MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An analysis of energy storage and regulation

2014· article· en· W2039408570 on OpenAlexaff
Dariush Fooladivanda, Catherine Rosenberg, Siddharth Garg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperator (biology)Unit (ring theory)Service (business)Computer scienceRange (aeronautics)Power (physics)State (computer science)Balance (ability)Energy storageVariable (mathematics)Operations researchReliability engineeringMathematical optimizationControl theory (sociology)EconomicsControl (management)EngineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.173 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207