Sustainable Wind Energy Security: Assessing the Impact of False Data Injection on Wind Turbine Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the global transition to sustainable energy accelerates, wind power remains pivotal in reducing carbon emissions and achieving renewable energy targets. However, greater reliance on wind energy systems increases susceptibility to cyberattacks, notably False Data Injection (FDI) attacks, which manipulate operational data and undermine the decision-making critical for efficient energy production. This study introduces a novel analytical framework to assess the impact of FDI attacks on variable-speed wind turbine output power. Simulations, conducted using a MATLAB-based induction generator model, evaluate the effects of injecting false data into parameters such as wind speed, blade pitch angle, and generator angular speed. Results demonstrate that FDI attacks targeting wind speed induce significant power output deviations, causing decision-making errors that threaten operational reliability. In contrast, pitch angle manipulations have negligible effects on power generation. These findings emphasize the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures to protect wind energy infrastructure from evolving cyber-threats. This research advocates advanced detection and mitigation strategies to enhance system resilience, ensuring wind power’s role in a low-carbon future. By identifying critical vulnerabilities, the analysis informs policymakers and industry stakeholders, guiding investments in cybersecurity to safeguard renewable energy systems. Such efforts are essential to maintain operational stability and support global sustainability goals, reinforcing wind power’s contribution to clean energy transitions.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".