Development of a Tool for Optimizing Solar and Battery Storage for Container Farming in a Remote Arctic Microgrid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High transportation costs make energy and food expensive in remote communities worldwide, especially in high-latitude Arctic climates. Past attempts to grow food indoors in these remote areas have proven uneconomical due to the need for expensive imported diesel for heating and electricity. This study aims to determine whether solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity can be used affordably to power container farms integrated with a remote Arctic community microgrid. A mixed-integer linear optimization model (FEWMORE: Food–Energy–Water Microgrid Optimization with Renewable Energy) has been developed to minimize the capital and maintenance costs of installing solar photovoltaics (PV) plus electricity storage and the operational costs of purchasing electricity from the community microgrid to power a container farm. FEWMORE expands upon previous models by simulating demand-side management of container farm loads. Its results are compared with those of another model (HOMER) for a test case. FEWMORE determined that 17 kW of solar PV was optimal to power the farm loads, resulting in a total annual cost decline of ~14% compared with a container farm currently operating in the Yukon. Managing specific loads appropriately can reduce total costs by ~18%. Thus, even in an Arctic climate, where the solar PV system supplies only ~7% of total load during the winter and ~25% of the load during the entire year, investing in solar PV reduces costs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".