4.7 Article

Levelized cost of storage (LCOS) analysis of BESSs in Romania

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102633

关键词

Levelized cost of storage; Batteries; Energy storage; Romanian energy storage market; Market analysis

资金

  1. European Social Fund
  2. [POCU/380/6/13/123927]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Storage systems are crucial for improving the reliability of electricity networks, especially with the increase of intermittent electricity generated by photovoltaic systems. This study identifies the most profitable battery technology for household and industrial users based on market research and analysis, and examines the impact of government subsidies on storage systems.
Storage systems represent one of the key solutions for improving the reliability of electricity networks as there is an increase of intermittent electricity generated especially by photovoltaic (PV) systems. The cost and performance are the main elements considered in choosing the suitable storage system. As the price for every kWh injected into the network and battery energy storage system (BESS) costs are dynamic, the household and industrial consumers who want to integrate a battery in their PV system may have difficulties choosing between the commercially batteries available on the Romanian market. This study presents a different approach for identifying the most profitable battery technology used by household and industrial consumers as storage systems. A market research was conducted to determine the available battery technologies and their technical performances. This paper examines the effect of subsidies offered within the Romanian programs that promote the integration of storage systems in renewable-based energy systems. The levelized cost of storage (LCOS) method and the sensitivity analysis performed indicate that the lead-carbon battery is the most feasible solution. This investigation provides valuable up-to-date information for household and industrial consumers in their decision-making process.

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

4.7
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