Optimization of Wind Energy Battery Storage Microgrid by Division Algorithm Considering Cumulative Exergy Demand for Power-Water Cogeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the use of division algorithms to optimize the size of a desalination system integrated with a microgrid based on a wind turbine plant and the battery storage to supply freshwater based on cost, reliability, and energy losses. Cumulative exergy demand is used to identify and minimize the energy losses in the optimized system. Division algorithms are used to overcome the drawback of low convergence speed encountered by the well-known method genetic algorithm. The findings indicated that there is a positive relationship between cost, cumulative exergy, and reliability. More specifically, when the loss of power supply probability is 10%, compared to when it is 0%, the total cumulative exergy demand and total life cycle cost are reduced by 34.76% when the battery is full and 45.44% when the battery is empty and there is a 44.43% decrease in total life cycle cost, respectively. However, the more reliable system, the less exergy is lost during the production of 1 m3 freshwater by desalination integrated into wind turbine plant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".