MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558178876 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2016.2633280

Considering Thermodynamic Characteristics of a CAES Facility in Self-Scheduling in Energy and Reserve Markets

2016· article· en· W2558178876 on OpenAlexaff
Soroush Shafiee, Hamidreza Zareipour, Andrew M. Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed air energy storageElectricityScheduling (production processes)Energy storageSpinningRevenueEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsEconomicsMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringOperations managementFinancePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficiency of a compressed air energy storage (CAES) facility deviates significantly from its nominal value depending on its thermodynamics and operational conditions. Thus, the thermodynamic characteristics of the facility should be incorporated in its scheduling to model the variation in efficiency. This paper proposes a self-scheduling approach for a CAES facility that participates in energy, spinning, and non-spinning reserves markets. Considering the thermodynamic characteristics of the facility, the limitations imposed on the facility are modeled when devising operations schedules. Thus, the model leads to a more realistic view of the revenues. Numerical simulations are provided using the historical hourly energy and reserve prices of the ERCOT electricity market for years 2011 to 2015. The results are compared with those of derived from by using the conventional model with constant efficiency 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations78
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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