Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Achieving Dispatchability in Data Centers: Carbon and Cost-Aware Sizing of Energy Storage and Local Photovoltaic Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a scenario-based multi-objective optimization can jointly size battery storage and local PV for a data center to minimize expected carbon and cost while keeping the site dispatchable day-ahead.

desk verdict A well-structured, location-aware PV+ESS sizing method with an honest limitations section, but a W^2 discrepancy between Eq. (4a) and Eq. (5) in the ESS calendar-aging carbon term means the headline reductions are not auditable as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13853 v3 pith:2UBVNKN6 submitted 2024-12-18 eess.SY cs.SY

Enea Figini , Mario Paolone This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 90C1590C25
keywords datacenterbatteryenergystoragephotovoltaicsizingdispatchabilitycarbonfootprintstochasticoptimizationmulti-objectivescenario-based
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the right size for a data center's co-located battery energy storage and photovoltaic plant is found by solving a scenario-based multi-objective optimization that minimizes expected carbon emissions and financial costs while forcing the site to track a day-ahead power profile. The framework accounts for life-cycle emissions of storage and PV, dynamically varying grid carbon intensity, day-ahead prices, and stochastic demand, irradiance, and prices through 84 typical days with 20 scenarios each. Case studies across Swiss cantons and German regions show the optimal ratings depend strongly on location: carbon reductions reach roughly 50% in Bavaria, about 4% in Neuchâtel, and are negative in Aargau, where forcing dispatchability increases emissions. A reader would care because data-center electricity demand is growing fast, and this gives operators a concrete, data-driven way to balance carbon goals, cost, and grid-friendliness.

What carries the argument

The central object is a scenario-based multi-objective convex optimization (Eq. 8) whose decision variables are the ESS rated energy and power (linked by a fixed power-to-energy ratio $r^{\mathrm{p2e}}_{\mathrm{ess}}$), the PV rated power, and the storage power trajectory across all scenarios. The load-bearing device is the dispatchability constraint (Eq. 3q, relaxed via tracking tolerance $\epsilon_t$ in Eqs. 11a–11c), which forces every scenario of a typical day to share the same day-ahead PCC power plan; together with per-scenario constraints on ESS dynamics, aging (calendar plus cycling via Eq. 6), ratings, and grid connection limits, it makes the expected carbon and cost objective (Eq. 1) solvable as a convex problem with continuous relaxation of the exclusivity variables.

What would settle it

Take the same data center and rerun the sizing on out-of-sample years (e.g., 2022 or 2024) or on a hold-out period with the same optimization; if the optimal BESS and PV ratings change by more than a few percent, or if the realized carbon reduction in Bavaria falls well short of roughly 50% under the prescribed day-ahead tracking policy, the central claim about location-driven sizing is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the sizing problem for a dispatchable data center — how many kilowatt-hours of battery and kilowatts of PV to install — can be cast as a convex stochastic program whose objective is a weighted sum of carbon-equivalent and financial costs. The paper establishes that embedding the day-ahead dispatch constraint (a tolerance on tracking a pre-computed PCC power profile) into the sizing stage jointly determines the asset ratings and the dispatch plan, and that the solutions are location-specific: BESS capacity can vary by up to 36 times between regions, with the largest carbon reductions where grid carbon intensity is high. It also shows that a fixed power-to-energy ratio of the battery, used to keep the formulation convex, is a user-tunable parameter that materially changes the cost and carbon outcome.

