Feasibility of small wind turbines in Ontario: Integrating power curves with wind trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Micro-scale/small wind turbines, unlike larger utility-scale turbines, produce electricity at a rate of 300 W to 10 kW at their rated wind speed and are typically below 30 m in hub-height. These wind turbines have much more flexibility in their costs, maintenance and siting owing to their size and can provided wind energy in areas much less suited for direct supply to the grid system. The small wind industry has been substantially slow to progress in Ontario, Canada, and there is much debate over their viability in a growing energy dependent economy. In an effort to diversify the energy sector in Canada, it is crucial that some preliminary research be conducted in regards to the relevance of changing winds as they impact small wind turbines; this study seeks to demonstrate the performance of two small wind turbines, and speculate on the potential power output and its trend over Ontario historically over the last 33 years using the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) data. We assessed the efficiencies of a Skystream 3.7 (2.4 kW) and a Bergey Excel 1 kW wind turbines at the pre-established Kortright Centre for Conservation wind test site, located north of Toronto. We have found that the small turbine-based wind power around the Great Lakes and eastern James Bay have increased during the seasonal months of winter and fall, contributing as much as about 10 % in some regions to the total electricity demand in Ontario.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".