optimum gas turbine cycle for combined cycle power plant,

    A. Polyzakis, C. Koroneos, and G. Xydis, “Optimum gas turbine cycle for combined cycle power plant,”Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 551–563, 2008

    2008

  68. [68]

    accessed on October 25, 2025

    visualcrossing.https://www.visualcrossing.com/weather-data/. accessed on October 25, 2025

    2025

  69. [69]

    Wind vision: A new era for wind power in the united states,

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information, “Wind vision: A new era for wind power in the united states,” tech. rep., U.S Department of Energy, 2015

    2015

  70. [70]

    Scopes 1 and 2 emissions inventorying and guidance

    U.S. EPA, “Scopes 1 and 2 emissions inventorying and guidance.”https://www.epa.gov/ climateleadership/scopes-1-and-2-emissions-inventorying-and-guidance. accessed on June 3, 2026. 27

    2026