Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Choosing the Right Battery Model for Data Center Simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A linear battery model that accounts for charging inefficiencies and power limits closely tracks physics-based battery models in short-term data center microgrid simulations, while running orders of magnitude faster.

desk verdict Worth a look for the Vessim storage interface and the runtime numbers; read the accuracy claim with a grain of salt because it is a PyBaMM-calibrated surrogate compared against PyBaMM, with no quantitative SoC error bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17739 v1 pith:Z3R7UNRU submitted 2025-06-21 cs.DC

Paul Kilian , Philipp Wiesner , Odej Kao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords batterymodelingenergystoragecarbon-awarecomputingmicrogridco-simulationdatacenterlithium-ionsustainable
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 tries to settle a practical choice for researchers who simulate data center microgrids with battery storage: which battery model is accurate enough without slowing the simulation to a crawl. It argues that a linear model that accounts for charging inefficiencies and power limits—called the C-L-C model—closely tracks the behavior of full electrochemical battery models over short simulated experiments, while running hundreds of times faster and needing only product-sheet parameters. The simple lossless model that many simulators default to, by contrast, diverges from the physics-based models and gains no runtime advantage. If this holds, most short-term co-simulation studies of carbon-aware computing can safely use the linear model and reserve electrochemistry for long-term questions like degradation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the C-L-C linear storage model: it tracks stored energy as $b(t)=b(t-1)+\eta_c p_s(t)d_s(t)$ when charging and $b(t-1)+\eta_d p_s(t)d_s(t)$ when discharging, with fixed efficiency factors $\eta_c$ and $\eta_d$, and it enforces (dis)charge power limits through linear energy-bound curves parameterized from cell specifications. The paper couples this model to a discrete-event co-simulation through a storage interface with a battery-management system and a microgrid policy that decides how much of the power delta the battery should absorb or supply. The argument works because the model's parameters are calibrated against the same physics-based cell model that later serves as the accuracy reference, and because the comparison is restricted to short-term behavior where a constant-voltage approximation is reasonable.

What would settle it

Repeat the two-day data center scenario on a physical INR21700 M50 battery pack or a testbed with a real cell, logging actual state of charge and grid energy; if the real battery's net grid energy differs from the C-L-C model by substantially more than the 8.5 percent gap the paper reports against the physics model, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gap between a linear, specification-driven battery model and a detailed physics-based model is small for the time horizons that data center microgrid experiments actually use. The paper implements four models—a lossless energy counter, the C-L-C linear model with constant inefficiencies and linear power limits, a single-cell electrochemistry model, and a full battery-pack circuit-plus-chemistry model—and compares their state-of-charge traces and grid energy exchange over constant-power runs and a two-day simulated data center. The C-L-C model reproduces the physics-based models' state-of-charge progression across charging and discharging rates and lands within about 8.5 percent of their net grid energy in the two-day scenario. The lossless model misses the grid energy by over 40 percent because it ignores inefficiencies. The paper concludes that the linear model is sufficient for most short-term co-simulations, that the pack-level circuit model adds little for short experiments, and that the physics-based models are hard to justify there outside degradation studies.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison treats a physics-based simulation of one lithium-ion cell as the truth against which the linear model is judged, so if that simulator's parameters do not reflect a real battery's behavior, the claimed closeness of the linear model is unproven for real hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers extending the co-simulation testbed can default to the C-L-C model for experiments lasting hours to a few days and expect its grid-energy estimate to stay within roughly 8 percent of an electrochemical model.
  • The lossless battery model should not be used in energy-management studies; its more than 40 percent grid-energy error in the two-day scenario is large enough to change management conclusions.
  • For short experiments, modeling a full battery pack's circuit adds negligible accuracy over a single scaled cell, so pack-level models can be skipped unless pack imbalances or real-time stepping are the question.
  • The common interface lets a simulator swap models without changing controllers, so the same experiment can be run at different fidelity levels and the model choice can be justified by runtime budget.
  • Runtime overhead of the C-L-C model is tiny (about 196 microseconds per step) compared with about 7.65 milliseconds for single-cell electrochemistry and about 0.095 seconds for a 16S16P pack, making large parameter sweeps feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to test whether the C-L-C model's closeness survives other cell chemistries or temperatures; the paper's calibration uses a single lithium-ion cell parameterization, so the 8 percent grid-energy figure is not yet a universal bound.
  • The paper's implicit recommendation—use linear models for short experiments and electrochemistry only for degradation—suggests building a hybrid that runs the linear model in the hot loop and periodically corrects it with an electrochemical model, or switches to the physics model when state-of-health questions arise.
  • Because the battery interface separates the policy from the storage model, controllers that work with the linear model should transfer unchanged to the physics models, making the interface itself a reusable artifact for comparing energy-management algorithms.
  • If real-cell validation later confirms the C-L-C approximation, default simulation stacks for carbon-aware scheduling studies could drop electrochemistry entirely, removing a major barrier to reproducing those experiments.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Vessim co-simulation framework with a common battery interface and implements four battery models: SimpleBattery, CLCBattery (a linear C-L-C model with inefficiencies and power limits), PybammBattery (a single-particle model with electrolyte via PyBaMM), and LiionBatteryPack (PyBaMM plus liionpack circuit solving). The authors evaluate SoC trajectories under constant charge/discharge at various C-rates and in a two-day data center microgrid scenario, and measure per-step runtime. They argue that CLCBattery closely matches the physics-based models in short-term experiments with much lower runtime, while SimpleBattery is inaccurate and offers no runtime advantage.

