Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Optimization
Quantum Machine Learning
Fairness evaluation during the conceptual design of heat grids with quantum annealers
arXiv
Authors: Kelvin Loh
Year
2019
Paper ID
15388
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
116
Citations
N/A
Abstract
This paper presents a workflow to evaluate the macro scale thermal fairness for producers in a district heating network during the conceptual design phase of such a network. It uses the workflow to evaluate two types of proposed topologies for a future network to be constructed in Europe. The workflow is also novel in the sense that it has been demonstrated in the paper that within the implementation, the load balancing step can be solved readily by a quantum computing system (in particular, a quantum annealer from DWave). The concept of fairness is also addressed in the workflow and the results show that there exist an optimum number of producers for a given district heating topology.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Machine Learning research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2019 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- This paper presents a workflow to evaluate the macro scale thermal fairness for producers in a district heating network during the conceptual design phase of such a network.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.