Load-bearing premise

The optimal sizes and carbon reductions are computed from 84 typical days built from a single year (2023) of historical data; if those scenarios do not represent future weather, prices, demand, and grid carbon intensity, the computed ratings and reductions will not materialize in operation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework is correct, data-center operators can size storage and PV for a chosen tracking accuracy, carbon weight $w$, and location, and obtain a Pareto front between carbon savings and cost.
  • In high-carbon grid regions like Bavaria, carbon reductions of roughly 50% are possible but come with a near-doubling of operational costs; in low-carbon regions like Aargau, forcing dispatchability can raise emissions, so local renewables do not always reduce footprint.
  • The optimal power-to-energy ratio $r^{\mathrm{p2e}}_{\mathrm{ess}}$ is location- and weight-dependent; sweeping this ratio gives a better design than the default unit ratio and can lower operational costs by a few percent.
  • Because the sizing stage and operation must share the same forecasting methods, changing the forecaster after the sizing stage invalidates the computed ratings and reductions.
  • The reported reduction percentages and capacity spreads are direct outputs of the scenario-based sizing; they are not guarantees for any single future year, as they depend on the 2023 historical data used to build scenarios.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Relaxing the fixed power-to-energy ratio would let the optimizer choose the ratio endogenously; the paper sweeps it as a parameter, so its reported 'optimal' ratios are a lower bound on what a full relaxation could achieve.
  • Because imbalance costs are excluded, the economic comparison understates the value of dispatchability; including imbalance penalties would likely increase optimal storage capacity in regions where tracking errors are costly.
  • The scenario-generation method is itself a design choice; the paper claims better forecasts would favor PV and reduce storage needs, which implies the 36x inter-region spread in capacity may partly reflect scenario-generation noise rather than pure locational economics.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same framework in a region with very high grid carbon intensity (for example, parts of the United States or India), where the model predicts carbon savings well above 50% and a larger PV share.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scenario-based stochastic optimization framework for jointly sizing a battery energy storage system (ESS) and a photovoltaic (PV) plant for an existing data center, with the dual objectives of reducing carbon footprint and achieving day-ahead dispatchability. The objective is a weighted sum of expected carbon costs (grid imports, ESS and PV life-cycle emissions) and financial costs (electricity bills, ESS/PV investment and operation). The formulation is a linear/continuous-relaxed optimization problem solved over 84 typical days with 20 scenarios per day, built from 2023 Swiss and German data. Case studies in three Swiss cantons and two German NUTS-1 regions show strong location dependence: optimal ESS/PV sizes vary by up to 36 times across regions, and the maximum expected carbon-footprint reduction is about 49.6% in Bayern, 14.7% in Schleswig-Holstein, 4% in Neuchâtel, 0.3% in Vaud, and -2.6% in Aargau. The paper concludes that dispatchability-oriented sizing must use geographically granular carbon-intensity and irradiance data.