Significance. The practical question addressed—which battery model to use in data center co-simulations—is timely, and the modular interface is a useful engineering contribution. The runtime measurements are clean, obtained on a single node with comparable methodology, and show a clear 500x gap between linear and pack-level circuit models. The paper also honestly discloses limitations of physics-based SoC estimation. However, the accuracy claim is weakened by a calibration-and-comparison loop within PyBaMM and by the absence of quantitative SoC error metrics; only aggregate grid-energy differences (1.9%, 8.5%, 41.5% in Section 5.2) are numeric. These issues are local, not fundamental, and can be addressed with additional analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 5.1 and 5.2] The central claim that CLCBattery 'closely matches' the behavior of physics-based models is not quantitatively supported for the SoC trajectories. Section 5.1 explicitly states that 'we cannot exactly quantify the SoC differences,' and Figure 8 shows a single deterministic run without error bars or uncertainty bounds. To make the headline claim measurable, the authors should report quantitative error metrics for the SoC traces (e.g., RMSE and maximum absolute deviation over time for each scenario and C-rate), together with a description of how SoC estimation error in the complex models is accounted for. Without such metrics, the claim remains an impression based on visual inspection.
  2. [Sections 4.2 and 5] The close agreement between CLCBattery and the physics-based models is partly a calibration artifact: the CLC inefficiency factors and linear energy limits are fitted to PyBaMM simulations in Section 4.2, and PyBaMM-based models are then used as the reference in Section 5. To break this circularity, the authors should validate CLCBattery against an independent reference, such as the experimentally measured cell data from Chen et al. [11] or a separate experimental SoC dataset, for at least one scenario. Alternatively, the claim in the abstract and Section 6 should be explicitly restricted to 'CLCBattery approximates PyBaMM's single-particle model,' rather than implying general agreement with complex battery behavior.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4)] The power-limit inequality as written is ambiguous and appears dimensionally inconsistent. If the energy limits a1(I) and a2(I) are expressed in Wh and I in A, then u1 has units V·h, so the term u1·V in the denominator has units V^2·h, while d_s·η_d has units h, making the two terms incompatible. The authors should define all variables with units, add explicit parentheses to the fraction, and show the derivation from the C-L-C energy limits to confirm that the implementation follows the intended constraints. This is important because an implementation error in Eq. (4) would directly affect the CLCBattery's behavior and the validity of the comparison.
  4. [Section 6 (Discussion)] The generalization that CLCBattery 'is applicable for most use-cases utilizing microgrid simulation over a short time-frame' goes beyond the evidence presented. The evaluation uses a single cell chemistry (INR21700 M50), a single pack configuration (16S16P) for the data center scenario, and a single two-day weather trace and control policy. To support this broader claim, the authors should add at least a few variants, such as different pack sizes, different operating SoC ranges, or a multi-day scenario, or explicitly temper the generality statement to what the experiments actually cover.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2 (Related Work)] The phrase 'way too simple battery models' is informal and should be replaced with a more neutral formulation such as 'overly simple battery models.'
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'PyBaMM simulations, determined the constant inefficiency factors...' is a grammatical fragment; it should be reworded, for example, to 'PyBaMM simulations were used to determine the constant inefficiency factors...'.
  3. [Section 5.1 (Charging paragraph)] In the discussion of charging above the 0.7C limit, the text says 'resulting in an even slower discharge'; this should read 'slower charge'.
  4. [Section 5.3] The phrase 'battery pack imitated using the LiionBatteryPack model' should be 'simulated using the LiionBatteryPack model.'
  5. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'Each microgrid can consist of multiple simulator responsible for...' has a grammar error; 'simulator' should be 'simulators.'
  6. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is dense and difficult to read at the published size; consider enlarging it or providing a simplified schematic of the 4S4P pack topology.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

