MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009834497 · doi:10.3390/su12052062

The Role of Earth Observation Satellites in Maximizing Renewable Energy Production: Case Studies Analysis for Renewable Power Plants

2020· article· en· W3009834497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mariarosa Argentiero, Pasquale Marcello Falcone

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyWind powerElectricity generationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental economicsEngineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is based on a novel approach towards clean energy production, i.e., space innovative applications toward sustainable development. Specifically, the role of Earth observation (EO) satellites in maximizing renewable energy production is considered to show the enormous potential in exploiting sustainable energy generation plants when the Earth is mapped by satellites to provide some peculiar parameters (e.g., solar irradiance, wind speed, precipitation, climate conditions, geothermal data). In this framework, RETScreen clean energy management software can be used for numerical analysis, such as energy generation and efficiency, prices, emission reductions, financial viability and hazard of various types of renewable-energy and energy-efficient technologies (RETs), based on a large database of satellite parameters. This simplifies initial assessments and provides streamlined processes that enable funders, architects, designers, regulators, etc. to make decisions on future clean energy initiatives. After describing the logic of life cycle analysis of RETScreen, two case studies (Mexicali and Toronto) on multiple technologies power plant are analyzed. The different results obtained, when projecting the two scenarios, showed how the software could be useful in the pre-feasibility phase to discriminate the type of installation not efficient for the selected location or not convenient in terms of internal rate of return (IRR) on equity.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207