Search

Capacity credits, i.e., metrics that describe the contribution of different technologies in meeting the load during peak periods, are widely used in the context of long-term energy-system optimization models to ensure a pre-defined level of firm capacity. In the same vain, such capacity credits may be used in capacity markets to reflect the availability of an asset during periods of peak load. For storage technologies it seems that there is a discrepancy between the capacity credit that correctly captures the capacity contribution to the capacity target, and the capacity credit that correctly values the storage capacity. This is illustrated in a case study, which shows the differences in planning model outcomes when different capacity credit interpretations are used. Our results indicate that defining the capacity credit according to the contribution to the capacity target overvalues storage technologies, causing overinvestments. On the contrary, defining the capacity credit to reflect the value of the storage capacity, triggers the correct amount of storage investments, but underestimates the true peak reduction potential, which results in overinvestments in other firm capacity providers. In this regard, a novel iterative approach is introduced that leverages both capacity credit interpretations simultaneously to remove any bias in the solution.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has a far-reaching impact on healthcare. Cancer patients in particular were regarded as vulnerable and oncology departments drastically modified their Care systems and established new priorities. We evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the activity of a single cancer center; and we studied patients’ perspectives of the preventive institutional or governmental safety measures.Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of (i) Volumes of Oncological activities (2020 versus 2019), (ii) patients’ perception rate of the preventive measures, (iii) patients’ SARS-Cov-2 infections, clinical signs thereof and (iv) new diagnoses made during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Results: As compared with a similar timeframe in 2019 the overall activity in total numbers of outpatient chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits, based on weekly average of daily accesses was not statistically different; while inpatient admissions decreased for both medical oncology and thoracic oncology (18% (p=0.0018) and 44% (p85%). However, only 46.2% of responding patients regarded telemedicine, although widely deployed, as an efficient surrogate to a consultation. Thirty-three patients developed SARS-CoV-2, 27 were hospitalized and 11 died within this time frame. These infected patients were younger, current smokers and suffered more comorbidities.Conclusions: This retrospective cohort analysis demonstrates that continuation of active cancer therapy and specialist visits is feasible and safe after implementation of population-wide, institutional and department specific safety measures. Substantial decreases in diagnosis of solid tumors were recorded. To manage the backlog of belated diagnoses, while providing continued state-of-the-art cancer care during this prolonged health crisis, we need policy interventions to adapt the health care system and allow telemedicine to fulfill a more prominent role.

Background Telehealth modalities were introduced during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to assure continuation of cancer care and maintain social distance. Methods This is a retrospective cohort analysis of our telehealth expansion programme. We adapted two existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) telemonitoring tools that register and (self-)manage toxicities to therapy, while screening for SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms. Outpatients from a tertiary cancer centre were enrolled. The adapted PRO interface allowed for uniform registration of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms and effective triage of patients at home where we also implemented systematic throat washings, when available. Results Three hundred and sixty patients registered to the telemonitoring systems from March 13 to May 15, 2020. Four prespecified SARS-CoV-2 alarms resulted in three patients with positive PCR testing. Other Covid-19 symptoms (fever 5× and cough 2×) led to pretreatment triage resulting in 1 seroconversion after initial negative testing. One of the 477 throat washings proved positive. Conclusions The rapid adoption of an amended PRO (self-)registrations and toxicity management system was feasible and coordinated screening for Covid-19. Continued clinical cancer care was maintained, with significant decreased waiting time. The systemic screening with throat washings offered no real improvement.

Long-term energy system optimization models can be designed to model systems with a broad geographical scope that comprises multiple countries. However, due to computational limitations, often the geographical scope is restricted to a single country. This raises the problem of correctly accounting for cross-border trade of electricity in models with a limited geographical scope. Therefore, this paper assesses the impact of not correctly representing cross-border trade flows in geographically restricted long-term planning models. To this end, we use a planning model for the interconnected Central-Western European power system to compare technology choices and welfare estimates for Belgium when (i) cross-border trade of electricity is ignored and (ii) cross-border trade flows are an endogenous part of the planning model. Furthermore, this paper presents two sets of methodologies to account for transmission flows in planning models. A first methodology is to extend the model’s geographical scope and fix the capacity variables in the neighboring countries in line with pre-designed scenarios for those countries. A second methodology further reduces the computational cost by using specially tailored import and export curves to represent each country’s trade opportunities. The results indicate that for highly interconnected systems, neglecting cross-border trade or having a highly stylized representation of cross-border flows can lead to inaccurate welfare estimates and technology biases. In addition, a key insight presented in this paper is that congestion rents can constitute a major share of the welfare gains attained by trading electricity. Finally, endogenizing the dispatch decisions in neighboring countries is the most accurate method to deal with cross-border trade, while by correctly designing cross-border trade curves computational time can be reduced, but planning model outcomes become less accurate. ispartof: Applied Energy vol:261 status: published

An important aspect of long-term power system planning models is their adequacy awareness, i.e., their ability to ensure generation adequacy in the final solution, which in turn strongly depends on the level of temporal detail included in the model structure. To maintain computational tractability, the temporal detail included in long-term planning models is, however, often limited, which decreases their adequacy awareness resulting in inadequate capacity mixes. To compensate for this, several adequacy-improving measures can be taken. The aim of this paper is to investigate the performance of three of these measures, namely (i) adding a traditional static planning reserve margin (PRM) constraint, (ii) adding a dynamic PRM constraint and (iii) a novel approach that increases the level of temporal detail with which critical peak periods are modeled. To this end, we compare each of these three adequacy methods in a long-term planning exercise based on (i) total system costs, (ii) adequacy of the resulting capacity mix and (iii) technology choices. Our results suggest that the novel approach more effectively increases the adequacy of the obtained capacity mix, resulting in lower total system costs and less technology biases. Also the dynamic PRM approach performs well, although occasional inadequacies can occur in individual milestone years due to exogenously imposed capacity credits.

Objective: The subcutaneous (SC) formulation of trastuzumab represents an alternative to the intravenous (IV) infusion in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic and early breast cancer. We compared the two formulations in terms of time and cost differential. Study desing: We conducted a time, motion and cost assessment study in a lean operating day care oncology unit to determine and compare the time and costs of trastuzumab SC versus IV administration in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Outcomes were the mean costs and the mean dedicated time of the health care professional (HCP) and patient chair time. Direct observation methodology was applied to collect data and statistical analysis was performed. Results: The total preparation and administration time for trastuzumab IV was 4.07 times longer than the total time required for the trastuzumab SC administration. The total patient time spent in the day care oncology unit (in minutes) was 71% shorter with using SC administration. IV administration costs (sic)50.4 ($54,89) more in HCP time and consumable supplies and (sic)162.53 ($177.00) of drug wastage. SC administration was associated with a total time saving of 53.7 min for the HCPs and 122.5 min for the patients. The administration of trastuzumab SC was translated in a cost saving of (sic)212.93 ($231.73) per patient episode compared to trastuzumab IV, which could lead to a total potential saving of (sic)3,832.74 ($4,171.06) over a full course of treatment (18 cycles) Conclusion: SC administration of trastuzumab was associated with a substantial reduction in active HCP time, patient chair time, unit time, and overall cost. These time and cost could be used to increase capacity within existing resources in a lean operating day dare oncology unit. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.