CLCBattery's parameters are fitted to PyBaMM and then judged against PyBaMM's own SoC traces, making the headline 'closely match' partly a calibration artifact, though the runtime and grid-energy comparisons retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Battery Models introduction; Section 4.2 (Eqs. 2, 5); evaluated in Section 5.1 (Figs. 5-6)]
    "The simple models are parameterized using PyBaMM simulations next to the cells' product specifications to ensure comparability between the different models, and to determine whether the simple linear models are able to capture the physics-based models' behavior. ... PyBaMM simulations, determined the constant inefficiency factors η_c and η_d based the internal battery resistance R_i using the formula described by Kazhamiaka et al. [22]. ..."

    The CLC model's inefficiency factors (η_c, η_d) and energy-limit coefficients (a1, a2) are fitted from PyBaMM simulations of the INR21700 M50 cell. Section 5 then uses the PyBaMM-based PybammBattery and LiionBatteryPack as the reference to conclude that 'The CLCBattery achieves fairly accurate results relative to the PybammBattery and the LiionBatteryPack.' Thus the claimed close SoC match is, to a substantial degree, a calibration artifact: the surrogate was constructed from the same simulator that serves as the ground truth.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (SimpleBattery capacity) and Section 5.1 (Discharging, Fig. 5)]
    "A complete discharge at 0.2C of a single cell returned an energy of C = 18.87 Wh in a PyBaMM simulation compared to the 18.20 Wh that is listed in the product specification. This value is just multiplied by the number of cells to get the total energy capacity C of a battery pack."

    SimpleBattery's capacity C is taken from a PyBaMM discharge experiment, so its discharge SoC curve is anchored to the total energy PyBaMM delivers; the paper itself observes that SimpleBattery and CLCBattery 'produce almost the same traces, as both of their capacities were obtained using the drawn energy received by PyBaMM discharging experiments.' This specific agreement is by construction. It is not the main success claim, since the paper concludes SimpleBattery is inaccurate for charging and grid energy, so this step is minor.

