MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042174703 · doi:10.3390/en5125019

Impact of PHEVs Penetration on Ontario’s Electricity Grid and Environmental Considerations

2012· article· en· W2042174703 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lena Ahmadi, Eric Croiset, Ali Elkamel, Peter Douglas, Woramon Unbangluang, Evgueniy Entchev

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricityEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental economicsGreenhouse gasGridNational GridMarket penetrationEngineeringEconomicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have a large potential to reduce greenhouse gases emissions and increase fuel economy and fuel flexibility. PHEVs are propelled by the energy from both gasoline and electric power sources. Penetration of PHEVs into the automobile market affects the electrical grid through an increase in electricity demand. This paper studies effects of the wide spread adoption of PHEVs on peak and base load demands in Ontario, Canada. Long-term forecasting models of peak and base load demands and the number of light-duty vehicles sold were developed. To create proper forecasting models, both linear regression (LR) and non-linear regression (NLR) techniques were employed, considering different ranges in the demographic, climate and economic variables. The results from the LR and NLR models were compared and the most accurate one was selected. Furthermore, forecasting the effects of PHEVs penetration is done through consideration of various scenarios of penetration levels, such as mild, normal and aggressive ones. Finally, the additional electricity demand on the Ontario electricity grid from charging PHEVs is incorporated for electricity production planning purposes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207