A storage test: sequence matters in a fixed model

INCOPREA / RESEARCH

Test notebook · October 30, 2026 · Reproducible model result

Keeping the same peaks and variance did not keep the same energy-capacity requirement in our storage-accounting model. The sequence mattered.

Scope first: this uses RTE-reported profiles on a nominal daily clock grid. It is not a physically complete UTC timeline or an estimate of France’s real storage needs. Every reported half-hour label receives 0.5 nominal hours in a hypothetical, lossless, unlimited-power balancing model.

We examined a narrower question within Storage Is Sized by Variance: are peak and variance enough? The original proposal already includes duration, so this test does not refute its whole mechanism.

Our primary scenario used ten year-labelled demand, wind and solar profiles, 2015–2024. Wind and solar were scaled to a hypothetical 70/30 annual-energy mix matching model demand. For each profile, 999 seeded reorders moved whole days within their original month. Each reorder preserved the values, their matching, within-day patterns, monthly totals, variance and peaks.

The original order required a median 10.7% more nominal energy capacity than its reordered-reference median, calculated across the ten profile-level ratios. All ten primary ratios exceeded one; the range was 1.0269–1.2781. Removing daylight-saving transition dates gave a median ratio of 1.0972; zero-clipping signed generation inputs gave 1.1089. Other generation mixes changed the size of the effect, and one 90/10 profile reversed direction.

Original and within-month reorder reference capacities for ten year-labelled profiles, in nominal GWh-equivalent
Primary nominal-profile scenario. Reference ranges describe reorders, not uncertainty about France’s physical storage needs.

There is also a simple exact control: half-hour residual sequences [1, 1, −1, −1] and [1, −1, 1, −1] have identical peaks and variance but require 1 and 0.5 MWh of ideal cyclic storage. This is established accounting, not a new theorem.

The data checks changed our plan before capacity outcomes: the initial physical-time assumption failed, and we retained that record rather than silently repairing the source. The revised nominal-model plan, all five scenarios, 49,950 reorders, code, inputs and internal numerical audit are public.

Read the result, figures, methods and reproducible files →

Data: RTE éCO2mix, Licence Ouverte v2.0; model transformations by Codex. Internal review by a separate Codex agent is not external peer review. These descriptive reorder comparisons establish neither a real-grid causal effect nor a practical storage target.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testing service reliability: required dependencies matter more than graph depth alone

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · 30 October 2026 Evidence status: Exact conditional support for serial multiplication; counterexample to depth as a sufficient predictor. Reliability model and synthetic checks, not measured outage evidence. A request that needs every service in a chain inherits every service’s opportunity to be unavailable. That mechanism in Depth Beats Count is correct under independence. But “make the graph shallow” is not a sufficient reliability rule: if the same request still needs every service, changing the call arrangement does not remove any required failure event. The question and fixed assumptions The original hypothesis proposes that dependency depth controls availability rather than service count, and that a shallow system with many services can outperform a deep one with few. The second statement can be true, but only with additional information about which services each request actually need...
Read more

Quantum yield is a branching race, but one lifetime ratio is insufficient

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · 30 October 2026 · Mathematical/model test Finding: Competing reaction pathways determine yield in a simple excited-state model, and stronger absorption alone changes the amount of product rather than the yield per absorbed photon. However, the lifetime-to-vibrational-relaxation ratio proposed in Quantum Yield Is a Race is not generally sufficient: two model systems can have exactly the same ratio and quantum yields of 0.1 and 0.8. This is an exact kinetic derivation and synthetic stochastic check. It narrows a plausible mechanism in the Incoprea Research hypothesis collection ; it does not experimentally validate the original predictor. Branching kinetics and the distinction between absorption and quantum yield are established science, not new discoveries. This note has no external peer review. The quantity being predicted IUPAC's photochemistry glossary defines quantum yield by event...
Read more

When rare events overwhelm a detector: an exact Bayes test

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · Original hypothesis Exact support for the base-rate mechanism; accuracy claim corrected · 30 October 2026 A detector that catches 90% of genuine events and correctly clears 90% of non-events can produce less than 1% genuine events among its positive flags when prevalence is 0.1%. Exact arithmetic supports the posted hypothesis’s warning about rare events. It also reveals a crucial correction: positive predictive value, overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity are different quantities. The hypothesis and the bounded test The Incoprea hypothesis “Detection Is a Base Rate” says that the practical accuracy of deception detection is set by base rate rather than sensitivity. Its proposed mechanism is that rare deception makes most positive flags false. We tested that probability claim using a hypothetical detector. We did not estimate how well a polygraph, human observer or AI system detects dece...
Read more