4.5 Article

Business Model Selection for Community Energy Storage: A Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 16, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en16186753

关键词

community; storage; business models; MCDM; energy; Europe; India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores business models for community energy storage (CES) and examines their potential and feasibility at the local level. By leveraging Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approaches and real-world case studies in Europe and India, it presents insights into CES deployment opportunities, challenges, and best practices.
This paper explores business models for community energy storage (CES) and examines their potential and feasibility at the local level. By leveraging Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approaches and real-world case studies in Europe and India, it presents insights into CES deployment opportunities, challenges, and best practices. Different business models, including community energy cooperatives, utility-community partnerships, demand response, energy services, and market mechanisms, are analyzed. The proposed method combines the MCDM method PROMETHEE II with the fuzzy set theory to obtain a complete CES business model ranking, addressing project uncertainties. The analysis emphasizes CES's role in balancing local renewable energy supply and demand, facilitating energy sharing, and achieving energy independence. Findings prioritize models like Community Cooperative, Energy Arbitrage, and Energy Arbitrage Peak Shaving for CES with renewables. Environmental benefits include reduced diesel use and greenhouse gas emissions. Efficient cooperatives are advocated to recover costs and enable competitive energy prices. The paper highlights the need for novel value propositions to boost the energy transition in local communities. This research contributes to the discourse on CES business models, fostering knowledge exchange and promoting effective strategies for sustainable energy systems.

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

4.5
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