Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Electricity storage compared to net metering in residential PV

applications
Giulio Cerino Abdin, Michel Noussan*
Politecnico di Torino, Department of Energy, Turin, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The installation of PV systems in residential buildings has seen a dramatic increase in the last decade
thanks to national policies like Feed in Tariff and Net Metering. Several users are now needing to increase
their share of self-consumption to optimize the profits from their systems. Energy storage systems are
Keywords: entering the market in last years, claiming to provide an interesting upgrade for existing PV systems. In a
Energy storage broader perspective, energy storage systems will have a significant impact on the entire energy pro-
PV
duction and conversion processes. The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the energetic and
Solar energy
economic performance of an electricity storage system, compared with the net metering scheme, which
Renewable energy sources
is an effective economic support for residential PV systems in different countries. This research work is
based on the Italian market as a case study, to perform a detailed analysis on the net metering scheme.
Multiple parameters are considered into the calculation, including the location, the PV size, the storage
size and a range of installation costs. The results highlight the main issues related to this technology, both
from an energetic and economic point of view. While the economic sustainability is currently far from
being reached, also the electricity losses generated in the storage system appear to be a significant
disadvantage.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Electricity generation has seen worldwide a significant shift to-
wards Renewable Energy Sources (RES) in last years. The choice of
RES development is related to multiple aspects, such as the green-
house gases (GHG) emissions decrease, the reduction of the
dependence on fossil fuels, both for security of supply and resources
depletion, lower impacts on harmful emissions, etc. Multiple works
have analyzed the role of electricity production from RES in the
development of sustainable cities and energy systems and networks,
with different peculiarities related to the available local resources
(Lund et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2017; Vergragt et al., 2016). Different
aspects have been successfully assessed, but many challenges are
still to be faced for a full deployment of such technologies.
In particular, photovoltaic (PV) technology has drastically
increased its penetration, along with an exponential decrease of
installation costs (Barbose and Darghouth, 2016), mainly driven by
public incentives for the support of RES in power generation. PV
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: michel.noussan@polito.it, michel.noussan@gmail.com
(M. Noussan).
technology has been used both for large scale power plants of
hundreds of MWs, and for distributed power generation of resi-
dential users who aim at limiting their electricity withdrawal from
the power grid.
In particular, the growth of small distributed generation systems
has required the power grids to increase their operational flexi-
bility, opening the way for the smart grids concept. The crucial
aspect that needs to be faced with any PV system is the manage-
ment of the excess energy that cannot be consumed onsite when it
is produced. While first stand-alone systems were equipped with
batteries, most of the PV plants installed worldwide are now sup-
plying to the power grid their excess generation. For that reason,
net metering schemes have been developed to support small pro-
sumers in their interaction with the power grid (Yamamoto, 2012).
However, net metering has recently been criticized on the grounds
that it provides a subsidy for solar installations paid by other
consumers (Comello and Reichelstein, 2017).
Recent statistics (ren21, 2017) show how the Net Metering
represents, as well as the Feed In Tariff, the main national incentive
adopted worldwide, to promote PV technologies. Net metering, as a
support for PV generation, is currently applied in Europe (Italy,
Denmark, The Netherlands.), USA (adopted in 41 states), South
America, and other countries in the world. Moreover, some nations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.132
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
176 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186
are moving from Feed In Tariff incentive to Net Metering scheme
(e.g. Australia).
Some of these countries, thanks to the development of PV power
plants, are now reaching non-marginal shares of electricity pro-
duction from solar PV. Italy and Germany are currently the top
performing countries, with 8.4% and 6.4% respectively, but also other
countries such as Greece, Spain, Belgium and Australia are over a 2%-
quota (authors’ calculation from IEA, 2016). Such high PV penetra-
tions lead to the necessity of facing a non-programmable energy
source, as it is the case for other RES (e.g. wind, hydro). The effects of
daily and seasonal variations must be carefully tackled to guarantee
the power grid stability. Different solutions are already in use or are
being proposed, such as reserve power plants (usually fossil-fuel-
driven), electricity storage, sector coupling and demand response
(Kia et al., 2017; Ren and Ren, 2018; Schweiger et al., 2017). Such
technologies require integrated solutions at different scales, as
smart grids need to provide an operational flexibility both at high-
voltage, medium-voltage and low-voltage levels.
Due to the high number of distributed PV systems, in last few
years electricity storage systems for residential users are entering
the market as a solution to help users increase their self-
consumption (Camilo et al., 2017) and to integrate the PV produc-
tion into the electricity market (Nún ~ ez-Reyes et al., 2017). The
benefits of the electricity storage systems as a support to PV gen-
eration have been studied into the literature, but there is still
controversy on their effectiveness.
Many research works suggest that distributed energy storage
could provide a viable option to increase self-consumption
