4.8 Review

Peer-to-peer and community-based markets: A comprehensive review

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 367-378

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.036

关键词

Consumer-centric electricity market; Decentralized and distributed optimization; Energy community; Peer-to-peer energy trading; Prosumers

资金

  1. Danish ForskEL Programme through the Energy Collective Project [2016-1-12530]
  2. EUDP Programme through the Energy Collective Project [2016-1-12530]
  3. EU Interreg Programme through the Smart City Accelerator Project [20200999]
  4. ERDF - European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation - COMPETE 2020 Programme
  5. National Funds through the Portuguese funding agency, FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, within project ESGRIDS - Desenvolvimento Sustentavel da Rede Eletrica Inteligente [SAICTPAC/0004/2015-POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016434]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The advent of more proactive consumers, the so-called prosumers, with production and storage capabilities, is empowering the consumers and bringing new opportunities and challenges to the operation of power systems in a market environment. Recently, a novel proposal for the design and operation of electricity markets has emerged: these so-called peer-to-peer (P2P) electricity markets conceptually allow the prosumers to directly share their electrical energy and investment. Such P2P markets rely on a consumer-centric and bottom-up perspective by giving the opportunity to consumers to freely choose the way they buy their electric energy. A community can also be formed by prosumers who want to collaborate, or in terms of operational energy management. This paper contributes with an overview of these new P2P markets that starts with the motivation, challenges, market designs moving to the potential future developments in this field, providing recommendations while considering a test-case.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据