Three network design problems for community energy storage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we develop novel mathematical models to optimize utilization of community energy storage (CES) by clustering prosumers and consumers into energy sharing communities/microgrids in the context of a smart city. Three different microgrid configurations are modeled using a unifying mixed‐integer linear programming formulation. These configurations represent three different business models, namely: the island model, the interconnected model, and the Energy Service Companies model. The proposed mathematical formulations determine the optimal households' aggregation as well as the location and sizing of CES. To overcome the computational challenges of treating operational decisions within a multi‐period decision making framework, we also propose a decomposition approach to accelerate the computational time needed to solve larger instances. We conduct a case study based on real power consumption, power generation, and location network data from Cambridge, MA. Our mathematical models and the underlying algorithmic framework can be used in operational and strategic planning studies on smart grids to incentivize the communitarian distributed renewable energy generation and to improve the self‐consumption and self‐sufficiency of the energy sharing community. The models are also targeted to policymakers of smart cities, utility companies, and Energy Service Companies as the proposed models support decision making on renewable energy related projects investments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it