Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer-to-Peer Traded Energy: Prosumer and Consumer Focus Groups about a Self-consumption Community Scenario

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
HCI International 2020 - Posters (HCII 2020)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1224))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2327 Accesses

Abstract

Renewable energy cooperatives were found to facilitate the uptake of renewable and distributed energy resources and require the willingness of participants to trade energy within their local community. To gather user requirements for the design of such scenarios, we conducted two focus groups with potential participants. Prosumers (n = 7) and consumers (n = 9) worry about regulatory conditions and potential taxes applied on energy trading. We found that in particular consumers demanded for secure energy supply, while prosumers wanted to keep control of their energy production. Prosumers expressed their interest in detailed consumption and sales information, while consumers were interested in the legal matters of the contract and the energy source. Furthermore, the concept of connectedness was valued as the most important gamification approach for self-consumption communities, followed by the development of competence, in particular important for consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Döbelt, S., Jung, M., Busch, M., Tscheligi, M.: Consumers’ privacy concerns and implications for a privacy preserving Smart Grid architecture—results of an Austrian study. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 9, 137–145 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akorede, M.F., Hizam, H., Pouresmaeil, E.: Distributed energy resources and benefits to the environment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14(2), 724–734 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Loesche, D.: Die Geschichte des Kohldendioxidausstoßes [The history of carbon dioxide emissions] (2018). Downloaded at 27th of January 2020. https://de.statista.com/infografik/13569/weltweite-kohlendioxidemissionen/

  4. Nelles, D., Serrer, C.: Kleine Gase, große Wirkung [Small gases, big effect]. KlimaWandel GbR (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Viardot, E.: The role of cooperatives in overcoming the barriers to adoption of renewable energy. Energy Policy 63, 756–764 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Musleh, A.S., Yao, G., Muyeen, S.M.: Blockchain applications in smart grid-review and frameworks. IEEE Access 7, 86746–86757 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2920682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mylrea, M., Gourisetti Gupta, S.N.: Blockchain for smart grid resilience: exchanging distributed energy at speed, scale and security. In: 2017 Resilience Week (RWS). IEEE (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/rweek.2017.8088642

  8. Wolsink, M.: The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: renewable as common pool resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16(1), 822–835 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kubli, M., Loock, M., Wüstenhagen, R.: The flexible prosumer: measuring the willingness to co-create distributed flexibility. Energy Policy 114, 540–548 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Döbelt, S., Kreußlein, M.: Imagine 2025: prosumer and consumer requirements for distributed energy resource systems business models. In: Ahram, T. (ed.) AHFE 2019. AISC, vol. 965, pp. 631–643. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20454-9_62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Jans, L., Bouman, T., Fielding, K.: A part of the energy \“in crowd\”: changing people’s energy behavior via group-based approaches. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 16(1), 35–41 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2017.2759883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulz, M., Mack, B., Renn, O.: Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft: Von der Konzeption bis zur Auswertung [Focus groups in empirical social science: from conception to evaluation]. Springer, Wiesbaden (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19397-7

  13. Nielsen, J.: The use and misuse of focus groups. IEEE Softw. 14(1), 94–95 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1109/52.566434

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Franke, T., Attig, C., Wessel, D.: A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 35(6), 456–467 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Project website: https://nemogrid.eu/. Accessed 13 Feb 2020

  16. Jantzen, J., Kristensen, M., Christensen, T.H.: Sociotechnical transition to smart energy: the case of Samso 1997–2030. Energy 162, 20–34 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Throndsen, W., Skjølsvold, T.M., Ryghaug, M., Christensen, T.H.: From consumer to prosumer. Enrolling users into a Norwegian PV pilot (2017). https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/2457629. Accessed 7 Mar 2020

  18. AIT, CURE, Siemens AG Österreich, Salzburg AG, Salzburg Netz GmbH, Salzburg Wohnbau GmbH, Vienna University of Technology: Results and Findings from the Smart Grids Model Region Salzburg (2013). http://www.smartgridssalzburg.at/content/dam/websites/smartgrids/Downloads/SGMS_Results_2013.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2020

  19. Ornetzeder, M., Sinozic, T., Gutting, A., Bettin, S.: Deliverable D2.1.: Case study report Austria - Findings from case studies of Model Village Köstendorf, HiT Housing Project and VLOTTE. Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schrammel, J., Gerdenitsch, C., Weiss, A., Kluckner, P.M., Tscheligi, M.: FORE-watch – the clock that tells you when to use: persuading users to align their energy consumption with green power availability. In: Keyson, D.V., et al. (eds.) AmI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7040, pp. 157–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25167-2_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15, September 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25167-2_19