Significance. If the inconsistencies identified below are resolved, the paper makes a useful contribution to data-center planning under carbon constraints. Its strengths are the explicit scenario-based stochastic formulation, the inclusion of both LCA-based embodied carbon and time-varying grid carbon intensity, the clear statement of working hypotheses, and the cross-regional comparison that demonstrates why location-aware sizing matters. The paper also provides useful sensitivity analyses with respect to the cost-carbon weight w and the ESS power-to-energy ratio. However, the reported quantitative reductions are in-sample expected values, no code or data is released, and there is a serious inconsistency in the printed ESS calendar-aging carbon term. These issues currently prevent the headline numerical claims from being independently audited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3.2, Eqs. (4a) and (5)] The calendar-aging term for ESS carbon emissions is inconsistent by a factor of W^2. As printed, Eq. (4a) gives E_ess^rated * C_ess^{e,LCA} / (W * L_ess^calendar), whereas Eq. (5) defines the same quantity as W * E_ess^rated * C_ess^{e,LCA} / L_ess^calendar. For the W=24 h horizon used in Section 3.4, the two expressions differ by a factor of 576. Because this term enters the objective minimized in Eq. (8), it directly affects the optimal ESS sizes and the carbon-reduction percentages reported in Section 4.2.1. Please correct Eq. (4a) to match Eq. (5) and state explicitly which formula was implemented, ideally by releasing the code or data; without this, the headline numerical results cannot be audited.
  2. [Sections 3.3 and 4.2.1] The reported reductions (up to 49.6% in Bayern, 14.7% in Schleswig-Holstein, 4% in Neuchâtel, and a 2.6% increase in Aargau) are in-sample expected values computed from 84 typical days generated from 2023 data with 20 scenarios per day. The paper itself states in Section 1.2 that forecasting methods significantly impact the results, yet no out-of-sample year or closed-loop dispatch is used to test whether these reductions materialize. The claims should be rephrased as conditional on the scenario-generation model, and an out-of-sample or sensitivity analysis should be added to support the quantitative conclusions.
  3. [Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3] The load model uses one month (May 2019) of Google cluster trace data, yet Section 3.3 describes seasonal clustering for the load. With a single month of data, seasonal load variability cannot be represented. Please clarify how the 84 typical days were constructed for the load variable, for instance whether the same May profile was replicated across seasons, and if so, discuss the implications for the sizing results, since cooling-related demand seasonality is relevant for data centers.
  4. [Remark 2 and constraints (10)] The continuous relaxation of the binary exclusivity variables does not by construction prevent simultaneous import/export at the PCC or simultaneous charge/discharge of the ESS. The paper should justify that the optimal solution of the relaxed problem satisfies exclusivity, for example because with p_inj = p_cons and carbon charged only on imports simultaneous flows are never strictly beneficial, or it should verify a posteriori in the reported case studies that exclusivity holds. This is an implementation-level correctness risk that should be resolved in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2.1] The abstract states a reduction of 'approximately 50% in Germany'; this is the regional maximum in Bayern, while another German region, Schleswig-Holstein, shows only a 14.7% reduction. Please clarify that the figure is a regional maximum rather than a country-level result.
  2. [Section 2.2 and 2.3.1] The problem is described as convex, but the notation includes binary variables z_ess and z_pcc; please state explicitly that the implemented and solved problem is the continuous relaxation and that the binary variables belong to the original MILP formulation.
  3. [Section 3.2.5] The LCA values are taken from Ecoinvent entries, but the system boundaries (for example, whether recycling or end-of-life stages are included) are not reported; a sentence with the chosen boundaries would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 3] The multi-panel figure is dense; adding panel labels and a short caption describing the left/right arrangement would help the reader map the subplots to the discussion in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
  5. [Nomenclature] The symbol P_rated_pcc appears twice in the glossary with slightly different descriptions; please unify the nomenclature to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: sizing outcomes are objective-function optima under stated scenario assumptions; the Eq. (4a)/(5) mismatch is a consistency and auditability issue, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a stochastic convex optimization problem (Eq. 8) minimizing Fobj (Eq. 1) over ESS and PV ratings subject to physical constraints O, auxiliary constraints A, and cost constraints F. The reported optimal capacities, the up-to-~50% carbon reduction in Bayern, the ~4% reduction in Neuchatel, and the cost increases are values of this explicit objective at the optimum relative to the same scenario set without DER; no target quantity is inserted as an input, so these numbers are not predictions forced by construction. Scenario construction (Section 3.3 and Appendix A) uses 2023 historical data, and the paper explicitly warns that forecasting methods significantly impact the results and that users must apply the same forecasting methods in operation (Section 1.2 footnote 6 and Section 2.4); that is a stated validation limitation, not circularity. Self-citations [31,32] from the same group only justify the W=24h market-horizon choice; [33] provides the PV irradiance-to-power linear relation and [34] the battery aging model, none of which presumes the sizing result. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, imported-uniqueness, or ansatz-smuggling pattern appears. One genuine issue is flagged for correctness rather than circularity: Eq. (4a) writes the ESS calendar-aging carbon term as Erated_ess/(W*Lcal)*C_LCA, while Eq. (5) and the surrounding text define the same quantity as W*Erated_ess/Lcal*C_LCA, a factor W^2=576 for W=24h. This inconsistency must be corrected before the quantitative claims can be audited, and the paper does not release code to resolve which formula was implemented; this is an implementation/consistency concern, not circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sizing results depend on several user-chosen parameters (w, rp2e_ess, epsilon_t) and on unvalidated domain assumptions about efficiency, PV modeling, scenario representativeness, and LCA inputs. None of these are fitted to data in a way that hides circularity, but they limit the generality of the reported numerical conclusions.