full rationale

The main circularity is the calibration/validation loop around PyBaMM. In Section 4, the SimpleBattery capacity, CLCBattery inefficiency factors, and CLCBattery energy-limit coefficients are all determined from PyBaMM simulations of the INR21700 M50 cell. In Section 5, the same PyBaMM-based PybammBattery and LiionBatteryPack are used as the reference models to claim that CLCBattery 'achieves fairly accurate results' and that SimpleBattery fails. The close SoC match of CLCBattery is therefore partly a construction of the chosen reference: a surrogate fitted to a simulator will, by design, resemble that simulator. This is a genuine fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, but it is only partial circularity. The CLC model itself is external (Kazhamiaka et al. [22]), the parameterization is sparse (single constants and linear energy limits), and the evaluation spans C-rates and a two-day dynamic scenario beyond the specific fit points, so the match is not mathematically forced. The runtime comparison and the aggregate grid-energy differences (1.9%, 8.5%, 41.5%) are independent of the calibration. The paper's own caveat that 'we cannot exactly quantify the SoC differences' because of inaccurate SoC estimation in the complex models further weakens the headline claim but is not itself circularity. No load-bearing self-citation was found: the citations to Vessim [44] and Wiesner et al. [47] support the integration architecture and scenario, not the battery-model accuracy. Overall score 4: one moderate calibration-based circularity with independent content remaining in the central conclusion.

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

The paper rests on two modeling decisions: PyBaMM is treated as ground truth, and cell behavior is scaled linearly to packs. The CLC parameters are fitted from PyBaMM, which makes the accuracy comparison partly circular. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • eta_d (discharge efficiency) = 1.014
    Constant discharge inefficiency in Eq. (2), fixed as the value of Eq. (5) at 0.2C from a PyBaMM simulation (Section 4.2).
  • eta_c (charge efficiency) = 0.978
    Constant charge inefficiency in Eq. (2), fixed as the value of Eq. (5) at 0.3C from a PyBaMM simulation (Section 4.2).
  • Lower energy limit coefficients a1(I) = u1*I + v1 = u1 = -0.087, v1 = 0
    Fit to PyBaMM simulation to define discharge energy limits used in Eq. (4).
  • Upper energy limit coefficients a2(I) = u2*I + v2 = u2 = -1.326, v2 = 19.14
    Fit to PyBaMM simulation to define charge energy limits used in Eq. (4).
  • Cell capacity C = 18.87 Wh per cell
    Taken from a PyBaMM 0.2C discharge rather than the 18.20 Wh product specification, and used in Eq. (1) for both SimpleBattery and CLCBattery.
  • Nominal voltage V = 3.63 V
    Product specification input used for the constant voltage assumption in Eqs. (3), (4), and (5).
  • Current limits alpha_c, alpha_d = 0.7C charge, 1.5C discharge
    Product specification and operating limits used in Eq. (3) and in the power limit computation for the physics-based models.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PyBaMM's Single Particle Model with electrolyte, parameterized by Chen et al. for INR21700 M50 cells, is an accurate enough representation of a real battery to serve as ground truth for model comparison.
    Sections 4.3 and 5 use PyBaMM both to calibrate the CLC model and to judge CLC accuracy, so external validity depends on PyBaMM fidelity.
  • domain assumption A single-cell simulation scaled linearly to packs is a valid representation of a homogeneous battery pack.
    PybammBattery divides input power by cell count in Section 4.3, and CLC scales constraints linearly in Section 4.2, assuming identical cells and no inter-cell imbalance.
  • domain assumption A power-based interface, rather than current-based, is sufficient for co-simulated microgrid battery control.
    Section 3.2 explicitly chooses power as the main input because Vessim conducts power flow analysis; this drives the design of the storage interface.
  • standard math The numerical solvers in PyBaMM and liionpack faithfully integrate the electrochemical and circuit equations.
    The paper relies on these libraries as trusted computational engines, with no independent verification of their solver accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Choosing the Right Battery Model for Data Center Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z3R7UNRU

@misc{pith2026250617739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Choosing the Right Battery Model for Data Center Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z3R7UNRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17739}
}
read the original abstract

