Poster abstract: Understanding controlled EV charging impacts using scenario-based forecasting models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart or controlled charging is widely seen as a potential solution to alleviate stress caused by mass uptake of electric vehicles on existing networks. While analyses with completely uncontrolled charging result in unrealistically amplified estimates of EV load, assuming a completely coordinated controlled charging also oversimplifies the estimates of impact due to mass EV uptake. Learning from the recent EV trials in the UK and elsewhere we take into account two key aspects which are largely ignored in current research: EVs actually charging at any given time and wide range of EV types, especially battery capacity-wise. Taking a minimalistic scenario-based approach, we study forecasting models for mean number of active chargers and mean EV consumption for distinct scenarios. Focusing on residential charging the models we consider range from simple regression models to more advanced machine and deep learning models such as XGBoost and LSTMs. We then use these models to evaluate the impacts of different levels of future EV penetration on a specimen distribution transformer that captures typical real-world scenarios. In doing so, we also initiate the study of different types of controlled charging when fully controlled charging is not possible. This aligns with the outcomes from recent trials which show that a sizeable proportion of EV owners may not prefer fully controlled centralized charging. We study two possible control regimes and show that one is more beneficial from load-on-transformer point of view, while the other may be preferred for other objectives. We show that a minimum of 60% control is required to ensure that transformers are not overloaded during peak hours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".