Thermo-economic assessment of end user value in home and community scale renewable energy systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employs thermo-economic analysis to establish a homeowner-centric valuation of renewable energy technologies. The evaluation methodology is illustrated using several classes of renewable energy technology, including, ground-source heat pumps, wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, and solar thermal water heaters. Energy systems employing each of these technologies are examined when servicing the typical domestic energy loads of a single-detached home. Through the analysis, it is learned that single-home photovoltaic systems produce energy at an annual cost approximately four times that of grid electricity, while wind energy systems deliver this energy at approximately twice the cost of grid electricity. Further, single-detached homeowners currently heating with fuel oil and/or grid electricity may expect to save between $1000 and $1800 per year when switching to a ground-source heat pump system; whereas those considering the implementation of a solar thermal water heater can expect to spend an additional $245 per year for hot water. Investigation of larger scale renewable systems examined the performance of wind turbines and ground-source heat pumps when serving groups of single-detached homes; wind turbines were found to exhibit significant economies of scale.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".