free parameters (4)
  • w (carbon-cost weight) = 0 to 4000 gCO2eq/CHF swept in case study
    User-defined weight balancing carbon and financial objectives in (1); swept in Section 4.2, and the results depend strongly on it.
  • rp2e_ess (ESS power-to-energy ratio) = 1 in most results; 0.1 to 0.25 as optimal in Section 4.3
    Input introduced in (7d) to convexify constraint (4d); set to 1 in most results and 0.1 to 0.25 in the optimal-ratio analysis of Section 4.3. Sizes are conditional on this ratio.
  • epsilon_t (dispatch tracking accuracy) = 1 kW (0.1%) for most results
    User-defined tracking tolerance in (11); Section 4.1 tests 1, 10 and 100 kW and then uses 1 kW (0.1%) for the rest of the paper.
  • rghi2p_gen (PV GHI-to-power slope)
    User-defined constant in PV model (3t) that sets the slope between irradiance and plant output; no value is reported.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption ESS round-trip efficiency is constant and power-independent.
    Stated in Section 2.1.2 working hypotheses; used in (3o) and (4a).
  • domain assumption PV curtailment is neglected; PV generation is a linear function of GHI.
    Section 2.1.2 and (3t); no temperature, soiling, or inverter losses are modeled, which may overestimate PV output.
  • domain assumption The data center complex is owned by a single entity with common objectives.
    Section 2.1.2; needed to aggregate costs and carbon in the objective function.
  • domain assumption Historical scenarios from 2023 (load, irradiance, prices, carbon intensity) are representative of future conditions for sizing.
    Section 3.3 and Appendix A; the paper notes forecasting methods significantly impact results but does not validate out of sample.
  • ad hoc to paper Big-M relaxation with continuous variables preserves exclusivity constraints.
    Remark 2 uses Big-M relaxation of binary variables; the paper warns that improper constants can lead to inaccurate solutions but does not verify them for the case study.
  • domain assumption LCA values from Ecoinvent and cost values from cited studies are accurate for the analyzed regions.
    Section 3.2.5; these values directly determine the optimal ratings and reduction percentages.
  • standard math The optimization problem is convex after the rp2e_ess relaxation and the solvers return valid optima.
    Section 2.3 and Section 3.1; no proof of convexity or solver verification is provided, but the formulation is standard.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Achieving Dispatchability in Data Centers: Carbon and Cost-Aware Sizing of Energy Storage and Local Photovoltaic Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UBVNKN6

@misc{pith2026241213853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Achieving Dispatchability in Data Centers: Carbon and Cost-Aware Sizing of Energy Storage and Local Photovoltaic Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UBVNKN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13853}
}
read the original abstract

Data centers are large electricity consumers due to the high consumption needs of servers and their cooling systems. Given the current crypto-currency and artificial intelligence trends, the data center electricity demand is bound to grow significantly. With the electricity sector being responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is important to lower the carbon footprint of data centers to meet GHG emissions targets set by international agreements. Moreover, uncontrolled integration of data centers in power distribution grids contributes to increasing the stochasticity of the power system demand, thus increasing the need for capacity reserves, which leads to economic and environmental inefficiencies in the power grid operation. This work provides a method to size a PhotoVoltaic (PV) system and an Energy Storage System (ESS) for an existing data center looking to reduce both its carbon footprint and demand stochasticity via dispatching. The proposed scenario-based optimization framework allows to size the ESS and the PV system to minimize the expected operational and capital costs, along with the carbon footprint of the data center complex. The life cycle assessment of the resources, as well as the dynamic carbon emissions of the upstream power distribution grid, are accounted for while computing the day-ahead planning of the data center aggregated demand and PV generation. Case studies in different Swiss cantons and regions of Germany emphasize the need for location-aware sizing processes since the obtained optimal solutions strongly depend on the local electricity carbon footprint, cost and on the local irradiance conditions. Some regions show potential in carbon footprint reduction, while other regions do not.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic view of the resources configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detailed first typical day of a carbon-only sizing in canton Neuchâtel, Switzerland (NE). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of decision variables and objectives with increasing w, for three Swiss cantons and two NUTS1 regions in Germany. at 100% state of charge, the battery can provide P rated ess for 1 h), which may not be the optimal ratio for some sizing problems. As discussed in Remark 3, the optimal ratio can be identified by performing multiple sizings with different values of r p2e ess and finding the ratio that leads to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of objectives with increasing power-to-energy ratio, for two regions. States, Germany, and Ireland (i.e., approximately 400 gCO2 eq/kWh), and 7.7 times larger in India (i.e., approximately 660 gCO2 eq/kWh). Sizing BESS and PV for dispatchable data centers in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eren Çam, Zoe Hungerford, Niklas Schoch, Francys Pinto Miranda, Carlos David Yáñez de León, Electricity 2024 - Analysis and forecast to 2026

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    URL https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/electricity-and-heat-co2-emissions-in-the- net-zero-scenario-2000-2030

    IEA, Electricity and heat CO2 emissions in the Net Zero Scenario, 2000-2030, (2023). URL https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/electricity-and-heat-co2-emissions-in-the- net-zero-scenario-2000-2030

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    URL https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement

    The Paris Agreement (2015). URL https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    P. C. Bhagwat, K. K. Iychettira, J. C. Richstein, E. J. Chappin, L. J. De Vries, The e ffectiveness of capacity markets in the presence of a high portfolio share of renewable energy sources, Utilities Policy 48 (2017) 76–91. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.003. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957178716300406

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.003 2017

  5. [5]

    ElCom, Équilibre dans les zones de réglage (Jul. 2024). URL https://www.elcom.admin.ch/elcom/fr/home/documentation/communications-de-l-elcom0.html

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Green data center advanced search on IEEEXplore. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?action=search&newsearch=true& matchBoolean=true&queryText=(%22All%20Metadata%22:data%20center)%20AND%20(%22All%20Metadata% 22:green)&ranges=2020_2024_Year

    work page

  7. [7]

    Y . Li, Y . Wen, D. Tao, K. Guan, Transforming Cooling Optimization for Green Data Center via Deep Reinforcement Learning, IEEE Trans- actions on Cybernetics 50 (5) (2020) 2002–2013. doi:10.1109/TCYB.2019.2927410. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8772127/

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    H. Yuan, J. Bi, M. Zhou, Q. Liu, A. C. Ammari, Biobjective Task Scheduling for Distributed Green Data Centers, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 18 (2) (2021) 731–742. doi:10.1109/TASE.2019.2958979. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8951255/

    arXiv 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Abdennadher, J

    Y . Abdennadher, J. Lindberg, B. C. Lesieutre, L. Roald, Carbon E fficient Placement of Data Center Locations, in: 2022 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), IEEE, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2022, pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/NAPS56150.2022.10012198. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/doc...

    2022

  2. [10]

    URL https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/google_2019-environmental-report.pdf

    Google Environmental Report (2019). URL https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/google_2019-environmental-report.pdf

    2019

  3. [11]

    URL https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RW1lmju

    Microsoft Environmental Sustainability Report (2024). URL https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RW1lmju

    2024

  4. [12]

    Bjørn, S

    A. Bjørn, S. M. Lloyd, M. Brander, H. D. Matthews, Renewable energy certificates threaten the integrity of corporate science-based targets, Nature Climate Change 12 (6) (2022) 539–546. doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01379-5 . URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01379-5

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/06/21/renewable-energy-credits- certificates-greenwashing/

    Shannon Osaka, Hailey Haymond, Buying renewable energy doesn’t mean what you think (2023). URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/06/21/renewable-energy-credits- certificates-greenwashing/

    2023

  6. [14]

    URL https://www.electricitymaps.com/reports-and-guides/carbon-accounting-report

    Carbon Accounting Report: Increase Accuracy with Granular Data. URL https://www.electricitymaps.com/reports-and-guides/carbon-accounting-report

  7. [15]

    X. Luo, J. Wang, M. Dooner, J. Clarke, Overview of current development in electrical energy storage technologies and the application potential in power system operation, Applied Energy 137 (2015) 511–536. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.081. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/...

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Schmidt, I

    O. Schmidt, I. Sta ffell, Monetizing Energy Storage, 2023. URL https://academic.oup.com/book/55104

    2023

  9. [17]

    Emrani, A

    A. Emrani, A. Berrada, A comprehensive review on techno-economic assessment of hybrid energy storage systems integrated with renewable energy, Journal of Energy Storage 84 (2024) 111010. doi:10.1016/j.est.2024.111010. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352152X24005942

    2024

  10. [18]

    L. A. Roald, D. Pozo, A. Papavasiliou, D. K. Molzahn, J. Kazempour, A. Conejo, Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A review of methods and applications, Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108725. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108725. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier...

    2023

  11. [19]

    M. Wu, R. Yan, J. Zhang, J. Fan, J. Wang, Z. Bai, Y . He, G. Cao, K. Hu, An enhanced stochastic optimization for more flexibility on integrated energy system with flexible loads and a high penetration level of renewables, Renewable Energy 227 (2024) 120502. doi: 10.1016/j.rene...

    2024

  12. [20]

    C. Guo, F. Luo, Z. Cai, Z. Y . Dong, R. Zhang, Integrated planning of internet data centers and battery energy storage systems in smart grids, Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116093. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116093. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030626192031518X

    2021

  13. [21]

    P. Yong, Z. Yang, H. Jiang, N. Zhang, C. Kang, Scheduling IDC-based virtual power plants considering backup power, Electric Power Systems Research 234 (2024) 110673. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2024.110673. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378779624005595

    2024

  14. [22]

    F. Kong, X. Liu, GreenPlanning: Optimal Energy Source Selection and Capacity Planning for Green Datacenters, in: 2016 ACM /IEEE 7th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), IEEE, Vienna, Austria, 2016, pp. 1–10. doi:10.1109/ICCPS.2016. 7479104. URL http://ie...