(Castillo-Cagigal et al., 2011; Mulder et al., 2010), improve local
supply and demand balance (Candelise and Westacott, 2017) and
mitigate voltage impact by PV (Babacan et al., 2017; Bullich-
Massague  et al., 2017). Other studies highlight that the electricity
storage may not be the best solution for the mitigation of the high
variability of energy production from RES: more advanced ap-
proaches including power-to-gas, power-to-heat and power-to-
vehicles could guarantee better results (Lund et al., 2017; Nastasi
and Lo Basso, 2017).
Considering economic aspects, the increasing technological
maturity and economies of scale allow in some cases energy storage
systems to lower the levelized cost of energy for residential PV
plants (Lai and McCulloch, 2017). However, other studies suggests
that the use of electricity storage can lower the benefits produced
by PV systems in terms of decrease of CO2 emissions (Grantham
et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2017). Global analyses have also been
developed (Cucchiella et al., 2016), evaluating for thousands of
scenarios the break-even point of self-consumption increasing to
assure market viability.
However, many studies are limited to a general comparison of
the electricity storage option with the average electricity prices for
the final users, without considering the Net Metering alternative
and without performing simulations with a narrow time step.
Given the variability of PV production, users demand and in some
cases energy prices, a simulation with an hourly time step is needed
to increase the accuracy of the results and provide useful insights
from such a comparison.
This paper presents an analysis on the economic and energetic
aspects related to the installation of electricity storage in existing
residential PV systems. The evaluation has been performed
considering the Italian context, a market where PV technology
currently generates around 8% of the total electricity production in
the country. The choice of a single case study has been done to
provide more detailed calculations by considering in depth the real
economic and technical conditions and provide accurate results,
that have been used as a basis for a wider discussion.
The profitability of the electricity storage is evaluated in
comparison with the existing net metering scheme, to highlight
potential benefits for the users. The same comparison has been
considered from an energetic point of view, to assess the impacts of
a wide development of this technology at the users’ level. Finally, a
discussion has been proposed, based on a comparison of the results
with other international analyses, to provide useful insights for
future policy developments or energy planning activities.
2. Methodology
2.1. Context
2.1.1. PV plants
Thanks to the availability of public data, the study will focus the
attention on the Italian case study. Italy has been chosen for its high
PV penetration, especially in the residential sector, and the long
experience in Net Metering policy. The cumulative installed power
in the country at the end of 2016 is 19.3 GW (732,000 PV systems)
with a mean annual installation capacity for the last 3 years
(2014÷2016) of about 370 MW (GSE, 2017a).
Focusing on residential PV systems, the Italian statistics (GSE,
2017a) count about 580,000 PV systems (79% of total PV systems
in Italy) with an installed capacity equal to 2.8 GW (15% of the
national installed PV systems capacity), and an average self-
consumption around 29%. The residential market plays also an
important role for current and future installations, because it is the
only sector that benefits from an incentive (tax deduction) after the
end of the “feed in premium” and the “feed in tariff” national
incentive programs. Considering the most recent available data
(2016), the residential sector accounts for 85% of the new PV in-
stallations in Italy (about 37,500 plants with respect to a total of
44,300 systems) and 41% of the new capacity (155 MW of 382 MW).
The Italian photovoltaic sector recorded a strong expansion over
the last ten years, becoming one of the main European markets in
2010÷2013 (with Germany) and the first for profitability (Spertino
et al., 2013). The trend represented in Fig. 1 (authors’ calculation
from GSE, 2017a), was driven mainly by the presence of national
incentive schemes, which lasted until July 6th, 2013, with the end of
the so called “Quinto Conto Energia” incentive scheme and the net
metering access for the PV energy systems.
From the end of the incentive scheme only the residential sector
maintained national subsidies with tax deductions equal to 50% of
the PV systems costs, plus the possibility of accessing the net
metering. The tax deduction for the residential sector was intro-
duced in 2008 but it was not applicable together with the in-
centives scheme. It has always been economically more
disadvantageous than the incentive scheme, but it is still one of the
best national subsidies in Europe ensuring good profitability for
Fig. 1. Italian annual PV systems' capacity and number of installations.
 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186
residential installations (Campoccia et al., 2014; De Boeck et al.,
2016; Rodrigues et al., 2016).
In Table 1 some additional information about the different
Italian incentive schemes are summarized. The feed-in tariffs have
been gradually decreased with time. The first incentive program
(Primo Conto Energia) rewarded up to 0.45 V/kWh for 3-kW PV
systems on buildings, decreased to 0.23 V/kWh in the fourth
incentive program (Quarto Conto Energia). The last feed-in tariff,
limited to the self-consumption, rewarded on average 0.11 V/kWh
(Orioli and Di Gangi, 2017).
The paper is focused on the residential sector, which is the
largest market in Italy considering the number of PV systems
annual installations, and the main market for small storage systems
(2÷14 kWh) thanks to the high amount of installed PV plants in the
last years.
To evaluate the most common PV residential system features, it
is useful to focus on PV systems with capacity up to 15 kWp. Na-
tional census open data (authors’ calculation from GSE, 2017b)
show that the most frequent nominal power of PV plants are 3 and
6 kW (see Fig. 2).
The choice of PV systems capacity for the simulation has been
related to the following criteria:

