Entwicklung der Windenergietechnik in Deutschland und der Einfluss staatlicher Förderpolitik - Technikentwicklung in den 90er Jahren zwischen Markt und Forschungsförderung

Seit gut zehn Jahren erlebt die Windenergienutzung in Deutschland einen in der Mitte der 80er Jahre nicht für möglich gehaltenen Aufschwung. Anlagenanzahl und installierte Leistung haben in diesem Zeitraum mit durchschnittlichen jährlichen Wachstumsraten von mehr als 30 Prozent zugenommen, die mittlere installierte Leistung pro neu errichteter Anlage stieg dabei um das Zehnfache und die technische Verfügbarkeit der Anlagen liegt mittlerweile bei über 98 Prozent. Mit größer werdenden Anlagen zeigt sich weiterhin ein klarer Trend zu Blattwinkel verstellbaren Konzepten, mit zunehmend drehzahlvariabler Betriebsweise. Vor dem von Vielen für die kommenden drei bis sechs Jahre prognostizierten Einstieg in die großtechnische Offshore- Windenergienutzung mit den damit verbundenen immensen technologischen und strukturellen Herausforderungen erscheint es sinnvoll, einen kritischen Blick zurückzuwerfen auf die 90er Jahre mit den ihnen zugrunde liegenden förderpolitischen Rahmenbedingungen. Dabei soll die Frage beantwortet werden, welchen konkreten Einfluss die staatlichen Forschungs- und Förderprogramme, besonders das "250 MW Wind"-Programm, auf die Entwicklung der Windenergienutzung hatten, das heißt, unter welchen Bedingungen sich bestimmte Techniklinien durchsetzten, wie der Einfluss eines geschützten Marktes durch gesetzlich garantierte Einspeisetarife auf diese Entwicklung zu bewerten ist und schließlich, welche Fehlentwicklungen möglicher Weise eingetreten sind. Dazu wird mit Hilfe von Lernkurven gezeigt, welche Kostenreduktionen insgesamt erzielt wurden, wie hoch die dazu notwendigen staatlichen Finanzmittel waren und welche Schlussfolgerungen daraus für die Zukunft abgeleitet werden können. Die Arbeit soll insgesamt dazu beitragen, die erreichten technischen Entwicklungsschritte vor dem Hintergrund der förderpolitischen Gegebenheiten besser zu verstehen, Chancen für gezielte Änderungen in der Förderpraxis zu ergreifen und Hinweise auf die Ausgestaltung von zukünftigen Forschungsprogrammen und Entwicklungsschwerpunkten im Bereich der Windenergie zu geben, um weitere Kostensenkungspotenziale auszuschöpfen. Dabei wird sich die zukünftige Schwerpunktsetzung in der programmatischen Ausrichtung der Forschung stärker auf die drei wichtigsten Anwendungsfelder für Windenergieanlagen konzentrieren müssen, die großtechnische Offshore- Anwendung, die netzgebundene, dezentrale Energieversorgung sowie auf Windenergieanlagen zur ländlichen Elektrifizierung in autonomen Versorgungssystemen für Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer.

Assessing the users’ need for a spatial decision support system of smallholder farming in Kenya

Accurate data of the natural conditions and agricultural systems with a good spatial resolution are a key factor to tackle food insecurity in developing countries. A broad variety of approaches exists to achieve precise data and information about agriculture. One system, especially developed for smallholder agriculture in East Africa, is the Farm Management Handbook of Kenya. It was first published in 1982/83 and fully revised in 2012, now containing 7 volumes. The handbooks contain detailed information on climate, soils, suitable crops and soil care based on scientific research results of the last 30 years. The density of facts leads to time consuming extraction of all necessary information. In this study we analyse the user needs and necessary components of a system for decision support for smallholder farming in Kenya based on a geographical information system (GIS). Required data sources were identified, as well as essential functions of the system. We analysed the results of our survey conducted in 2012 and early 2013 among agricultural officers. The monitoring of user needs and the problem of non-adaptability of an agricultural information system on the level of extension officers in Kenya are the central objectives. The outcomes of the survey suggest the establishment of a decision support tool based on already available open source GIS components. The system should include functionalities to show general information for a specific location and should provide precise recommendations about suitable crops and management options to support agricultural guidance on farm level.

Comparing Support Vector Machines with Gaussian Kernels to Radial Basis Function Classifiers

The Support Vector (SV) machine is a novel type of learning machine, based on statistical learning theory, which contains polynomial classifiers, neural networks, and radial basis function (RBF) networks as special cases. In the RBF case, the SV algorithm automatically determines centers, weights and threshold such as to minimize an upper bound on the expected test error. The present study is devoted to an experimental comparison of these machines with a classical approach, where the centers are determined by $k$--means clustering and the weights are found using error backpropagation. We consider three machines, namely a classical RBF machine, an SV machine with Gaussian kernel, and a hybrid system with the centers determined by the SV method and the weights trained by error backpropagation. Our results show that on the US postal service database of handwritten digits, the SV machine achieves the highest test accuracy, followed by the hybrid approach. The SV approach is thus not only theoretically well--founded, but also superior in a practical application.

