An analysis of energy storage and regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We focus on a region whose power system is controlled by an operator that relies on a regulation service to balance the total system supply to the total system load in quasi real-time. We consider the existing contractual framework in which a regulation unit declares its regulation parameters at the beginning of the contract, the operator guarantees that the regulation signals will be within the range of these parameters, and the regulation unit is rewarded proportionally to what it declares. Our purpose is twofold. We first want to obtain formulas for the regulation parameters that a unit with non-ideal storage should declare to the operator given its state of charge at the beginning of a contract. Second, we want to analytically quantify, ahead of time, the reward that such a unit could obtain in successive contracts by performing this regulation service. Since the state of charge at the beginning of a contract depends on what happened in the previous contract and, hence, is a random variable, we quantify this reward analytically using bounds and expectation. We then provide engineering insights by applying our results to three specific energy storage technologies that are often considered as candidates for regulation. In particular, we show the impact of the storage parameters and the length of one contract on the potential reward over a given period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".