MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786184176 · doi:10.1109/epec.2017.8286219

Evaluation of electric vehicle penetration in a residential sector under demand response considering both cost and convenience

2017· article· en· W2786184176 on OpenAlexaff
Zhanle Wang, Raman Paranjape

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemand responsePenetration (warfare)Electric vehicleAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineeringElectricityOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a residential load prediction model and an optimal control algorithm considering both electricity payment and waiting time to study impacts of electric vehicle (EV) penetration on the power system. EVs present both challenges (large electrical load) and opportunities (high efficiency and environmentally friendly). The proposed load prediction model simulates heterogeneous residential power consumption. A convex optimization model with real-time pricing (RTP) prediction is proposed to schedule EV charging to determine a tradeoff between electricity payment and waiting time. The dissatisfaction factor from delaying the EV charging, the EV penetration levels and flexibility of charging period are evaluated. The PAPR, standard deviation and electricity payment are significantly decreased by using the proposed optimal control model. Simulation results provide users a base line in which a “best” dissatisfaction factor value can be determined to find a trade-off. This study also shows that, although more and more controlled EV charging has the potential to improve the reliability of the power system, the restricted charging period at the residential sector can be a bottleneck when the EV penetration exceeds a certain level.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207