Stochastic PV model for power system planning applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning photovoltaic (PV) power systems integration into the grid necessitates accurate modelling of renewable power generation. Global solar irradiance, weather temperature and PV power losses due to overheating specifically in hot regimes are major factors contributing to PV power generation uncertainty. This study targets demonstrating the effectiveness of deploying advanced five parameter probabilistic distribution ‘Wakeby’ for modelling PV uncertain power generation, measured as a function of such factors, in power system planning applications. The impact of different approaches for incorporating weather temperature on PV energy estimation is studied. Wakeby‐Monte Carlo Simulation for PV power data training with an emphasis on MCS stopping criteria for such advanced distribution is presented. The model is tested and verified in 31‐bus distribution system to demonstrate its effectiveness over other literature uncertainty modelling approaches when planning integration of PV systems' integration into the grid to minimise the grid losses cost. Real PV power measurements are utilised as benchmark verifying the accuracy and suitability of the presented uncertainty modelling approach. Simulation results demonstrate a small error of $4.7 in the expected annual cost of grid losses when deploying Wakeby model compared to the benchmark case and that error can vary significantly when deploying other PV models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".