    2016

  15. [23]

    C. C. Thompson, P. E. Konstantinos Oikonomou, A. H. Etemadi, V . J. Sorger, Optimization of Data Center Battery Storage Investments 23 E. Figini et al. / Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 00 (2025) 1–25 24 for Microgrid Cost Savings, Emissions Reduction, and Reliability E...

    2025

  16. [24]

    P. Wang, L. Xie, Y . Lu, Z. Ding, Day-ahead emission-aware resource planning for data center considering energy storage and batch workloads, in: 2017 IEEE Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System Integration (EI2), IEEE, Beijing, 2017, pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/EI2. 2017.824...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Rahmani, I

    R. Rahmani, I. Moser, A. Cricenti, Modelling and optimisation of microgrid configuration for green data centres: A metaheuristic approach, Future Generation Computer Systems 108 (2020) 742–750. doi:10.1016/j.future.2020.03.013. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/...

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    H. Dou, Y . Qi, W. Wei, H. Song, Carbon-Aware Electricity Cost Minimization for Sustainable Data Centers, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing 2 (2) (2017) 211–223. doi:10.1109/TSUSC.2017.2711925. URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7938380/

    2017

  19. [27]

    Radovanovic, R

    A. Radovanovic, R. Koningstein, I. Schneider, B. Chen, A. Duarte, B. Roy, D. Xiao, M. Haridasan, P. Hung, N. Care, S. Talukdar, E. Mullen, K. Smith, M. Cottman, W. Cirne, Carbon-Aware Computing for Datacenters, version Number: 1 (2021).doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2106. 11750. URL https...

    2021 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    L. Lin, A. A. Chien, Adapting Datacenter Capacity for Greener Datacenters and Grid, in: Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems, ACM, Orlando FL USA, 2023, pp. 200–213. doi:10.1145/3575813.3595197. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/357581...

    2023

  21. [29]

    B. Acun, B. Lee, F. Kazhamiaka, K. Maeng, M. Chakkaravarthy, U. Gupta, D. Brooks, C.-J. Wu, Carbon Explorer: A Holistic Approach for Designing Carbon Aware DatacentersPublisher: arXiv Version Number: 3. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2201.10036. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10036

    doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ollas, T

    P. Ollas, T. Thiringer, M. Persson, C. Markusson, Battery loss prediction using various loss models: A case study for a residential building, Journal of Energy Storage 70 (2023) 108048. doi:10.1016/j.est.2023.108048. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352152X23014457

    2023

  23. [31]

    Sossan, E

    F. Sossan, E. Namor, R. Cherkaoui, M. Paolone, Achieving the Dispatchability of Distribution Feeders Through Prosumers Data Driven Forecasting and Model Predictive Control of Electrochemical Storage, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy 7 (4) (2016) 1762–1777. doi:10.1109/T...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Gupta, S

    R. Gupta, S. Fahmy, M. Paolone, Coordinated day-ahead dispatch of multiple power distribution grids hosting stochastic resources: An ADMM-based framework, Electric Power Systems Research 212 (2022) 108555. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108555. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ret...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Richardson, D

    W. Richardson, D. Cañadillas, A. Moncada, R. Guerrero-Lemus, L. Shephard, R. Vega-Avila, H. Krishnaswami, Validation of All-Sky Imager Technology and Solar Irradiance Forecasting at Three Locations: NREL, San Antonio, Texas, and the Canary Islands, Spain, Applied Sciences 9 (4...

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Schmalstieg, S

    J. Schmalstieg, S. Käbitz, M. Ecker, D. U. Sauer, A holistic aging model for Li(NiMnCo)O2 based 18650 lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources 257 (2014) 325–334. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.02.012. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378775314001876

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    Cococcioni, L

    M. Cococcioni, L. Fiaschi, The Big-M method with the numerical infinite M, Optimization Letters 15 (7) (2021) 2455–2468. doi:10. 1007/s11590-020-01644-6 . URL https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11590-020-01644-6

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Diamond, S

    S. Diamond, S. Boyd, CVXPY: A Python-Embedded Modeling Language for Convex Optimization

  29. [37]

    Wilkes, Yet more Google compute cluster trace data, place: Mountain View, CA, USA Published: Google research blog (Apr

    J. Wilkes, Yet more Google compute cluster trace data, place: Mountain View, CA, USA Published: Google research blog (Apr. 2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Sakalkar, V

    V . Sakalkar, V . Kontorinis, D. Landhuis, S. Li, D. De Ronde, T. Blooming, A. Ramesh, J. Kennedy, C. Malone, J. Clidaras, P. Ranganathan, Data Center Power Oversubscription with a Medium V oltage Power Plane and Priority-Aware Capping, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Inte...

