A Novel Optimization Algorithm for Solar Panels Selection towards a Self-Powered EV Parking Lot and Its Impact on the Distribution System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes an original multi-criteria decision-making optimization algorithm to select the best solar panels in an existing market and optimally size the photovoltaic (PV) system for an electric vehicle parking lot (EVPL). Our proposed algorithm is called rank-weigh-rank (RWR), and it is compared to the well-known technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) optimization algorithm under the same conditions for validation purposes. Results show that the speed of our proposed algorithm (RWR) in finding the best solution increases exponentially compared to TOPSIS when the numbers of alternatives and criteria increase. Moreover, 77% is the probability of obtaining results with more than 80% accuracy compared to TOPSIS, which validates the efficiency of our algorithm. In addition, we were able to design an EVPL with a power self-sufficiency ratio of 60.8%, the energy self-sufficiency ratio of 74.7%, and a payback period of 10.58 years. Moreover, the renewable energy-based EVPL was able to reduce the power losses on the network by 95.7% compared to an EVPL without a renewable energy system and improve the voltage deviation.
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".