More Like this

1. Helios: a programmable software-defined solar module

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3276774.3276783  

   Bashir, Noman ; Irwin, David ; Shenoy, Prashant ( November 2018 , Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Systems for Built Environments)

   The declining cost and rising penetration of solar energy is poised to fundamentally impact grid operations, as utilities must continuously offset, potentially rapid and increasingly large, power fluctuations from highly distributed and "uncontrollable" solar sites to maintain the instantaneous balance between electricity's supply and demand. Prior work proposes to address the problem by designing various policies that actively control solar power to optimize grid operations. However, these policies implicitly assume the presence of "smart" solar modules capable of regulating solar output based on various algorithms. Unfortunately, implementing such algorithms is currently not possible, as smart inverters embed only a small number of operating modes and are not programmable. To address the problem, this paper presents the design and implementation of a software-defined solar module, called Helios. Helios exposes a high-level programmatic interface to a DC-DC power optimizer, which enables software to remotely control a solar module's power output in real time between zero and its current maximum, as dictated by the Sun's position and weather. Unlike current smart inverters, Helios focuses on enabling direct programmatic control of real solar power capable of implementing a wide range of control policies, rather than a few highly-specific operating modes. We evaluate Helios' performance, including its latency, energy usage, and flexibility. For the latter, we implement and evaluate a wide range of solar control algorithms both in the lab, using a solar emulator and programmable load, and outdoors. 

   more » « less
2. Distributed rate control of smart solar arrays with batteries

   https://doi.org/10.3389/friot.2023.1129367  

   Bovornkeeratiroj, Phuthipong ; Lee, Stephen ; Iyengar, Srinivasan ; Irwin, David ; Shenoy, Prashant ( June 2023 , Frontiers in the Internet of Things)

   Continued advances in technology have led to falling costs and a dramatic increase in the aggregate amount of solar capacity installed across the world. A drawback of increased solar penetration is the potential for supply-demand mismatches in the grid due to the intermittent nature of solar generation. While energy storage can be used to mask such problems, we argue that there is also a need to explicitly control the rate of solar generation of each solar array in order to achieve high penetration while also handling supply-demand mismatches. To address this issue, we present the notion of smart solar arrays that can actively modulate their solar output based on the notion of proportional fairness. We present a decentralized algorithm based on Lagrangian optimization that enables each smart solar array to make local decisions on its fair share of solar power it can inject into the grid and then present a sense-broadcast-respond protocol to implement our decentralized algorithm into smart solar arrays. We also study the benefits of using energy storage when we rate control solar. To do so, we present a decentralized algorithm to charge and discharge batteries for each smart solar. Our evaluation on a city-scale dataset shows that our approach enables 2.6× more solar penetration while causing smart arrays to reduce their output by as little as 12.4%. By employing an adaptive gradient approach, our decentralized algorithm has 3 to 30× faster convergence. Finally, we demonstrate energy storage can help netmeter more solar energy while ensuring fairness and grid constraints are met. 

   more » « less
3. DeepSnow: Modeling the Impact of Snow on Solar Generation

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3408308.3427620  

   Bashir, Noman ; Irwin, David ; Shenoy, Prashant ( November 2020 , Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation (BuildSys))

   null (Ed.)

   The falling cost of solar energy deployments has resulted in ever-increasing growth in solar capacity worldwide. The primary challenge posed by increasing grid-tied solar capacity is handling its variability due to continuously changing conditions. Thus, prior work has developed highly sophisticated models to estimate and forecast solar power output based on many characteristics, including location, elevation, time, weather, shading, module type, wiring, etc. These models are highly accurate for estimating solar power, especially over long periods, for sites at low latitudes, i.e., closer to the equator. However, models for sites at higher latitudes are less accurate due to the effect of snow on solar output, since even a small amount of snow can cover panels and reduce power to zero. Improving the accuracy of these models for annual solar output by even 2--3% is significant, as power translates directly into revenue, which compounds over the system's lifetime. Thus, if a site produces 2--3% less power on average per year due to snow than a model predicts, it can mean the difference between a positive or negative return-on-investment. To address the problem, we develop DeepSnow, a data-driven approach that models the effect of snow on solar power generation. DeepSnow integrates with existing solar modeling frameworks, and uses publicly available snow data to learn its effect on solar generation. We leverage deep learning to quantify the effect of different snow variables on solar power using 4 million hourly readings from 40 solar sites. We evaluate our approach on 10 solar sites, and show that it yields a higher accuracy than the current approach for modeling snow effects used by the U.S. Department of Energy's System Advisor Model (SAM), a popular solar modeling framework. 

   more » « less
4. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
5. Estimating the impacts of natural gas power generation growth on solar electricity development: PJM's evolving resource mix and ramping capability

   https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.454  

   Nyangon, Joseph ; Byrne, John ( July 2022 , WIREs Energy and Environment)

   Expansion of distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) and natural gas‐fired generation capacity in the United States has put a renewed spotlight on methods and tools for power system planning and grid modernization. This article investigates the impact of increasing natural gas‐fired electricity generation assets on installed distributed solar PV systems in the Pennsylvania–New Jersey–Maryland (PJM) Interconnection in the United States over the period 2008–2018. We developed an empirical dynamic panel data model using the system‐generalized method of moments (system‐GMM) estimation approach. The model accounts for the impact of past and current technical, market and policy changes over time, forecasting errors, and business cycles by controlling for PJM jurisdictions‐level effects and year fixed effects. Using an instrumental variable to control for endogeneity, we concluded that natural gas does not crowd out renewables like solar PV in the PJM capacity market; however, we also found considerable heterogeneity. Such heterogeneity was displayed in the relationship between solar PV systems and electricity prices. More interestingly, we found no evidence suggesting any relationship between distributed solar PV development and nuclear, coal, hydro, or electricity consumption. In addition, considering policy effects of state renewable portfolio standards, net energy metering, differences in the PJM market structure, and other demand and cost‐related factors proved important in assessing their impacts on solar PV generation capacity, including energy storage as a non‐wire alternative policy technique.

   This article is categorized under:

   Photovoltaics > Economics and Policy

   Fossil Fuels > Climate and Environment

   Energy Systems Economics > Economics and Policy

    

   more » « less