Italian Feed in Premium (FIP) and Feed in Tariff (FIT) was divided
into discrete power ratings with decreasing incentives by power
increase. The upper levels of the first 2 ranges (i.e. 3 and 6 kW)
gave the best profitability;

A common sizing criterion has been the calculation of the PV
system capacity [kW] equal to the house electrical power
available from the power supplier, limited for the Italian elec-
tricity regulation system to 3, 4.5 and 6 kW for single-phase
electric systems;

The obligation by Italian electricity regulations to install three-
phase electric systems for systems larger than 6 kW has also
reduced the installation of PV systems in the range 6÷15 kW.
2.1.2. Electricity tariffs
The Italian power system is currently experiencing a transition
phase, with the update of the entire tariff system to follow the
major changes that the network has undergone in recent years.
These impacts are related to the massive input of renewable sour-
ces, to the increased use of heat pumps and to the expected
development of electrical mobility. A recent deliberation (AEEGSI,
2015) defined the steps of the so called “Reform of the electricity
tariffs” that will be completed by 1st January 2018.
This reform abolishes the “progressivity”, i.e. the increasing
energy tariff to the users with higher consumption, to promote the
electrification of the residential sector (i.e. heat pumps, mobility).
Moreover, the network costs (i.e. costs paid for transmission, dis-
tribution and measurement of electricity) are shifted to the fixed
quota of the electric bill, and they will be paid per point of delivery
(POD) and per installed power, instead to be related to the energy
Table 1
Summary of Italian incentive schemes for PV systems.
Incentive program Ministerial decree Start
Primo Conto Energia M.D. 07/28/2005 2005
M.D. 02/06/2006
Secondo Conto Energia M.D. 02/19/2007 13/04/2007
Terzo Conto Energia M.D. 08/06/2010 01/01/2011
Quarto Conto Energia M.D. 05/05/2011 01/06/2011
Quinto Conto Energia M.D. 07/05/2012 27/08/2012
Ristrutturazioni edilizie M.D. 01/22/2008 2008
177
consumed by the users.
The aim of the reform is to encourage the electrification of the
sector, to increase the use of electricity and to promote new
installation of RES generation systems. However, the new tariff
scheme, shifting the costs from the energy quota to the fixed quota,
is a significant obstacle to energy efficiency and energy self-
production.
Analyzing the electric bill before (2010÷2015) and after (2017)
the application of the “reform of electric tariff”, for a residential
3 kW user with different annual electricity consumption, it is
possible to assess how the fixed and power based quota of the bill is
increasing (see Fig. 3). A direct consequence of this choice is the
reduction of the economic saving potential of renewable self-
production plants and storage systems. After the reform, the en-
ergy based quota of the tariff is in the range of 0.14÷0.17 V/kWh (the
costs are evaluated with respect to the “regulated market users”
published by the Authority (AEEGSI, 2017)). A clear effect notice-
able from the plot is the increase of the specific price per kWh for
users with lower consumption and the decrease for high-
consumption users.
2.1.3. Net metering
The net metering, also known as “Scambio Sul Posto” selling
scheme, was introduced by the Power and Gas National Authority
(AEEGSI, 2008a) and it is currently the main driver for the profit-
ability of residential PV systems in the Italian market (De Boeck
et al., 2016). Similar schemes are available in other countries,
with slightly different features and economical values.
The selling scheme was initially defined as a balance of energy
exchanged through the power grid (inputs vs outputs). With sub-
sequent deliberations (AEEGSI, 2011, 2010, 2010, 2009a, 2009b,
2008b), a number of changes were made by introducing a more
complex calculation scheme based on the economic value of the
energy exchanged, to include the significant variations of electricity
market prices over the day and the year. The reimbursement of part
of the excise duty paid by the user in the bill has also been
recognized.
Currently (AEEGSI, 2011) the net metering scheme pays to the
PV owner an economic quota (CS) which is defined by the resolu-
tion ARG/elt 181/11 and it is based on following calculations:
CS ¼ min½OE ; CEI  þ CUsf  ES
The formula considers the economic value of the withdrawal OE,
defined on the basis of the monthly energy measurement (EPr) and
the national electricity price (PUN), both evaluated considering the
three national band consumption hours (fi):
X 3 h
12 X i
OE ¼ EPrm;fi  PUNm;fi
m¼1 fi¼1
The economic value of the electricity supplied to the grid (CEI) is
calculated on the monthly energy (EI) and the zonal electricity price
End Incentive scheme Net metering
2007 Fixed Feed in Premium (FiP) Allowed
31/12/2010 (extended to 30/06/2011) Fixed Feed in Premium (FiP) Allowed
31/05/2011 Fixed Feed in Premium (FiP) Allowed
26/08/2012 Fixed Feed in Premium (FiP) Allowed
06/06/2013 Feed in Tariff (FiT) Not allowed
Not defined Tax deduction (residential sector) Allowed
178 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
0
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
PV System installed capacity [kW]

Fig. 2. PV systems' installed capacity distribution.

(PZMGP). The EI value, according to the national regulation, provides

X 3 h
12 X i
an increase of 5.2% of the real energy supply measured by the
CEI ¼ EIm;fi  PZMGP
meter, thanks to the low voltage network losses avoided by the m;fi
m¼1 fi¼1
distributed generation of energy. The evaluation of CEI is performed
considering the three national band consumption hours (fi): Finally, some of the user-paid taxes on the energy component

0.30 €/kWh

0.25 €/kWh

0.20 €/kWh

0.15 €/kWh

0.10 €/kWh

0.05 €/kWh

0.00 €/kWh
2010 2015 2017 2010 2015 2017 2010 2015 2017
1500 kWh 3000 kWh 4500 kWh

consump on fixed power

Fig. 3. Specific share of electric bill before (2010e2015) and after (2017) the "reform of electric tariff", analysis for different annual energy needs in "regulated market".
 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186 179