As demand for computing resources continues to rise, the increasing cost of electricity and anticipated regulations on carbon emissions are prompting changes in data center power systems. Many providers are now operating compute nodes in microgrids, close to renewable power generators and energy storage, to maintain full control over the cost and origin of consumed electricity. Recently, new co-simulation testbeds have emerged that integrate domain-specific simulators to support research, development, and testing of such systems in a controlled environment. Yet, choosing an appropriate battery model for data center simulations remains challenging, as it requires balancing simulation speed, realism, and ease of configuration. In this paper, we implement four different battery models for data center scenarios within the co-simulation framework Vessim and analyze their behavior. The results show that linear models, which consider inefficiencies and power limits, closely match the behavior of complex physics-based models in short-term experiments while offering faster execution, and not requiring knowledge on electrochemical reactions and circuit-level dynamics. In contrast, simple, lossless models fail to accurately represent complex behavior and provide no further runtime advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Co-simulation architecture for step-wise execution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of a 4S4P battery pack, as obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relation between the battery cell’s State-of-Charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power limits for charging and discharging based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Behavior of the models when discharged at constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Power production, consumption, and power delta, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Behavior of the models when charged at constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Exchanged power with the grid over the experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Chang-Hui Chen, Ferran Brosa Planella, Kieran O’regan, Dominika Gastol, W Dhammika Widanage, and Emma Kendrick. 2020. Development of ex- perimental techniques for parameterization of multi-scale lithium-ion battery models. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 167, 8 (2020), 080534. https: //doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ab9050

    doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ab9050 2020

  2. [1]

    Omid Abrishambaf, Pedro Faria, Luis Gomes, João Spínola, Zita Vale, and Juan M Corchado. 2017. Implementation of a real-time microgrid simulation platform based on centralized and distributed management. Energies 10, 6 (2017), 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10060806

    work page doi:10.3390/en10060806 2017

  3. [2]

    Bilge Acun, Benjamin Lee, Fiodar Kazhamiaka, Kiwan Maeng, Udit Gupta, Manoj Chakkaravarthy, David Brooks, and Carole-Jean Wu. 2023. Carbon Explorer: A Holistic Framework for Designing Carbon Aware Datacenters. In ASPLOS. https://doi.org/10.1145/3575693.3575754

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Marquis, Pedro Ascencio, and David Howey

    Antti Aitio, Scott G. Marquis, Pedro Ascencio, and David Howey. 2020. Bayesian Parameter Estimation Applied to the Li-ion Battery Single Particle Model with Electrolyte Dynamics. IFAC-PapersOnLine 53, 2 (2020), 12497–12504. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1770

    doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1770 2020

  5. [4]

    Ahmad Alzahrani, Mehdi Ferdowsi, Pourya Shamsi, and Cihan H Dagli. 2017. Modeling and simulation of microgrid. Procedia Computer Science 114 (2017), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.09.053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.09.053 2017

  6. [5]

    Thomas Anderson, Adam Belay, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Asaf Cidon, and Irene Zhang. 2022. Treehouse: A Case For Carbon-Aware Datacenter Software. In Workshop on Sustainable Computer Systems Design and Implementation (HotCar- bon). https://doi.org/10.1145/3630614.3630626

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Abdelmoniem

    Amna Arouj and Ahmed M. Abdelmoniem. 2022. Towards energy-aware fed- erated learning on battery-powered clients. In 1st ACM Workshop on Data Pri- vacy and Federated Learning Technologies for Mobile Edge Network (FedEdge ’22) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3556557.3557952

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Noman Bashir, Tian Guo, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, David Irwin, Prashant Shenoy, Ramesh Sitaraman, Abel Souza, and Adam Wierman. 2021. Enabling Sustainable Clouds: The Case for Virtualizing the Energy System. In ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC). https://doi.org/10.1145/3472883.3487009

    arXiv 2021

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Rohan Best, Paul J Burke, and Frank Jotzo. 2020. Carbon pricing efficacy: Cross- country evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 77, 1 (2020), 69–94

    2020

  2. [9]

    James K Boyce. 2018. Carbon pricing: effectiveness and equity. Ecological Economics 150 (2018), 52–61

    2018

  3. [10]

    Sylvain Cazard. 2022. Counting the Cost of Carbon: Why IT Efficiency Matters. VMWare. Retrieved May 2023 from https://news.vmware.com/esg/counting- carbon-it-efficiency-matters

