4.6 Article

Lightweight blockchain framework for location-aware peer-to-peer energy trading

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106610

关键词

Blockchain; Distributed energy resources (DER); Internet of Things (IoT); Peer-to-peer (P2P) trading; Smart grid; Transactive energy (TE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P2P energy trading in smart grids presents challenges in decentralized management, market settlement, and grid constraints. This paper proposes a blockchain-enabled framework for energy trading among agents, considering reputation factors and electrical distance.
Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading, as a new approach for energy management in smart grids, facilitates integration of a large number of small-scale producers and consumers into energy markets. Decentralized management of these new market participants is challenging in terms of market settlement, participant reputation and consideration of grid constraints. This paper proposes a blockchain-enabled framework for P2P energy trading among producer and consumer agents in a smart grid. A fully decentralized market settlement mechanism is designed, which does not rely on a centralized entity to settle the market and encourages producers and consumers to negotiate on energy trading with their nearby agents truthfully. To this end, the electrical distance of agents is considered in the pricing mechanism to encourage agents to trade with their neighboring agents. In addition, a reputation factor is considered for each agent, reflecting its past performance in delivering the committed energy. Before starting the negotiation, agents select their trading partners based on their preferences over the reputation and proximity of the trading partners. An Anonymous Proof of Location (A-PoL) algorithm is proposed that allows agents to prove their location without revealing their real identity. The practicality of the proposed framework is illustrated through several case studies, and its security and privacy are analyzed in detail.

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

4.6
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