Hedging Investments of Grid-Connected PV-BESS in Buildings Using Cryptocurrency Mining: A Case Study in Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been a growing global focus on solar power as a renewable energy source (RES) to supply local energy demands and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides a small-scale utilization of solar energy on the roofs of apartment buildings. Investment in this system and its profitability depends on several factors, including geographic conditions, electricity price, and local load profiles. However, in Finland, the maritime and continental climates and electrically heated residential buildings present unique challenges to the investment and utilization of rooftop PV systems. Common solutions to incentivize the investment of grid-connected PV in apartments are battery energy storage systems (BESSs), demand side management (DSM), and power-to-x (P2X) approaches. Nevertheless, the value of these solutions is limited in Finland due to the seasonal variation of solar PV generation and customers’ energy consumption. This paper presents a novel and practical control and hedging mechanism to encourage investments in rooftop solar PV-BESS systems by investing in cryptocurrency mining devices (CMDs) as dispatchable and flexible loads, which facilitate the use of excess renewable energy for producing cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin (BTC). This mechanism can optimally switch the output of excessive renewable energy between exporting to the main grid and mining cryptocurrency. The proposed mechanism is studied using a dataset obtained from a residential apartment building in Helsinki, Finland, and its effectiveness is demonstrated through several practical scenarios. The results of a case study employed in this work demonstrate that the proposed hedging mechanism can provide sufficient encouragement for investors to invest in a PV system, with a return on investment equal to 57.7%. This mechanism also reduces the annual cost of residential apartments by 68.1%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".