kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Panel or check? Assessing the benefits of integrating households in energy poverty into energy communities
INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022 València, Spain, Camino de Vera, s/n.
Institute for Energy Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain, Camino de Vera, s/n.
Institute for Energy Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain, Camino de Vera, s/n; Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft, 2600 GA, The Netherlands, GA.
KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Energy Technology, Applied Thermodynamics and Refrigeration.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2603-7595
Show others and affiliations
2024 (English)In: Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, ISSN 2213-1388, E-ISSN 2213-1396, Vol. 71, article id 103970Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This research raises the possibility for households in energy poverty to participate in shared photovoltaic systems in renewable energy communities (REC) to reduce their energy costs, with investment costs covered by public institutions. It begins by evaluating the current solution for vulnerable households, which relies on public subsidies to lower energy costs without addressing root causes or improving environmental impacts. The study compares traditional subsidies with REC participation for vulnerable households. By simulating a REC composed of such households, the results indicate that REC participation is more cost-effective for public institutions than energy subsidies. At the economically optimal size of 31 kWp, the cost of subsidies decreases by 58,000 €, a 50% reduction, with household savings increasing by 6%. At 58 kWp, the need for additional support checks is eliminated, increasing household savings by 65% but with a lower NPV of 22,500 €. The largest viable system, 75 kWp, increases average household savings by 82%. This approach also leads to a net reduction in GHG emissions, engaging previously excluded households in the energy transition.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier BV , 2024. Vol. 71, article id 103970
Keywords [en]
Energy checks, Energy poverty, Just energy transition, Renewable energy communities, Self-consumption
National Category
Energy Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-353909DOI: 10.1016/j.seta.2024.103970ISI: 001321503700001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85204046320OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-353909DiVA, id: diva2:1900984
Note

QC 20241014

Available from: 2024-09-25 Created: 2024-09-25 Last updated: 2024-10-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Sommerfeldt, Nelson

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sommerfeldt, Nelson
By organisation
Applied Thermodynamics and Refrigeration
In the same journal
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments
Energy Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 102 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf