Ancillary services from wind turbines: AGC from a single Type 4 turbine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Wind turbines possess the technical ability to provide various ancillary services to the electrical grid. Several regions have set ambitious targets of providing an increasing share of annual electrical energy from wind and other renewable sources of generation. Despite this, renewable generators such as wind and solar have traditionally not been allowed to provide significant amounts of ancillary services, in part due to the variable and uncertain nature of their electricity generation. Increasing levels of renewable generation, however, continue to displace existing synchronous generation and thus necessitate new sources of ancillary or system services. This work is part of an ongoing project that seeks to provide empirical evidence of how ancillary services can be provided from wind turbines. We focus specifically on providing secondary frequency response (AGC) and demonstrate that wind turbines have the technical capability to provide this service. The algorithms used are intentionally simple so as to evaluate the capabilities and limitations of the turbine technology. This work presents results from a single, 800 kW, IEC Type 4 wind turbine. 10 % of rated power is offered on the regulation market. We do not separate up- and down-regulation into individual services. Up-regulation is offered through a 5 % constant power curtailment. The AGC update interval is 4 s, to mimic real-world conditions. We use performance scoring methods from the Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland (PJM) operator and the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada to quantify the wind turbine's response. We use the calculated performance scores, annual site wind data and 2017 PJM market price data to estimate income from providing secondary frequency regulation. In all cases presented, income from the regulation market is greater than the energy income lost due to curtailment.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".