Search

• Linear loss factors penalize one HVDC line over the other. • Piecewise-linear loss factors better represent quadratic loss functions. • Piecewise-linear loss factors allow for a better distribution of power flows. • HVDC loss factors only disproportionately increase AC losses. • HVDC and AC loss factors lead to losses minimization. In the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark), many interconnectors are formed by long High-Voltage Direct-Current (HVDC) lines. Every year, the operation of such interconnectors costs millions of Euros to Transmission System Operators (TSOs) due to the high amount of losses that are not considered while clearing the market. To counteract this problem, Nordic TSOs (Svenska kraftnät - Sweden, Statnett - Norway, Fingrid - Finland, Energinet - Denmark) have proposed to introduce linear HVDC loss factors in the market clearing algorithm. The assessment of such a measure requires a detailed model of the system under investigation. In this paper we develop and introduce a detailed market model of the Nordic countries and we analyze the impact of different loss factor formulations. We show that linear loss factors penalize one HVDC line over the other, and this can jeopardize revenues of merchant HVDC lines. In this regard, we propose piecewise-linear loss factors: a simple to implement but highly effective solution. Moreover, we demonstrate how the introduction of only HVDC loss factors is a partial solution, since it disproportionately increases the AC losses. Our results show that the inclusion of AC loss factors can eliminate this problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Norwegian Survival Prediction Model in Trauma (NORMIT) is a newly developed outcome prediction model for patients with trauma. We aimed to compare the novel NORMIT to the more commonly used Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in Finnish trauma patients.Methods: We performed a retrospective open-cohort study, using the trauma registry of Helsinki university hospital's trauma unit, including severely injured patients (new injury severity score > 15) admitted from 2007 to 2011. We used 30-day in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome, and discharge functional outcome as a secondary outcome of interest. Model performance was evaluated by comparing discrimination (by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), using a re-sample bootstrap technique, and by assessing calibration (GiViTI belt).Results: We identified 1111 patients fulfilling the study inclusion criteria. Overall mortality was 13% (n = 147). NORMIT showed slightly better discrimination for mortality prediction (AUC = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-0.86 vs. AUC = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.75-0.83, P = 0.004) and functional outcome prediction (AUC = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.76-0.82 vs. AUC = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.72-0.78, P < 0.001) than TRISS. Calibration testing revealed poor calibration for both NORMIT and TRISS (P < 0.001), by giving too pessimistic predictions (predicted survival significantly lower than actual survival).Conclusion: NORMIT and TRISS showed good discrimination, but poor calibration, in this mixed cohort of severely injured trauma patients from Southern Finland. We found NORMIT to be a feasible alternative to TRISS for trauma patient outcome prediction, but trauma prediction models with improved calibration are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]