Towards standardising market-independent indicators for quantifying energy flexibility in buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buildings are increasingly being seen as a potential source of energy flexibility to the smart grid as a form of demand side management. Indicators are required to quantify the energy flexibility available from buildings, enabling a basis for a contractual framework between the relevant stakeholders such as end users, aggregators and grid operators. In the literature, there is a lack of consensus and standardisation in terms of approaches and indicators for quantifying energy flexibility. In the present paper, current approaches are reviewed and the most recent and relevant market independent indicators are compared through analysis of four different case studies comprising varying building types, climates and control schemes to assess their robustness and applicability. Of the indicators compared, certain indicators are found to be more suitable for use by the end user when considering energy and carbon dioxide emission reductions. Other indicators are more useful for the grid operator. The recommended indicators are found to be robust to different demand response contexts, such as type of energy flexibility, control scheme, climate and building types. They capture the provided flexibility quantity, its shifting efficiency and rebound effect. A final cost index is also recommended given specific market conditions to capture the cost of a building providing energy flexibility.
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 | 0.037 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".