MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230339721 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14651619.v1

Energy storage planning in distribution systems considering life-cycling-usage relationship

2021· preprint· en· W4230339721 on OpenAlexaff
Nastaran Hajia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy storageReliability engineeringAsset (computer security)Automotive engineeringEngineeringComputer sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asset expansion planning in Distribution System is important and should be expanded to consider utility scale energy storage systems such as batteries, flywheels, compressed air, thermal, etc. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are maturing for utility scale applications and are considered in this thesis for asset planning exercise. Unlike other electromechanical assets such as generators, transformers, motors, feeders, distribution lines, etc., usage parameters such as number of storage cycles and depth of discharge have a dramatic nonlinear effect on the life of Battery Energy Storage Systems. Hence, in the optimal asset planning formulation of electric power distribution systems considering BESS, it is imperative to include their relationship between life in years, number of storage cycles and extent of usage in terms of depth of discharge. A new optimal asset expansion planning formulation and algorithm for distribution systems is developed and presented in this thesis that considers (1) new sources of energy supply, and (2) BESS, while modeling nonlinear relationship life-cycling-usage of BESS. The formulation aims to minimize annualized cost of the optimal expansion plan while satisfying forecasted demand and other distribution system service requirements. The proposed method in this thesis is then used to develop optimal expansion plans for a 6-bus synthetic system and an IEEE 33-bus distribution network. The results show the effect of considering the life-cycling-usage relationship of BESS on optimal asset expansion plans. Further, using sensitivity analysis, the effect of ratio off-peak load to peak load on total asset costs are analyzed and reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207