Estimating Geographical PV Potential Using LiDAR Data for Buildings in Downtown San Francisco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sustainable solar energy is of the interest for the city of San Francisco to meet their renewable energy initiative. Buildings in the downtown area are expected to have great photovoltaic (PV) potential for future solar panel installation. This study presents a comprehensive method for estimating geographical PV potential using remote sensed LiDAR data for buildings in downtown San Francisco. LiDAR derived DSMs and DTMs were able to generate high quality building footprints using the object‐oriented classification method. The GRASS built‐in solar irradiation model (r.sun) was used to simulate and compute PV yields. Monthly and yearly maps, as well as an exquisite 3D city building model, were created to visualize the variability of solar irradiation across the study area. Results showed that monthly sum of solar irradiation followed a one‐year cycle with the peak in July and troughs in January and December. The mean yearly sum of solar irradiation for the buildings in the study area was estimated to be 1675 kWh/m2. A multiple regression model was used to test the significance of building height, roof area and roof complexity against PV potential. Roof complexity was found to be the dominant determinant. Uncertainties of the research are mainly from the inherent r.sun limitations, boundary problems, and the LiDAR data accuracy in terms of both building footprint extraction and 3D modeling. Future work can focus on a more automated process and segment rooftops of buildings to achieve more accurate estimation of PV potential. The outcome of this research can assist decision makers in San Francisco to visualize building PV potential, and further select ideal places to install PV systems. The methodology presented and tested in this research can also be generalized to other cities in order to meet contemporary society's need for renewable energy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".