Improving Multiclass Text Classification with the Support Vector Machine

We compare Naive Bayes and Support Vector Machines on the task of multiclass text classification. Using a variety of approaches to combine the underlying binary classifiers, we find that SVMs substantially outperform Naive Bayes. We present full multiclass results on two well-known text data sets, including the lowest error to date on both data sets. We develop a new indicator of binary performance to show that the SVM's lower multiclass error is a result of its improved binary performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate and explore the surprising result that one-vs-all classification performs favorably compared to other approaches even though it has no error-correcting properties.

Properties of Support Vector Machines

Support Vector Machines (SVMs) perform pattern recognition between two point classes by finding a decision surface determined by certain points of the training set, termed Support Vectors (SV). This surface, which in some feature space of possibly infinite dimension can be regarded as a hyperplane, is obtained from the solution of a problem of quadratic programming that depends on a regularization parameter. In this paper we study some mathematical properties of support vectors and show that the decision surface can be written as the sum of two orthogonal terms, the first depending only on the margin vectors (which are SVs lying on the margin), the second proportional to the regularization parameter. For almost all values of the parameter, this enables us to predict how the decision surface varies for small parameter changes. In the special but important case of feature space of finite dimension m, we also show that there are at most m+1 margin vectors and observe that m+1 SVs are usually sufficient to fully determine the decision surface. For relatively small m this latter result leads to a consistent reduction of the SV number.

Notes on PCA, Regularization, Sparsity and Support Vector Machines

We derive a new representation for a function as a linear combination of local correlation kernels at optimal sparse locations and discuss its relation to PCA, regularization, sparsity principles and Support Vector Machines. We first review previous results for the approximation of a function from discrete data (Girosi, 1998) in the context of Vapnik"s feature space and dual representation (Vapnik, 1995). We apply them to show 1) that a standard regularization functional with a stabilizer defined in terms of the correlation function induces a regression function in the span of the feature space of classical Principal Components and 2) that there exist a dual representations of the regression function in terms of a regularization network with a kernel equal to a generalized correlation function. We then describe the main observation of the paper: the dual representation in terms of the correlation function can be sparsified using the Support Vector Machines (Vapnik, 1982) technique and this operation is equivalent to sparsify a large dictionary of basis functions adapted to the task, using a variation of Basis Pursuit De-Noising (Chen, Donoho and Saunders, 1995; see also related work by Donahue and Geiger, 1994; Olshausen and Field, 1995; Lewicki and Sejnowski, 1998). In addition to extending the close relations between regularization, Support Vector Machines and sparsity, our work also illuminates and formalizes the LFA concept of Penev and Atick (1996). We discuss the relation between our results, which are about regression, and the different problem of pattern classification.

From Regression to Classification in Support Vector Machines

We study the relation between support vector machines (SVMs) for regression (SVMR) and SVM for classification (SVMC). We show that for a given SVMC solution there exists a SVMR solution which is equivalent for a certain choice of the parameters. In particular our result is that for $epsilon$ sufficiently close to one, the optimal hyperplane and threshold for the SVMC problem with regularization parameter C_c are equal to (1-epsilon)^{- 1} times the optimal hyperplane and threshold for SVMR with regularization parameter C_r = (1-epsilon)C_c. A direct consequence of this result is that SVMC can be seen as a special case of SVMR.

On the Noise Model of Support Vector Machine Regression

Support Vector Machines Regression (SVMR) is a regression technique which has been recently introduced by V. Vapnik and his collaborators (Vapnik, 1995; Vapnik, Golowich and Smola, 1996). In SVMR the goodness of fit is measured not by the usual quadratic loss function (the mean square error), but by a different loss function called Vapnik"s $epsilon$- insensitive loss function, which is similar to the "robust" loss functions introduced by Huber (Huber, 1981). The quadratic loss function is well justified under the assumption of Gaussian additive noise. However, the noise model underlying the choice of Vapnik's loss function is less clear. In this paper the use of Vapnik's loss function is shown to be equivalent to a model of additive and Gaussian noise, where the variance and mean of the Gaussian are random variables. The probability distributions for the variance and mean will be stated explicitly. While this work is presented in the framework of SVMR, it can be extended to justify non-quadratic loss functions in any Maximum Likelihood or Maximum A Posteriori approach. It applies not only to Vapnik's loss function, but to a much broader class of loss functions.

A Unified Framework for Regularization Networks and Support Vector Machines

Regularization Networks and Support Vector Machines are techniques for solving certain problems of learning from examples -- in particular the regression problem of approximating a multivariate function from sparse data. We present both formulations in a unified framework, namely in the context of Vapnik's theory of statistical learning which provides a general foundation for the learning problem, combining functional analysis and statistics.

An Equivalence Between Sparse Approximation and Support Vector Machines

In the first part of this paper we show a similarity between the principle of Structural Risk Minimization Principle (SRM) (Vapnik, 1982) and the idea of Sparse Approximation, as defined in (Chen, Donoho and Saunders, 1995) and Olshausen and Field (1996). Then we focus on two specific (approximate) implementations of SRM and Sparse Approximation, which have been used to solve the problem of function approximation. For SRM we consider the Support Vector Machine technique proposed by V. Vapnik and his team at AT&T Bell Labs, and for Sparse Approximation we consider a modification of the Basis Pursuit De-Noising algorithm proposed by Chen, Donoho and Saunders (1995). We show that, under certain conditions, these two techniques are equivalent: they give the same solution and they require the solution of the same quadratic programming problem.