Comparison between Blockchain P2P Energy Trading and Conventional Incentive Mechanisms for Distributed Energy Resources—A Rural Microgrid Use Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) energy trading is a new financial mechanism that can be adopted to incentivize the development of distributed energy resources (DERs), by promoting the selling of excess energy to other peers on the network at a negotiated rate. Current incentive programs, such as net metering (NEM) and Feed-in-Tariff (FiT), operate according to a centralized policy framework, where energy is only traded with the utility, the state-owned grid authority, the service provider, or the power generation/distribution company, who also have the upper hand in deciding on the rates for buying the excess energy. This study presents a comparative analysis of three energy trading mechanisms, P2P energy trading, NEM, and FiT, within a rural microgrid consisting of two prosumers and four consumers. The microgrid serves as a practical testbed for evaluating the economic impacts of these mechanisms, through simulations considering various factors such as energy demand, production variability, and energy rates, and using key metrics such as economic savings, annual energy bill, and wasted excess energy. Results indicate that while net metering and FiT offer stable financial returns for prosumers, P2P trading demonstrates superior flexibility and potentially higher economic benefits for both prosumers and consumers by aligning energy trading with real-time market conditions. The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders seeking to optimize rural energy systems through innovative trading mechanisms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".