Design and operation of power systems with large amounts of wind power: Final summary report, IEA WIND Task 25, Phase four 2015-2017
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report provides a summary of the results from recent wind integration studies. The studies address concerns about the impact of wind power’s variability and uncertainty on power system reliability and costs as well as grid reinforcement needs. Quantifiable results are presented as summary graphs: results as a MWincrease in reserve requirements, or €/MWh increase in balancing costs, or results for capacity value of wind power. Other results are briefly summarised, together with existing experience on the issues. There is already significant experience in integrating wind power in power systems. The mitigation of wind power impacts include more flexible operational methods, incentivising flexibility in other generating plants, increasing interconnection to neighbouring regions, and application of demand-side flexibility. Electricity storage is still not as cost effective in larger power systems as other means of flexibility, but is already seeing initial applications in places with limited transmission. Electricity markets, with cross-border trade of intra-day and balancing resources and emerging ancillary services markets, are seen as promising for future large penetration levels for wind power.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it