MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404692935 · doi:10.3390/en17235905

Impact of Electric Vehicles Charging on Urban Residential Power Distribution Networks

2024· article· en· W4404692935 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohamed El-Hendawi, Zhanle Wang, Raman Paranjape, James Fick, Shea Pederson, Darcy Kozoriz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersMitacs
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)Automotive engineeringElectric vehiclePower (physics)Transport engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving transportation decarbonization and reducing carbon emissions are global initiatives that have attracted a lot of effort. The use of electric vehicles (EVs) has experienced a significant increase lately, which will have a considerable impact on current power systems. This study develops a framework to evaluate/mitigate the negative impact of increasing EV charging on urban power distribution systems. This framework includes data analytics of actual residential electrical load and EV charging profiles, and the development of optimal EV charging management and AC load flow models using an actual residential power distribution system in Saskatchewan, Canada. We use statistical methods to identify a statistically-extreme situation for a power system, which a power utility needs to prepare for. The philosophy is that if the power system can accommodate this situation, the power system will be stable 97.7% of the time. Simulation results show the house voltage and transformer loading at various EV penetration levels under this statistically-extreme situation. We also identify that the particular 22-house power distribution system can accommodate a maximum number of 11 EVs (representing 50% EV penetration) under this statistically-extreme situation. The results also show that the proposed optimal EV charging management model can reduce the peak demand by 43%. Since we use actual data for this study, it reflects the current real-world situation, which presents a useful reference for power utilities. The framework can also be used to evaluate/mitigate the impact of EV charging on power systems and optimize EV infrastructure development.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207