MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W441340 · doi:10.15173/esr.v14i2.494

The Economics of Energy Storage in 14 Deregulated Power Markets

2006· article· en· W441340 on OpenAlex
F. Cristina Figueiredo, Peter C. Flynn, Edgar A. Cabral

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Studies Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveInvestment (military)Energy storageRevenueEconomicsBusinessMicroeconomicsMonetary economicsPower (physics)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a regulated market large scale storage of electrical energy, for example by pumped storage, time shifts the generation of power and has been used to defer generation investment. In a deregulated market power storage, when used for energy rather than as a source of spinning or standby reserve or frequency control, is a simple economic proposition: power is purchased during periods of low price and regenerated and resold during period s of high price . In this study historical diurnal price pattern s in 14 deregulated markets are analyzed to give an initial prediction of the economic incentive for energy storage. We rank the 14 markets based on available revenue and potential return on investment: the incentive to store energy varies significantly between markets. The differences between markets arise because of different diurnal pattern s of power price. Diurnal price patterns in turn reflect a comp lex set of factors in a market , including generation mix , market design and participant behaviours.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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