Download references

Acknowledgements

The current research is part of the NEMoGrid project and has received funding in the framework of the joint programming initiative ERA-Net SES focus initiative Smart Grids Plus, with support from the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 646039. The content and views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the ERA-Net SG+ initiative. Any reference given does not necessarily imply the endorsement by ERA-Net SG+.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group Cognitive and Engineering Psychology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany

    Susen Döbelt & Maria Kreußlein

Authors
  1. Susen Döbelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Kreußlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susen Döbelt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Crete and Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Constantine Stephanidis

  2. Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Margherita Antona

Annex 1: Description of the Self-consumption Community Scenario for the Pro- and Consumer Group

Annex 1: Description of the Self-consumption Community Scenario for the Pro- and Consumer Group

Imagine…

… You draw your electricity mainly from your local grid/your own photovoltaic (PV) system at home and you form a self-consumption energy community together with your neighbors. The energy supplier and distribution system operator considers this community to be a single entity. Within the community, you can trade energy with your neighbors at prices that are cheaper than those of the energy supplier. You have paid for the PV system installed in your household and the grid connection. In addition, a smart meter is installed in your home and you are connected to a storage facility that is also used by other people from the neighborhood. Furthermore, there is a storage facility that is used by you and your neighbors. Users can rent the storage from the energy supplier and charge it with the energy surplus from their PV system.

The essential part of this scenario is the trade of your surplus energy with your neighbors. Trading is automated by an algorithm that is realized via a double auction mechanism. This means by buying energy, the buyer is making an offer for the energy that a prosumer wants to sell. At the same time, the seller/prosumer also makes an offer for the price at which he wants to sell his energy. This means by selling energy, you submit your desired price for the energy as a prosumer, while the buyer makes a bid simultaneously. Trading is carried out using blockchain technology. A blockchain is a distributed database that manages an ever-growing list of transactions. The database is expanded chronologically linear, similar to a chain. In the end, new elements are constantly added (hence the term “block chain” = “blockchain”). When one block is complete, the next one is created. Each block contains a checksum of the previous block. Energy prices in your community (at the local market) are lower than real-time prices in the grid. However, you can still get energy from the grid. The price you get for the PV surplus you produce in your community is higher than the real-time prices in the grid and the feed-in tariff. Furthermore, the additional PV price is more attractive than self-consumption. The difference between the selling price and the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is your revenue. The LCOE is the average minimum cost at which your electricity must be sold to reach the breakeven threshold.

Costs for the construction and operation of a power plant during an assumed financial cycle of life and use. The energy supplier takes care of the P2P market’s management. There is a monthly invoice consisting of five components: You pay…

  1. 1.

    … the share for the use of network services (transmission and distribution of electricity). However, there is a discounted rate for your share of use.

  2. 2.

    … the price you offered in the auctions for the electricity you used. The money you pay is lower than a real-time price for electricity from the grid./… the amount of electricity you have drawn.

    • If you use your own PV generated electricity, you pay a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE).

    • If you trade the PV surplus, the earnings depend on the auction. However, the money you receive is higher than a feed-in tariff or the real-time price of electricity on the grid.

Costs for transmission and distribution of P2P trading electricity are excluded. You can draw energy from the grid at any time, which is more expensive.

  1. 3.

    … the power storage facility. This storage battery can either be rented or purchased. Monthly rental rates or one-off purchase costs, therefore, do incur.

  2. 4.

    … the algorithm that fixes local (energy) bottlenecks and offers the ability to obtain cheap energy via auctions.

  3. 5.

    … the share for the P2P management carried out and set up by the energy supplier and distribution system operator.

By trading (locally) in your community, the energy transmission fees are lower. Although there are costs for the P2P (management) algorithm, these costs are less than the total profits. The advantage for consumers/prosumers are that, as a flexible consumer, he or she can obtain energy from a prosumer at a lower price than the network price/they sell their surplus energy to a flexible consumer at a higher price compared to the distribution system operator. You can reduce the payback time of your PV system and thus lower the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE).

In short, you pay your energy bill, including additional shares for storage and the algorithm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Döbelt, S., Kreußlein, M. (2020). Peer-to-Peer Traded Energy: Prosumer and Consumer Focus Groups about a Self-consumption Community Scenario. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds) HCI International 2020 - Posters. HCII 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1224. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50726-8_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50726-8_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50725-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50726-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation