MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200167868 · doi:10.11575/prism/39256

Research Gaps In Life-Cycle Assessments Concerning Pumped Hydroelectric And Utility-Scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (Ess): Establishing A Unifying Approach To Ess Comparison

2021· article· en· W3200167868 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Travis Brookson

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMitacs
KeywordsHydroelectricityBattery (electricity)Energy storageScale (ratio)Environmental scienceLife-cycle assessmentReliability engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceOperations researchElectrical engineeringPower (physics)Production (economics)EconomicsGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical grid decarbonization is one pathway to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as traditional thermal power generation is replaced by renewable energy. The intermittent nature of wind and solar power require energy storage to deliver excess energy during times of low power production. Both pumped hydroelectric storage and utility-scale battery storage are common solutions for different grid applications to maintain reliability, and each have their unique associated environmental impacts. In this report, life-cycle assessment (LCA) is used to examine the environmental impacts of the two energy storage systems. The limited number of relevant and available LCA studies lack a consistent approach and this report highlights some of the ambiguities and limitations that are barriers to proper comparison of the storage options. Finally, methods to increase the rigour of future energy storage LCAs, including keeping pace with the industry evolution, are recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207