    2020

  31. [39]

    URL https://docs.emissium.tech

    Emissium, Emissium Docs. URL https://docs.emissium.tech

  32. [40]

    URL https://newtransparency.entsoe.eu/market/energyPrices

    ENTSOE, Day-ahead market prices 2022-2023 (2023). URL https://newtransparency.entsoe.eu/market/energyPrices

    2023

  33. [41]

    URL https://www.romande-energie.ch/images/files/prix-electricite/2024_prix-electricite_re.pdf

    Romande Énergie, Tarifs d’Électricité 2024 (2024). URL https://www.romande-energie.ch/images/files/prix-electricite/2024_prix-electricite_re.pdf

    2024

  34. [42]

    URL https://ads.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/cams-solar-radiation-timeseries? tab=overview

    Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS, CAMS solar radiation time-series. URL https://ads.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/cams-solar-radiation-timeseries? tab=overview

  35. [43]

    Z. Qu, A. Oumbe, P. Blanc, B. Espinar, G. Gesell, L. Klüser, M. Lefèvre, L. Saboret, L. Wald, Fast radiative transfer parameterisation for assessing the surface solar irradiance: The Heliosat-4 method, Meteorol. Z.doi:10.1127/metz/2016/0781

    doi

  36. [44]

    Schroedter-Homscheidt, F

    M. Schroedter-Homscheidt, F. Azam, J. Betcke, N. Hanrieder, M. Lefèvre, L. Saboret, Surface solar irradiation retrieval from MSG /SEVIRI based on APOLLO Next Generation and HELIOSAT-4 methods, Meteorol. Z.doi:10.1127/metz/2022/1132

    doi

  37. [45]

    Wernet, C

    G. Wernet, C. Bauer, B. Steubing, J. Reinhard, E. Moreno-Ruiz, B. Weidema, The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21 (9) (2016) 1218–1230. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 . 24 E. Figini et al. / Sus...

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    URL https://ecoquery.ecoinvent.org/3.10/cutoff/dataset/7007/documentation

    Dominic Notter, battery production, Li-ion, LiMn2O4, rechargeable, prismatic. URL https://ecoquery.ecoinvent.org/3.10/cutoff/dataset/7007/documentation

  39. [47]

    URL https://ecoquery.ecoinvent.org/3.10/cutoff/dataset/4919/impact_assessment

    Niels Jungbluth, photovoltaic flat-roof installation, 3kWp, multi-Si, on roof. URL https://ecoquery.ecoinvent.org/3.10/cutoff/dataset/4919/impact_assessment

  40. [48]

    J. H. Yi, Dispatch-aware Optimal Planning of Active Distribution Networks including Energy Storage Systems doi:10.5075/EPFL- THESIS-9487. URL http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/300207

    doi

  41. [49]

    Bäuerle, S

    Christian Bauer, Stefan Hirschberg, Y . Bäuerle, S. Biollaz, A. Calbry-Muzyka, B. Cox, T. Heck, M. Lehnert, A. Meier, H.-M. Prasser, W. Schenler, K. Treyer, F. V ogel, H.C. Wieckert, X. Zhang, M. Zimmermann, V . Burg, G. Bowman, M. Erni, M. Saar, M.Q. Tran, Potentials, costs a...

  42. [50]

    Glasserman, Monte Carlo methods in financial engineering, softcover version of original hardcover ed

    P. Glasserman, Monte Carlo methods in financial engineering, softcover version of original hardcover ed. 2003 Edition, no. 53 in Applications of mathematics : stochastic modelling and applied probability, Springer, New York, NY , 2010

    2003

  43. [51]

    Lloyd, Least squares quantization in PCM, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 28 (2) (1982) 129–137

    S. Lloyd, Least squares quantization in PCM, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 28 (2) (1982) 129–137. doi:10.1109/TIT. 1982.1056489. URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1056489/

    1982

  44. [52]

    URL https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/CH 25

    ElectricityMaps, Electricity carbon intensity. URL https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/CH 25

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.