MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386224466 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2023-0016

A power storage system planning model for the Wolfe Island wind farm

2023· article· en· W4386224466 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Fuwei Rao, Li Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWind powerRenewable energyPower (physics)Energy storagePumped-storage hydroelectricityElectric power systemPower stationEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineeringMarine engineeringReliability engineeringDistributed generation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the alternatives to conventional energy sources, wind power is a fast-growing renewable technology. The intermittent characteristic of wind speed leads to unstable wind power production; therefore, a storage system is typically needed at wind power farms to stabilize the power output. This project aims to develop a power storage system planning model to optimize the power transfer between wind turbines and storage devices on an hourly basis to stabilize power output and maximize annual net earnings. The developed model utilizes the dynamic programming technique, and it is applied to a case study of the Wolfe Island Wind Farm in Ontario, Canada, for the year of 2020. Two scenarios with different power output tolerance considerations (i.e., tolerance ranges based on 6- and 8-hour subperiods) are analyzed to compare the fluctuations of power output and the total net earnings. The optimized number of storage devices is also discussed. The developed model can provide technical support for the design and operation of power storage systems at wind power farms.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207