MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416585184 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5799558

Green hydrogen energy storage to support microgrid Arctic communities on the pathway to 100% renewable energy

2025· preprint· W4416585184 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Janke, Curran Crawford, Martha Lenio, Michael Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyMicrogridEnergy storageArcticWork (physics)Energy engineeringWind powerEnergy carrierEfficient energy use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote Arctic communities in Canada face significant challenges in transitioning from diesel-dependent energy systems to renewable alternatives. While wind, solar, and battery technologies enable renewable energy penetration (REP) up to approximately 60%, exceeding this level requires long-duration energy storage. This study evaluates the potential of green hydrogen energy storage to support Arctic microgrids on the pathway to 100% REP using an optimization model and a community case study. This evaluated the least-cost designs for REP targets from 50% to 100%, comparing scenarios with and without hydrogen energy storage. The analysis incorporated operational constraints including minimum load ratio, ramping limitations, and compression requirements, as well as a cost sensitivity analysis. Results demonstrate that hydrogen energy storage becomes economically attractive above 65% REP, providing substantial cost savings at high REP by reducing renewable generation over-sizing requirements. However, technological limitations, particularly minimum loading of fuel cells, prevent cost-effective achievement of 100% REP. Beyond economic benefits, the study identifies practical implementation challenges including harsh environmental conditions, logistical constraints, and local capacity. This work provides novel insights into hydrogen's potential role in Arctic microgrid decarbonization and identifies key technological and practical barriers that must be addressed for successful its implementation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207