MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949552163 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2019.2924019

Capacity Scheduling of Energy Storage and Conventional Generation for Frequency Regulation Based on CPS1

2019· article· en· W2949552163 on OpenAlexaff
Shuthakini Pulendran, Joseph Euzebe Tate

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFrequency Control in Power Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationAutomatic Generation ControlEnergy storageLinear programmingElectric power systemAutomatic frequency controlComputationComputer sciencePiecewise linear functionInteger programmingControl theory (sociology)Reliability engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)AlgorithmMathematicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes and evaluates a systematic method of scheduling energy storage and conventional generation capacities in a day-ahead frequency regulation market, based on compliance to control performance standard 1 (CPS1), during each hour of the following day. The salient feature of this method is the development of two simple piecewise linear curves that represent the relationship between first, conventional generation and energy storage power capacities, and second, energy storage power and energy capacities, to satisfy CPS1 compliance in the presence of stochastic load variations. These curves are then modeled inside a mixed integer linear program to solve for resource allocations by minimizing total capacity cost. As such, the formulation avoids complex algorithms that are otherwise required to model frequency dynamics inside the optimization problem. To reduce computation time, a scenario reduction algorithm is used to obtain a small set of scenarios to represent the stochastic load. The proposed method is evaluated using comprehensive dynamic simulations of the two-area IEEE reliability test system implemented in PSS/E. The results prove that the proposed method is effective for scheduling capacities to meet CPS1 compliance with minimum cost.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicFrequency Control in Power SystemsFrench-language works237,207