MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542090993 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2015.7129380

Electrical grid peak reduction with efficient and flexible automated demand response scheduling

2015· article· en· W1542090993 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Clark, Lutz Lampe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDemand responseElectricitySmart gridComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Reduction (mathematics)IncentiveGridEnergy consumptionConsumption (sociology)Response timeLoad managementReal-time computingDistributed computingMathematical optimizationElectrical engineeringMicroeconomicsEconomicsEngineeringMathematicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the smart grid, demand response (DR) mechanisms can be used by energy providers to encourage consumers to modify their electricity consumption in response to time-varying prices or other incentives. If many homes use automated appliance schedulers to respond to DR signals, consumption peaks can result during times with the lowest electricity prices. The effectiveness of strategies designed to prevent this phenomenon depends on what kind of automated appliance schedulers are being used in homes. In this paper, we assume homes are using a highly flexible appliance scheduler and explore how well two different strategies of reducing these consumption peaks perform. Namely, we consider setting electricity prices to be constant during off-peak times and using prices that increase when the total consumption of the home increases. We discuss how these two peak reduction strategies interact with the scheduler and propose modifications to the scheduler to improve or accommodate the strategies. We then present numerical simulations to show that the daily peak to average ratio (PAR) of the energy consumption of a group of homes using the flexible, sub-optimal scheduler can be reduced significantly by both strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207