    2022

  4. [12]

    Lisa Cohn. 2024. Microgrids Help Create Data Centers that Don’t Break the Grid or the Environment. Microgrid Knowledge (2024). https://www.microgridknowledge.com/data-center-microgrids/article/ 33038792/microgrids-help-create-data-centers-that-dont-break-the-grid-or- the-envir...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Payal Dhar. 2020. The carbon impact of artificial intelligence. Nature Machine Intelligence 2 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Paul Gasper, Nina Prakash, and Kandler Smith. 2024. BLAST-Lite. https://github. com/NREL/BLAST-Lite

    2024

  7. [15]

    Viktor Gsteiger, Daniel Long, Jerry Sun, Parshan Javanrood, and Mohammad Shahrad. 2024. Caribou: Fine-Grained Geospatial Shifting of Serverless Appli- cations for Sustainability. In 30th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP). https://doi.org/10.1145/3694715.3695954

    2024

  8. [16]

    Hanafy, Qianlin Liang, Noman Bashir, David Irwin, and Prashant Shenoy

    Walid A. Hanafy, Qianlin Liang, Noman Bashir, David Irwin, and Prashant Shenoy. 2023. CarbonScaler: Leveraging Cloud Workload Elasticity for Optimiz- ing Carbon-Efficiency. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, Article 57 (2023). https://doi....

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Hanafy, Qianlin Liang, Noman Bashir, Abel Souza, David Irwin, and Prashant Shenoy

    Walid A. Hanafy, Qianlin Liang, Noman Bashir, Abel Souza, David Irwin, and Prashant Shenoy. 2024. Going Green for Less Green: Optimizing the Cost of Reducing Cloud Carbon Emissions. In ASPLOS. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3620666.3651374

    2024

  10. [18]

    Blaine Hauglie. 2023. Xbox Is Now the First Carbon Aware Console, Update Rolling Out to Everyone Soon. Microsoft. Retrieved May 2023 from https:// news.xbox.com/en-us/2023/01/11/xbox-carbon-aware-console-sustainability/

    2023

  11. [19]

    Michael Hayes. 2022. Lcapy: symbolic linear circuit analysis with Python. PeerJ Computer Science (Feb. 2022), e875. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.875

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    International Energy Agency (IEA). 2022. Data Centres and Data Transmission Networks. Retrieved May 2023 from https://www.iea.org/reports/data-centres- and-data-transmission-networks

    2022

  13. [21]

    Fiodar Kazhamiaka, Srinivasan Keshav, Catherine Rosenberg, and Karl-Heinz Pettinger. 2018. Simple spec-based modeling of lithium-ion batteries. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 33, 4 (2018), 1757–1765. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TEC.2018.2838441

    2018

  14. [22]

    Fiodar Kazhamiaka, Catherine Rosenberg, and Srinivasan Keshav. 2019. Tractable lithium-ion storage models for optimizing energy systems. Energy Informatics 2 (2019), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-019-0070-6

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Ross Koningstein. 2021. We now do more computing where there’s cleaner energy. Google. Retrieved May 2023 from https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/ sustainability/carbon-aware-computing-location/

    2021

  16. [24]

    Grainger, Thomas Mcdermott, and Gregory F

    Velin Kounev, David Tipper, Martin Levesque, Brandon M. Grainger, Thomas Mcdermott, and Gregory F. Reed. 2015. A microgrid co-simulation framework. In 2015 Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSCPES.2015.7115398

    2015

  17. [25]

    Nouhaila Lazaar, Mahmoud Barakat, Morad Hafiane, Jalal Sabor, and Hamid Gualous. 2021. Modeling and control of a hydrogen-based green data center. Electric Power Systems Research 199 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2021. 107374

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Delicato, Paulo F

    Wei Li, Ting Yang, Flavia C. Delicato, Paulo F. Pires, Zahir Tari, Samee U. Khan, and Albert Y. Zomaya. 2018. On Enabling Sustainable Edge Computing with Renewable Energy Resources. IEEE Communications Magazine 56, 5 (2018), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700888

    2018

  19. [27]

    Scott G Marquis, Valentin Sulzer, Robert Timms, Colin P Please, and S Jon Chapman. 2019. An asymptotic derivation of a single particle model with elec- trolyte. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 166, 15 (2019), A3693. https: //doi.org/10.1149/2.0341915jes

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Eric Masanet, Arman Shehabi, Nuoa Lei, Sarah Smith, and Jonathan Koomey

  21. [29]

    Jinhao Meng, Mattia Ricco, Guangzhao Luo, Maciej Swierczynski, Daniel-Ioan Stroe, Ana-Irina Stroe, and Remus Teodorescu. 2017. An overview and com- parison of online implementable SOC estimation methods for lithium-ion battery. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 54, 2 ...

    2017

  22. [30]

    Microsoft. 2023. Windows Update is now carbon aware. Retrieved May 2023 from https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-update-is-now- carbon-aware-a53f39bc-5531-4bb1-9e78-db38d7a6df20

    2023

  23. [31]

    Foster, and Bartosz Protas

    Jose Morales Escalante, Smita Sahu, Jamie M. Foster, and Bartosz Protas. 2021. On Uncertainty Quantification in the Parametrization of Newman-Type Models of Lithium-Ion Batteries. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 168, 11 (nov 2021), 110519. https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Hanafy, David Irwin, Ramesh Sitaraman, and Prashant Shenoy

    Jorge Murillo, Walid A. Hanafy, David Irwin, Ramesh Sitaraman, and Prashant Shenoy. 2024. CDN-Shifter: Leveraging Spatial Workload Shifting to Decarbonize Content Delivery Networks. In ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC ’24) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3698038.3698516

    2024

  25. [33]

    Simon EJ O’Kane, Weilong Ai, Ganesh Madabattula, Diego Alonso-Alvarez, Robert Timms, Valentin Sulzer, Jacqueline Sophie Edge, Billy Wu, Gregory J Offer, and Monica Marinescu. 2022. Lithium-ion battery degradation: how to model it. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 24, 13 (20...

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Jean-Marc Pierson, Gwilherm Baudic, Stéphane Caux, Berk Celik, Georges Da Costa, Léo Grange, Marwa Haddad, Jérôme Lecuivre, Jean-Marc Nicod, Laurent Philippe, Veronika Rehn-Sonigo, Robin Roche, Gustavo Rostirolla, Amal Sayah, Patricia Stolf, Minh-Thuyen Thi, and Christophe Var...

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Ruth Porat. 2024. A new approach to data center and clean energy growth.Google (2024). https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/ireland-wind- farm-datacenter-ups/ Accessed: 2025-02-18

    2024

  28. [36]

    Ana Radovanovic, Ross Koningstein, Ian Schneider, Bokan Chen, Alexandre Duarte, Binz Roy, Diyue Xiao, Maya Haridasan, Patrick Hung, Nick Care, Saurav Talukdar, Eric Mullen, Kendal Smith, Mariellen Cottman, and Walfredo Cirne

  29. [37]

    Venkatasailanathan Ramadesigan, Paul WC Northrop, Sumitava De, Shriram Santhanagopalan, Richard D Braatz, and Venkat R Subramanian. 2012. Modeling and simulation of lithium-ion batteries from a systems engineering perspective. Journal of the electrochemical society 159, 3 (201...

