A Stochastic Program for Siting and Sizing Fast Charging Stations and Small Wind Turbines in Urban Areas
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small wind turbines (SWTs) are promoted to be used in urban areas to mitigate the carbon footprint and expensiveupgrades expected from high penetration levels of fast charging stations (FCSs). In this paper, a planning framework is proposed to amplify the total benefit for the owners of FCSs and SWTs aswell as local distribution companies (LDCs). A stochastic program is developed to site and size SWTs along with FCSs in urban and suburban areas considering their specific wind characteristics,statutory regulations, turbine clustering studies, and geographic constraints. A worthiness metric is also proposed to rank FCS candidate locations based on their attractiveness to electric-vehicle(EV) drivers. An electric distribution network is overlaid onto ageographic map of downtown Chicago to assess the introduced planning framework. Results show that new efficient SWTs inurban areas can realistically justify their own investments overthe long-term, and reduce the overall system losses and support FCS loads. In the case study presented, the investments yield apresent value of $15M in profit, in 20 years, with an investment of$23M-only $6M of which is capital due in year one, while the rest consists of annual operation and maintenance 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it