Modelling of Consumption Shares for Small Wind Energy Prosumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a simulation of energy distribution in an average household where electricity is produced with a small wind generator or purchased from the public electricity grid. Numerical experiments conducted within an average of five minutes were performed using annual production and consumption graphs. Virtual storage devices, a water tank and a battery were used to buffer energy inside the household. The energy required for non-shiftable consumption and hot water consumption were taken directly from the utility grid. Surplus energy remaining from wind generator production after providing for consumption and storage needs were redirected there. A cover factor was used as a measure of the efficiency of energy distribution. One of the aims of the article was to determine by simulations the change of the cover factor in a virtually designed situation where the expected energy output of the wind generator was known in advance over one to three hours. The results found that for the configuration of the proposed nanogrid option, the positive results were readily achieved when the expected wind generator production was known an hour ahead. Then, the cover factor increased from 0.593 to 0.645. The side result of using projected/expected production is an increase in asymmetrical energy exchanges bilaterally between nanogrid and utility grid in favour of grid sales. Another finding was that the cover factor depended on the wind generator’s production intensity but less on the intensity of consumption within the household.It is hoped/expected that future research will address the prediction of output using mathematical methods.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".