are reimbursed in the calculation of the bonus (CUsf). Returns are
calculated on the minimum value of the energy sold and purchased
by the user (Es).
ogs
CUsf ¼ CUreti
sf þ CUsf
ES ¼ min½EI ; EPr 
In case of oversized plants with energy production larger than
consumption, the surplus is valued at the economical market price
without any bonus and excise reimbursement. The surplus eco-
nomic value (CrL) is evaluated according to Italian regulation:
CrL ¼ min½0; ðCEI  OE Þ
A simple economic comparison of a residential user has been
provided as an example, taking into account a typical network
input (1956 kWh) and network withdrawal (2481 kWh) as reported
in Table 2. Data are referred to the simulation of the 3 kW PV plant
on a residential building located in Turin, as described in the
following paragraph.
Considering the data of Table 2, a calculation can be performed
on the Net Metering economic contribution Cs on the basis of 2016
Italian energy market data (GME, 2017), and the energy based bill
quota anticipated by the users for the energy exchanged in the
regulated market conditions (AEEGSI, 2017). The results show how
the Net Metering refunds to the domestic user the 79% of the
economic energy-based bill of the energy exchanged, being Cs
equal to 239.34 V and the energy bill quota anticipated by the user
equal to 304.38 V (including VAT 10%).
2.1.4. Storage systems
While distributed PV systems are already a mature and diffused
technology, with economic viability without incentives in multiple
countries, residential electricity storage systems remain a relatively
new technology. Although many units have been installed, the
economic profitability remains a significant issue in several coun-
tries. The market is at its early stage, and the costs are expected to
lower, potentially following a similar pattern of the PV costs
decrease of last years. This decrease is also triggered by the wide
use of batteries for mobility, which is currently increasing their
demand worldwide, and pushing for research and development in
the sector. However, some concerns are potentially related to the
lack of worldwide resources for a large increase of the storage
market capacity in the following years, especially considering the
wide range of electricity storage applications.
Different technologies for the energy storage are currently
available, but the most diffused are Pb-acid, lithium-ion-iron-
phosphate and lithium-ion (Olaszi and Ladanyi, 2017). The most
mature technology is Pb-acid, which is however losing its
competitiveness due to poor cycle efficiency (around 67% including
AC/DC conversion) and low discharge cycles (around 2000e2500 at
50% Depth of Discharge). Their main advantage remains the low
specific price (400e600 Euro/kWh). The second technology, LiFeO4,
has relatively high discharge cycles (around 6000 with 80% DoD)
and about 85% of cycle efficiency, but at a high specific price
(650e1500 Euro/kWh).
Lithium-ion technology is becoming the standard in other ap-
plications, related to portable devices and mobility, mainly thanks to
its high energy density. Moreover, the technology development is
continuously increasing the discharge cycles, reaching around 8000
full cycles and 20 years of calendar lifetime. Their main limitation
remains their still high cost, which is however expected to decrease
with their manufacturing on a large scale (Parra et al., 2017).
However, further concerns are related to the environmental
sustainability of batteries, as their impact on GHG emissions and
energy consumption are highlighted by several studies, especially
for lithium-ion batteries. Producing 1 kWh of storage capacity re-
quires on average 328 kWh of primary energy and leads to GHG
emissions of 110 kgCO2eq (Peters et al., 2017). Furthermore, some
studies suggest that other impacts such as toxicity might be even
more critical. For that reason, some operation parameters such as
cycle life and charge-discharge efficiency have still large margins of
improvement.
2.2. Description of the case studies
A reference demand profile for an average user has been
defined, based on available data from a simulation software (au-
thors’ calculations from HOMER ENERGY, 2017). The total annual
energy consumption is 4125 kWh, and the daily profiles are shown
in Fig. 4.
This user profile has been coupled to two different PV systems,
of 3 kW and 6 kW, based on the most common installed systems in
Italy, as discussed above. The choice of considering the same user
has been done to highlight the differences of performance and
economic profitability with respect to a smaller or larger PV array.
Moreover, the configuration without energy storage has been
compared with four different storage sizes: 4, 6, 8 and 14 kWh,
based on some of the commercial sizes that are available in the
market. A roundtrip efficiency (AC grid - DC battery - AC grid) of
86% has been considered, based on the datasheet of one of the
market leaders (SONNEN, 2017). The values of the simulation pa-
rameters are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2
Net metering example (3-kW PV system located in Turin).

Month Energy from grid Energy to grid

[kWh] [kWh]

F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3

January 38,4 71,4 83,5 78,7 10,8 17,6

February 35,7 66,4 67,2 106,8 22,8 9,7
March 36,7 78,5 73,5 127,0 35,1 49,4
April 15,7 102,1 73,1 115,0 51,9 38,1
May 13,6 107,6 79,8 164,8 15,9 30,7
June 14,7 103,0 84,4 123,2 34,2 47,2
July 15,8 115,9 89,4 157,0 55,0 38,0
August 16,5 121,8 95,9 139,9 25,9 33,5
September 22,3 120,3 80,1 133,3 12,8 10,3
October 43,2 108,4 82,4 72,4 24,7 17,5
November 55,0 75,9 82,9 53,2 8,0 15,0
Fig. 4. Demand profiles used in the simulations (authors' calculations from HOMER
December 53,9 75,8 80,5 47,4 16,6 16,5
ENERGY, 2017).
180 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186
Each of the above-mentioned cases has been simulated in three
different cities, Turin, Rome and Palermo, to highlight the effect of
the location on the PV system performance. The three cities have
been chosen as representative examples for the climate variability
in Italy. As a result, 30 different situations have been compared in
the analysis (Table 3).
2.3. Energy simulation logic
Based on the user profile described in the previous section, the
operation of the energy system has been simulated with an hourly
resolution over an entire year of operation. The energy production
from the PV system has been compared with the user's demand in
each single hour. The following rules have been applied:

PV production lower or equal to user's demand: the energy from
PV is entirely used by the user; the remaining part is supplied by
the storage, if available, and/or by the national grid;

