MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stochastic Planning of a Campus Microgrid Considering Practical CHP and Market Constraints

2025· article· W4416342061 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Masoud Hajian Foroushani, Mostafa Farrokhabadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMicrogridPhotovoltaic systemSizingStochastic programmingStochastic optimizationElectricityDistributed generationKey (lock)Stochastic modellingElectricity market

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a stochastic planning framework to determine the optimal sizing of BESS and PV for campus microgrids based on realistic data obtained from the University of Calgary campus microgrid. This grid-connected microgrid includes a combined heat and power (CHP) plant and a 400 kW solar photovoltaic (PV) system. Driven by campus mandates for efficiency, reliability, and sustainability, the planning framework studies and identifies the optimal investment scenario for upgrading the existing PV capacity and incorporating a battery energy storage system (BESS). The practical framework integrates the operational intricacies of the CHP plant and the modeling complexities of the Alberta electricity market, including the pool price and the nonlinear transmission and distribution fees (T&D). By considering various stochastic scenarios regarding electricity price, load growth, and gas price, the study develops a daily optimization approach to consider the intricacies of the electricity market, formulating the optimization framework as a mixed-integer linear programming stochastic problem. Reported key performance metrics include the net present cost (NPC) and the saving-to-investment ratio (SIR) over the planning horizon. Results support investing in distributed energy resources (DERs) to reduce the supplied cost of energy.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207