    2012

  30. [38]

    John Roach. 2022. Microsoft datacenter batteries to support growth of renewables on the power grid. Microsoft (2022). https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/ sustainability/ireland-wind-farm-datacenter-ups/ Accessed: 2025-02-18

    2022

  31. [39]

    Genevieve Saur, Vanessa Arjona, Amberlie Clutterbuck, and Eric Parker. 2019. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells for Data Center Applications Project Meeting: Work- shop Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-75355 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Abel Souza, Shruti Jasoria, Basundhara Chakrabarty, Alexander Bridgwater, Axel Lundberg, Filip Skogh, Ahmed Ali-Eldin, David Irwin, and Prashant J. Shenoy

  33. [41]

    Ramírez Acosta, Thomas Raub, Jan Sören Schwarz, Sanja Stark, Astrid Nieße, and Sebastian Lehnhoff

    Cornelius Steinbrink, Marita Blank-Babazadeh, André El-Ama, Stefanie Holly, Bengt Lüers, Marvin Nebel-Wenner, Rebeca P. Ramírez Acosta, Thomas Raub, Jan Sören Schwarz, Sanja Stark, Astrid Nieße, and Sebastian Lehnhoff. 2019. CPES Testing with mosaik: Co-Simulation Planning, Ex...

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Marquis, Robert Timms, Martin Robinson, and S

    Valentin Sulzer, Scott G. Marquis, Robert Timms, Martin Robinson, and S. Jon Chapman. 2021. Python Battery Mathematical Modelling (PyBaMM). Journal of Open Research Software (2021). https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.309

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Thomas Tranter, Robert Timms, Valentin Sulzer, Ferran Planella, Gavin Wiggins, Suryanarayana Karra, Priyanshu Agarwal, Saransh Chopra, Srikanth Allu, Paul Shearing, et al . 2022. liionpack: A Python package for simulating packs of batteries with PyBaMM. Journal of Open Source ...

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Philipp Wiesner, Ilja Behnke, Paul Kilian, Marvin Steinke, and Odej Kao. 2024. Vessim: A Testbed for Carbon-Aware Applications and Systems. In3rd Workshop on Sustainable Computer Systems (HotCarbon)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Philipp Wiesner, Dennis Grinwald, Philipp Weiß, Patrick Wilhelm, Ramin Khalili, and Odej Kao. 2025. Carbon-Aware Quality Adaptation for Energy-Intensive Services. In ACM e-Energy. https://doi.org/10.1145/3679240.3734614

    2025

  38. [46]

    Philipp Wiesner, Ramin Khalili, Dennis Grinwald, Pratik Agrawal, Lauritz Tham- sen, and Odej Kao. 2024. FedZero: Leveraging Renewable Excess Energy in Federated Learning. In ACM e-Energy. https://doi.org/10.1145/3632775.3639589

    2024

  39. [47]

    Philipp Wiesner, Marvin Steinke, Henrik Nickel, Yazan Kitana, and Odej Kao

  40. [48]

    Lee, Bugra Akyildiz, Maximilian Balandat, Joe Spisak, Ravi Jain, Mike Rabbat, and Kim M

    Carole-Jean Wu, Ramya Raghavendra, Udit Gupta, Bilge Acun, Newsha Ardalani, Kiwan Maeng, Gloria Chang, Fiona Aga Behram, Jinshi Huang, Charles Bai, Michael Gschwind, Anurag Gupta, Myle Ott, Anastasia Melnikov, Salvatore Candido, David Brooks, Geeta Chauhan, Benjamin Lee, Hsien...

    2022 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chien, and S

    Jiajia Zheng, A. Chien, and S. Suh. 2020. Mitigating Curtailment and Carbon Emissions through Load Migration between Data Centers. Joule 4 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.08.001

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    Software: Practice and Experience 53, 12 (2023), 2362–2376

    Software-in-the-loop simulation for developing and testing carbon-aware applications. Software: Practice and Experience 53, 12 (2023), 2362–2376. https: //doi.org/10.1002/spe.3275

    2023 doi

  43. [2020]

    Science 367, 6481 (2020), 984–986

    Recalibrating global data center energy-use estimates. Science 367, 6481 (2020), 984–986

    2020

  44. [2022]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 2 (2022)

    Carbon-Aware Computing for Datacenters. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2022.3173250

    2022

  45. [2023]

    In International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference

    CASPER: Carbon-Aware Scheduling and Provisioning for Distributed Web Services. In International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference . https://doi.org/10.1145/3634769.3634812

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.