PV production higher than the user's demand: the energy de-
mand is entirely fulfilled by the PV production; the remaining
part is used to charge the energy storage until it is full, then it is
supplied to the grid.
An additional limit is the maximum charge and discharge power
of the storage system, as reported in Table 1. In the simulations
performed in this study, this limit is more detrimental for the
charge phase, especially with 6-kW PV plant, as the user's con-
sumption is rarely reaching such a value. Moreover, this analysis is
based on hourly values, and therefore additional limitations might
occur for narrower time steps.
In the charge/discharge phase of the storage, the energy losses
are included into the calculation. The roundtrip efficiency has been
set to 0.86, including the inverter losses and the battery losses. In
the analysis of the economical sustainability it is also considered an
annual reduction of the PV system modules efficiency equal to 0.5%.
No losses in battery capacity have been considered (cautionary
hypothesis).
2.4. Economic analysis
The economic analysis is based on different indicators. A first
calculation, based on the energy simulation logic, evaluates for each
case (n) the economic value of the electricity bill (Ebill), considering
residential users with regulated market condition (AEEGSI, 2017)
and the Net Metering economic contribution (CS) and surplus (CrL).
The study evaluates the Net Electricity Bill (NEbill) as the dif-
ference between the Electricity Bill and the Net Metering contri-
bution (CS) considering also the surplus valorization (CrL):
NEbill;n ¼ Ebill;n  CS;n  CrL;n
The net cash flow of the investment (Rt) is then calculated. The
analysis considers the difference between the Net Electricity Bill
with storage (NEbill,n) and the one of the reference scenario
(NEbill,ref). The reference scenario is defined as the residential user
Table 3
Simulation parameters for the energy storage options considered in this study.
Energy capacity Maximum output Roundtrip efficiency
(kWh) (kW) ()
case 0 e e e
case 1 4 2.5 86%
case 2 6 3.0 86%
case 3 8 3.3 86%
case 4 14 3.3 86%
with PV system and no storage system installed, for any location
and PV capacity.
Rt;n ¼ NEbill;n  NEbill;ref
The Net Present Value (NPV) is then calculated. Two storage
economic specific costs are considered for the calculation of the
initial investment (R0), equal to 650 V/kWh and 1500 V/kWh and
based on the price of two of the most common commercial solu-
tions. The limitation on two real prices has been done to avoid an
excessive complexity on the results. However, this approximation
appears to be acceptable considering the size of the price range. A
number of studies have investigated electricity storage costs
(Abdon et al., 2017; Jülch, 2016; Obi et al., 2017; Staffell and
Rustomji, 2016).
The analysis considers a 2% annual electricity cost increase in
the evaluation of the annual cash flow (Rt) rate and a discount rate
(i) for the NPV equal to 3%.
X
N
Rt
NPVði; NÞ ¼ t
 R0
t¼0 ð1 þ iÞ
The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is also calculated, by setting to
zero the NPV.
X
N
Rt
NPVði; NÞ ¼ t
 R0 ¼ 0
t¼0 ð1 þ IRRÞ
The study evaluates also for each scenario the actualized
payback time (PBT), based on NPV formula and a discount rate (i)
equal to 3%, calculating the year corresponding to a NPV equal to 0.
X
PBT
Rt
NPVði; PBTÞ ¼ t
 R0 ¼ 0
t¼0 ð1 þ iÞ
3. Results
3.1. Energy results
The first aspect to be considered for the energy analysis is the
effect of each parameter on the energy balance of the PV system. As
discussed above, the three main parameters considered into the
simulation are the geographical location, the PV system size and
the capacity of the storage. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 report the annual values
of the energy flows for a 3 kW-plant and a 6 kW-plant respectively.
The different shares of the energy consumed by the users (self-
consumption, from storage and from grid) are reported as positive
values, while the negative values represent the excess energy
produced by the PV plant, which is in part supplied to the grid and
in part lost for the storage charge/discharge process.
Considering Fig. 5, geography plays an important role, but the
qualitative patterns are similar in the three cases. While the addi-
tional radiation available in Palermo leads to slightly higher energy
supply to the grid, it doesn't significantly affect the self-
consumption. A much more important role is played by the en-
ergy storage: the higher its size, the lower the need of withdrawing
energy from the grid. The largest difference is among systems
without storage and systems with 4-kWh storage, while the in-
crease of storage size appears to provide lower marginal advan-
tages. However, the storage size is also increasing the electricity
losses caused by the charge-discharge cycles, resulting in a lower
efficiency of the whole system, i.e. a part of the excess energy
cannot be sold to the grid as it is lost in the storage operation.
 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186
Fig. 5. Energy flows calculated in the simulation e 3 kW PV system (excess energy in
negative values).
Fig. 6. Energy flows calculated in the simulation e 6 kW PV system (excess energy in
negative values).
The 6-kW case reported in Fig. 6 presents similar trends, while a
larger plant on the same user has the obvious consequence of
increasing the annual excess energy. It should be noted that the
self-consumption remains the same, which means that no matter
the PV size, the direct coupling with the users’ profiles is not able to
lower the dependence on the grid over a certain amount. This is not
the case for the energy storage: the largest storage in Palermo al-
lows the user to become almost independent from the grid
(requiring only 11 kWh in the entire year). However, the use of a 6-
kW system appears excessive for a self-consumption, although in
many cases such systems have been installed and are currently in
operation.
The results of these simulations are based on a demand profile
of a typical user, to provide more general insights. Real profiles
could lead to several different results, as the user's behavior vari-
ability depends on multiple aspects, but the choice of few of them
would have not been statistically significant. For that reason, no real
profiles have been used in this analysis, although this aspect could
be further considered in future works.
3.2. Economic results
The following graphs (Figs. 7 and 8) show the composition of the
electricity bill evaluated with 2016 economic conditions for the
residential users (with reference to the regulated market). The data
show the differences between 3 kW and 6 kW users related to: (1)
the fixed quota, (2) the regulated market price condition for con-
sumption quota and (3) the limitation of the Net Metering
181
contribution to the minimum value between grid supplies and
withdrawals.
The results show a reduced economic impact in the net elec-
tricity bill with the increase of the storage capacity with respect to
the reference scenario for all the locations. The economic savings
are low, especially for 3 kW PV plants and the northern area, due to
the low production with respect to the energy demand of the user.
Also in the more favorable cases the economic saving shows very
low values compared to the initial investment, as discussed in the
following paragraphs.
A more extensive presentation of the results is provided in
Tables 4 and 5, considering the main economic indicators for both
PV systems with a low-cost storage scenario (600 V/kWh), which
appears to be the most significant among the ones considered in
this study. The high-cost cases are reported in the Appendix.
All the cases show clearly that the energy storage systems are
currently not a viable solution considering the economic sustain-
ability. In particular, none of the cases shows an acceptable payback
time, and the net present value after ten years is always negative, as
it is for IRRs.
All these cases show that the indicators are far from the ones
needed for an economic interest. Some significant incentives,
together with a strong decrease of the energy storage installation
costs, could lead in the future to more acceptable indicators.
Considering the 3 kW with higher energy storage cost (1500
V/kWh, see Appendix) the results present even higher PBT values,
between 210 and 830 years with lower IRR and NPV value, due to
the higher initial cost R0 and equal annual cash flow Rt. Evaluating
the 6 kW scenarios the results present PBT between 160 and 465 in
the high investment cost scenario. The tables with the detailed
calculations can be found in the Appendix.
Also considering the hypothesis of a tax deduction of 50% of the
initial investment (as in Italian current legislation for some specific
cases), all the PBT and IRR values remain in an economical unsus-
tainable condition. The PBT presents values that are higher than the
technical life of the systems, between 39 years (6 kW PV system in
Rome with 4 kWh storage capacity and lower investment specific
cost) and 460 years (3 kW PV system in Turin with 14 kWh storage
capacity and higher investment specific cost).
Also considering a scenario without net metering, with the
possibility to sell the energy at local market price (CUsf ¼ 0), the
best PBT scenario without deduction presents value higher than 27
years, and a negative IRR value. In case of fiscal deduction equal to
50% the PBT are higher than 15 years with a IRR in the best con-
ditions equal to 4%.
Aiming to a PBT of about 10 years, with the current electricity
prices, the evaluation of the storage specific cost must be of about
50 V/kWh (a 90% reduction from the current lowest prices) to
guarantee economic sustainability. A value of about 100 V/kWh will
be acceptable in case of tax deduction of 50% of the initial
investment.
3.3. Comparison with other studies
The results of this study are based on the market and regulation
conditions of the Italian market. A comparison with the results of
other studies can allow a generalization of the conclusions that can
be drawn for the outputs of this analysis.
The study confirms the results, evaluating the economic prof-
itability, of a more general study (Cucchiella et al., 2016), with a
wider scenarios analysis (3456 scenarios evaluated) based on the
same market (Italy). The cited research presents lower detail on net
metering analysis and a sensitivity analysis extended to several
variables, considering also no subsidies scenarios.
Comparison with a study performed in the UK (Uddin et al.,
182 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186

Electricity bill (Ebill) composi on included VAT,

Net Metering con bu on value (CS), Surplus (CrL) and Net Electricity bill (NEbill)
PV System Capacity = 3 kW
Storage capacity = 0÷14 kWh
€600.00 €600.00

€500.00 €500.00

€400.00 €400.00

€300.00 €300.00

€200.00 €200.00

€100.00 €100.00

€- €-

€(100.00) €(100.00)

€(200.00) €(200.00)

€(300.00) €(300.00)
Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
0 (ref) 1 2 3 4 0 (ref) 1 2 3 4 0 (ref) 1 2 3 4
Turin Rome Palermo

Fixed Power Energy Net Metering (Cs) Surplus (CrL) NEbill

Fig. 7. Electricity bill calculated in the simulation e 3 kW PV system.

2017), confirms that also in different economic conditions from
Italian market, PV with storage systems do not reach economic
viability. In the cited study, more details are given to the storage
degradation during the life cycle of the system.
The same result has been found also in Portuguese electricity
market (Camilo et al., 2017), evaluating the benefits of net metering
introduction in the local market, and demonstrating how current
PV storage technology is still too expensive to guarantee economic
viability.
A study performed in Australian areas (Nicholls et al., 2015),
considering higher electricity prices and lower Feed in Tariff
value than European condition, shows better results considering
the economic analysis, but still presents an increase in the Pay
Back Time of PV storage solutions with respect to no storage
scenarios.
4. Discussion
4.1. Energy balance
The main objective of an energy storage system is the possi-
bility to shift the energy demand over time, from moments with
excess of generation to times of high demand. The alternative
solution, which is performed by exploiting the network, is the
possibility of shifting the excess energy over space, by providing
it to the closer users requiring it when it is generated. These is-
sues need to be faced also by other RES system, both in the
power production and in other sectors such as District Heating
and Cooling Networks.
Both these approaches come at a cost, which can be reflected in
the energy losses for the charge/discharge cycles of the energy
storage or the electricity losses on the network for energy trans-
port. The comparison is highly unbalanced towards the use of a
network: as long as the energy is consumed nearby the PV system
that produces it (i.e. without the need of a significant voltage in-
crease), the network losses are far below the storage losses. While a
charge/discharge has an average efficiency around 86% (including
the AC/DC conversion), the network losses are estimated around
5.2%. For this reason, if there is a demand for the excess energy
produced by PV, its supply to the grid appears a more reasonable
choice than the installation of a dedicated energy storage. This
approach could be limited by a too high penetration of PV systems,
which would lead to a scarcity of nearby users without generation
capacity. However, this situation is not foreseen in the present or
upcoming future.
As long as energy storage is concerned, the installation of larger
units capable of being coupled to groups of users appears a better
option. The larger size could allow for better efficiencies and
management, as the contemporaneity factors of multiple users
could lead to an optimum operation of the storage unit. A larger
number of units that can operate for single users would not be
easily coordinated and integrated into the network operation.
Other solutions should be also considered, including sector
coupling and demand response. The excess energy produced by PV
can be used to produce other energy carriers required by the same
or other users, such as heating, cooling, hydrogen or natural gas.
Electric vehicles could be an additional option in the future, as the
excess PV production is expected to occur in the middle hours of
the day, when a number of vehicles are not in use and could
therefore absorb it.
 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186 183

Electricity bill (Ebill) composi on included VAT,

Net Metering con bu on value (CS), Surplus (CrL) and Net Electricity bill (NEbill)
PV System Capacity = 6 kW
Storage capacity = 0÷14 kWh

€600.00 €600.00
€500.00 €500.00
€400.00 €400.00
€300.00 €300.00
€200.00 €200.00
€100.00 €100.00
€- €-
€(100.00) €(100.00)
€(200.00) €(200.00)
€(300.00) €(300.00)
€(400.00) €(400.00)
€(500.00) €(500.00)
Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
0 (ref) 1 2 3 4 0 (ref) 1 2 3 4 0 (ref) 1 2 3 4
Turin Rome Palermo

Fixed Power Energy Net Metering (Cs) Surplus (CrL) NEbill

Fig. 8. Electricity bill calculated in the simulation e 6 kW PV system.

4.2. Economic aspects
The results clearly show the economic unsustainability of the
electricity storage coupled to residential PV systems in the current
Italian context. The storage solutions considered in this paper show
very low economic performance considering PTB and IRR values
when compared against the existing net metering framework. All
the PBT years evaluated are higher than the expected technical life
of the storage system, with a best case of about 70 years.
Some further results have been presented considering alterna-
tive hypotheses (tax deductions, no Net Metering scheme, lower
storage costs), but the economic sustainability of this technology at
residential level is far from being reached.
The results of this study are also confirmed in other works,
which analyzed a number of countries with similar approaches. The
common conclusion is that energy storage is currently not able to

Table 4
Economic indicators (PV plant: 3 kW, energy storage cost: low).

Location Case Storage capacity NEbill Rt R0 NPV@year 10 IRR PBT

[V] [V] [V] [V] [%] [years]

Turin Case 0 (ref) No storage -V270,81

3 kW Case 1 4 kWh -V251,29 V19,52 -V2.600,00 -V2.426,25 31% 149
Case 2 6 kWh -V246,77 V24,04 -V3.900,00 -V3.686,04 32% 182
Case 3 8 kWh -V244,50 V26,31 -V5.200,00 -V4.965,82 34% 222
Case 4 14 kWh -V242,41 V28,40 -V9.100,00 -V8.847,20 38% 360
Rome Case 0 (ref) No storage -V259,03
3 kW Case 1 4 kWh -V232,32 V26,71 -V2.600,00 -V2.362,26 28% 109
Case 2 6 kWh -V225,23 V33,80 -V3.900,00 -V3.599,18 29% 129
Case 3 8 kWh -V221,60 V37,43 -V5.200,00 -V4.866,84 31% 156
Case 4 14 kWh -V219,14 V39,89 -V9.100,00 -V8.744,98 35% 256
Palermo Case 0 (ref) No storage -V179,99
3 kW Case 1 4 kWh -V148,31 V31,68 -V2.600,00 -V2.318,03 26% 92
Case 2 6 kWh -V136,57 V43,42 -V3.900,00 -V3.513,53 27% 101
Case 3 8 kWh -V131,18 V48,81 -V5.200,00 -V4.765,58 29% 120
Case 4 14 kWh -V129,09 V50,90 -V9.100,00 -V8.646,98 33% 201
184 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186

Table 5
Economic indicators (PV plant: 6 kW, energy storage cost: low).

Location Case Storage capacity NEbill Rt R0 NPV@year 10 IRR PBT

[V] [V] [V] [V] [%] [years]

Turin Case 0 (ref) No storage -V293,74

6 kW Case 1 4 kWh -V244,14 V36,01 -V2.600,00 -V2.279,54 25% 81
Case 2 6 kWh -V222,12 V49,88 -V3.900,00 -V3.456,06 26% 88
Case 3 8 kWh -V213,79 V55,32 -V5.200,00 -V4.707,67 28% 105
Case 4 14 kWh -V208,07 V58,60 -V9.100,00 -V8.578,49 32% 174
Rome Case 0 (ref) No storage -V292,54
6 kW Case 1 4 kWh -V242,99 V41,95 -V2.600,00 -V2.226,61 24% 69
Case 2 6 kWh -V220,81 V58,59 -V3.900,00 -V3.378,59 24% 75
Case 3 8 kWh -V211,98 V65,51 -V5.200,00 -V4.616,96 26% 89
Case 4 14 kWh -V207,00 V69,34 -V9.100,00 -V8.482,84 31% 147
Palermo Case 0 (ref) No storage -V289,51
6 kW Case 1 4 kWh -V238,17 V31,80 -V2.600,00 -V2.316,97 26% 92
Case 2 6 kWh -V212,92 V45,43 -V3.900,00 -V3.495,69 27% 96
Case 3 8 kWh -V204,07 V50,10 -V5.200,00 -V4.754,08 28% 116
Case 4 14 kWh -V202,28 V50,69 -V9.100,00 -V8.648,84 33% 201

provide significant advantages for existing PV systems at residen- systems. Some case studies are simulated based on the most
tial scale. However, future major evolutions of the market similar to common configurations in Italian residential users.
the ones that emerged for PV systems costs can lead to different The results show a severe economic unsustainability, when
conclusions in the future. compared with the current net metering framework in Italy. The
specific cost of the electricity storage is currently too high for the
benefits it can provide for a residential user, also without consid-
4.3. Environmental impacts
ering the net metering alternative and including the available tax
deductions for energy storage. The energy losses in the charge/
Some further considerations are needed considering the whole
discharge cycles are also strongly affecting the energy balance of
sustainability of the storage systems with respect to the net
the system, resulting in lower performance when compared with
metering current scenario.
the excess electricity supply to the grid.
If compared to the whole national energy demand (GSE, 2017a),
This work has been focused on a single country (Italy), due to the
the residential surplus produced by PV systems is currently the 1%
high complexity of the economic evaluation that involves multiple
of the national energy needs (2.180 GWh of residential surplus with
aspects. Italy is currently the country with higher PV share in
respect to 314.300 GWh of national demand) with an annual in-
electricity production, resulting in a case of interest, as represen-
crease of 5%. Considering a constant installation trend for PV sys-
tative of the future trend that will be experienced by many nations.
tems, the current surplus will double in 20 years.
However, many results can be applied to other countries, with
The impact of the storage construction and installation has been
different quantitative values but similar considerations.
calculated of about 110 kgCO2eq/kWh (Peters et al., 2017). Using this
A comparison with other studies has been performed to eval-
value, the installation of a 4-kWh storage system causes an initial
uate potential differences or similarities, showing how in the Eu-
greenhouse gas emission of 440 kgCO2eq. To compensate this initial
ropean area PV with storage is not a viable choice considering
impact, considering the current national thermoelectric emission
economic and environmental benefits for the system (Camilo et al.,
factor, calculated for the year 2016 at 542 kgCO2eq/MWh (ISPRA,
2017; Cucchiella et al., 2016; Uddin et al., 2017). Some differences
2017), each installation of a 4 kWh storage will need an increase
could be notice comparing the analysis to areas with significantly
of RES production of about 810 kWh. As evaluated in the energy
higher electricity costs, like Australia, (Nicholls et al., 2015), but also
analysis, such increase in the final renewable energy uses is not
in this case the achievement of economic and environmental
achievable throughout the storage installation. Conversely, the
benefits from adding a storage to an existing PV system could not
study shows how the greater energy losses of the storage round trip
be guaranteed.
efficiency with respect to the grid supply will cause a reduction of
The installation price for storage systems is currently too high to
the total final renewable energy available for matching the users’
appear as a valuable alternative where net metering is available.
demand.
Moreover, the results show that also without the net metering
With respect to the diffusion of small storage systems in the
option, electricity storage would require unattractive pay-back
residential sector and their usage, the environmental analysis
times.
shows an increase of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). No
Other aspects to be considered are related to the environmental
considerations have been made in the study with respect to other
and energy impacts caused by the construction and the decom-
environmental impacts due to the final disposal of the storage
missioning of such systems, that have potential issues related to
systems, the material recovering and the whole impacts (in addi-
their toxicity and their LCA sustainability. The worldwide shortage
tion to the GHG emissions) related to the extraction of rare mate-
of the metals required for battery applications is another concern
rials such as metals and mineral needed to the storage production.
that will need to be faced in the next future.
Such aspects are known issues that have been raised by some
The results of this work are the basis for further activities that
research works, but an accurate quantification of those impacts is
could include a comparison with distributed energy storage solu-
well beyond the scope of this work.
tions on the network side, serving multiple users. This choice
would allow a better integration with the network, the storage
5. Conclusions being managed by the network operator to provide an optimization
based on the behavior of a larger number of users.
This research work evaluates the installation of electricity
storage systems in residential buildings equipped with existing PV
 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186 185

