MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016471396 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2015.2394362

Incentive Design for Voltage Optimization Programs for Industrial Loads

2015· article· en· W2016471396 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian Le, Claudio A. Cañizares, Kankar Bhattacharya

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveVoltageInvestment (military)Monte Carlo methodRate of returnControl theory (sociology)Time horizonSensitivity (control systems)Energy conservationReturn on investmentMathematical optimizationConstant (computer programming)Electric power systemReliability engineeringEngineeringComputer sciencePower (physics)EconomicsMicroeconomicsFinanceProduction (economics)Electrical engineeringControl (management)Electronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel framework for planning and investment studies pertaining to the implementation of system-wide conservation voltage reduction (CVR). In the CVR paradigm, optimal voltage profiles at the load buses are determined so as to yield load reductions and hence energy conservation. The system modifications required to operate at such voltages is known to be capital intensive, which is not desirable by investors. Hence, the proposed model determines the system savings and the appropriate price incentives to offer industries such that a minimum acceptable rate of return is accrued. In this model, the industrial facilities are represented by a combination of constant impedance, constant current, and constant power loads. A detailed case study for Ontario, Canada, is carried out considering that industrial loads are investing in voltage optimization to reduce their energy costs. The optimal incentives that need to be offered by the system planner, over a long-term horizon, and across various zones of Ontario, are determined using the presented mathematical model. Furthermore, a comprehensive risk analysis comprising sensitivity studies and Monte Carlo simulations is carried out considering the variations in the most uncertain model parameters.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207