MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Return on Investment Evaluation and Optimal Sizing of Behind-the-Meter Battery Energy Storage Systems in Large Commercial Buildings in Ontario

2022· article· en· W4308091341 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thiago R. Fernandes, Bala Venkatesh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingMetreBattery (electricity)Investment (military)Energy storageElectrical engineeringReturn on investmentAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsProduction (economics)Microeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ontario, Canada, electricity in large commercial buildings is charged depending on energy consumption, peak demand, and global adjustment (GA). Installing a behind-the-meter battery energy storage system (BESS) can reduce energy bills for these consumers by: 1) shifting consumption from the high to the low energy price; 2) reducing the peak demand; and 3) mitigating or eliminating the GA charge. In this context, this paper presents a method to estimate the return on investment (ROI) and determine the optimal size of BESS in large commercial buildings in Ontario. The paper’s main contribution is a solid linear model that simulates the BESS optimal operation, complying with the technical characteristics of the BESS, considering Ontario electricity rates and pricing to maximize the ROI from energy arbitrage, peak shaving, and GA busting. Precise formulations for computing the energy bills of large consumers are developed, allowing realistic estimates for the ROI and sizes of BESS. Tests considering two customer classes demonstrate the differences between these classes and the factors that influence the economic returns of BESS for each.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207