论文标题
同时需求侧灵活性选项之间的竞争:社区电力存储系统的情况
Competition between simultaneous demand-side flexibility options: The case of community electricity storage systems
论文作者
论文摘要
用于多种应用的社区电力存储系统有望比家用电力存储系统有益。需求响应和行业耦合等更经济的灵活性选择可能会减少存储设施的市场规模。本文通过考虑竞争性灵活性选项来评估社区电力存储系统的经济性能。为此,应用了与参与者相关的基于方案的优化框架。结果与文献一致,并表明社区存储系统在经济上比家庭存储系统更有效。由于最终用户之间的需求和发电概况平衡,社区存储系统的相对存储能力降低与家庭存储系统相比是可能的。在基本情况下,平均而言,每个家庭的存储容量减少9%,从而降低了特定的投资。同时应用需求侧的灵活性选项,例如行业耦合和需求响应,可以进一步降低社区存储规模23%。同时,灵活性选项之间的竞争会导致社区存储灵活性潜力较小的好处,从而降低了这些应用程序的市场可行性。在最坏的情况下,在灵活性措施之间,蚕食效应可达到38%。灵活性的损失优于减少能力的节省,从而使部门耦合构成的影响远大于需求响应。总体而言,考虑到规定的成本趋势,规模经济以及减少可能性,可能会在2025年至2035年之间达到有利可图的社区存储模型。未来的工作应集中在政策框架的分析上。
Community electricity storage systems for multiple applications promise benefits over household electricity storage systems. More economical flexibility options such as demand response and sector coupling might reduce the market size for storage facilities. This paper assesses the economic performance of community electricity storage systems by taking competitive flexibility options into account. For this purpose, an actor-related, scenario-based optimization framework is applied. The results are in line with the literature and show that community storage systems are economically more efficient than household storage systems. Relative storage capacity reductions of community storage systems over household storage systems are possible, as the demand and generation profiles are balanced out among end users. On average, storage capacity reductions of 9% per household are possible in the base case, resulting in lower specific investments. The simultaneous application of demand-side flexibility options such as sector coupling and demand response enable a further capacity reduction of the community storage size by up to 23%. At the same time, the competition between flexibility options leads to smaller benefits regarding the community storage flexibility potential, which reduces the market viability for these applications. In the worst case, the cannibalization effects reach up to 38% between the flexibility measures. The losses of the flexibility benefits outweigh the savings of the capacity reduction whereby sector coupling constitutes a far greater influencing factor than demand response. Overall, in consideration of the stated cost trends, the economies of scale, and the reduction possibilities, a profitable community storage model might be reached between 2025 and 2035. Future work should focus on the analysis of policy frameworks.