MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012331822 · doi:10.1109/tste.2014.2359795

Solar Power Shaping: An Analytical Approach

2014· article· en· W2012331822 on OpenAlexaff
Yashar Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, Srinivasan Keshav, Catherine Rosenberg, Florin Ciucu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimensioningEnergy storageSizingComputer scienceSolar powerElectric power systemGridKey (lock)Reliability engineeringDistributed generationRenewable energyPower (physics)EngineeringElectrical engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of our work is the use of an energy storage system (ESS) to integrate solar energy generators into the electrical grid. Although, in theory, an ESS allows intermittent solar power to be shaped to meet any desired load profile, in practice, parsimonious ESS dimensioning is challenging due to the stochastic nature of generation and load and the diversity and high cost of storage technologies. Existing methods for ESS sizing are based either on simulation or on analysis, both of which have shortcomings. Simulation methods are computationally expensive and depend on the availability of extensive data traces. Existing analytical methods tend to be conservative, overestimating expensive storage requirements. Our key insight is that solar power fluctuations arise at a few distinct time scales. We separately model fluctuations in each time scale, which allows us to accurately estimate ESS performance and efficiently size an ESS. Numerical examples with real data traces show that our model and analysis are tight.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable EnergySame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207