A Novel Capacity Market Model With Energy Storage
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
Electricity jurisdictions procure generation capacity requirements competitively which maintains investment flows into the electricity system infrastructure. The capacity market auction is one of such competitive capacity procurement methods. It is challenging to consider energy storage (ES) capacity offers in capacity markets due to complex capacity contribution characteristics and lack of explicit mechanisms to integrate them. However, ES capacity can be used to manage the system peak demand. ES can substitute for peaker plants, especially if the demand curve is kurtosis. This paper proposes novel ES capacity contribution formulas and a comprehensive capacity auction model which is designed to consider capacity offers including energy-limited technologies such as ES. After all offers are converted to unforced capacity (UCAP), their energy limitations do not affect bid selection in the market. The proposed novel ES UCAP computation formulas consider power capacity, energy capacity and operational attributes. This paper also presents the results of a case study with three capacity supply offers and a case study based on actual Ontario system data. A detailed sensitivity analysis is also included in the paper to show the validity of the proposed ES UCAP formulas in the auction model. The proposed formulas provide significant benefits in successfully procuring ES capacity offers.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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