On the Economic Viability of Solar Energy When Upgrading Cellular Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The massive increase of data traffic, the widespread proliferation of wireless applications and the full-scale deployment of 5G and the IoT, imply a steep increase in cellular networks energy use, resulting in a significant carbon footprint. This paper presents a comprehensive model to show the interaction between the networking and energy features of the problem and study the economical and technical viability of green networking. Solar equipment, cell zooming, energy management and dynamic user allocation are considered in the upgrading network planning process. We propose a mixed-integer optimization model to minimize long-term capital costs and operational energy expenditures in a heterogeneous on-grid cellular network with different types of base station, including solar. Based on eight scenarios where realistic costs of solar panels, batteries, and inverters were considered, we first found that solar base stations are currently not economically interesting for cellular operators. We next studied the impact of a significant and progressive carbon tax on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). We found that, at current energy and equipment prices, a carbon tax ten-fold the current value is the only element that could make green base stations economically viable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".