Appendix

Table 6
Economic indicators (PV plant: 3 kW, energy storage cost: high).

Location Case Storage capacity NEbill Rt R0 NPV@year 10 IRR PBT

[V] [V] [V] [V] [%] [years]

Turin Case 0 (ref) No storage 270,81

3 kW Case 1 4 kWh 251,29 19,52 -V6.000,00 -V5.826,25 37% 345
Case 2 6 kWh 246,77 24,04 -V9.000,00 -V8.786,04 39% 420
Case 3 8 kWh 244,50 26,31 -V12.000,00 -V11.765,82 40% 512
Case 4 14 kWh 242,41 28,40 -V21.000,00 -V20.747,20 43% 830
Rome Case 0 (ref) No storage 259,03
3 kW Case 1 4 kWh 232,32 26,71 -V6.000,00 -V5.762,26 35% 252
Case 2 6 kWh 225,23 33,80 -V9.000,00 -V8.699,18 36% 299
Case 3 8 kWh 221,60 37,43 -V12.000,00 -V11.666,84 38% 360
Case 4 14 kWh 219,14 39,89 -V21.000,00 -V20.644,98 41% 591
Palermo Case 0 (ref) No storage 179,99
3 kW Case 1 4 kWh 148,31 31,68 -V6.000,00 -V5.718,03 34% 213
Case 2 6 kWh 136,57 43,42 -V9.000,00 -V8.613,53 34% 233
Case 3 8 kWh 131,18 48,81 -V12.000,00 -V11.565,58 36% 276
Case 4 14 kWh 129,09 50,90 -V21.000,00 -V20.546,98 40% 463

Table 7
Economic indicators (PV plant: 6 kW, energy storage cost: high).

Location Case Storage capacity NEbill Rt R0 NPV@year 10 IRR PBT

[V] [V] [V] [V] [%] [years]

Turin Case 0 (ref) No storage 161,04

6 kW Case 1 4 kWh 125,03 36,01 -V6.000,00 -V5.679,54 33% 187
Case 2 6 kWh 111,16 49,88 -V9.000,00 -V8.556,06 33% 203
Case 3 8 kWh 105,72 55,32 -V12.000,00 -V11.507,67 35% 244
Case 4 14 kWh 102,44 58,60 -V21.000,00 -V20.478,49 38% 402
Rome Case 0 (ref) No storage 163,82
6 kW Case 1 4 kWh 121,87 41,95 -V6.000,00 -V5.626,61 31% 160
Case 2 6 kWh 105,24 58,59 -V9.000,00 -V8.478,59 32% 172
Case 3 8 kWh 98,31 65,51 -V12.000,00 -V11.416,96 33% 206
Case 4 14 kWh 94,48 69,34 -V21.000,00 -V20.382,84 37% 340
Palermo Case 0 (ref) No storage 40,21
6 kW Case 1 4 kWh 8,41 31,80 -V6.000,00 -V5.716,97 34% 212
Case 2 6 kWh 5,22 45,43 -V9.000,00 -V8.595,69 34% 222
Case 3 8 kWh 9,89 50,10 -V12.000,00 -V11.554,08 35% 269
Case 4 14 kWh 10,48 50,69 -V21.000,00 -V20.548,84 0% 465

References AEEGSI, 2008b. Delibera ARG/elt 184/08-Disposizioni transitorie in materia di

scambio sul posto di energia elettrica.
Babacan, O., Torre, W., Kleissl, J., 2017. Siting and sizing of distributed energy storage
Abdon, A., Zhang, X., Parra, D., Patel, M.K., Bauer, C., Worlitschek, J., 2017. Techno-
to mitigate voltage impact by solar PV in distribution systems. Sol. Energy 146,
economic and environmental assessment of stationary electricity storage
199e208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.02.047.
technologies for different time scales. Energy 139, 1173e1187. https://doi.org/
Barbose, G.L., Darghouth, N.R., 2016. Tracking the Sun IX: The Installed Price of
10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.097.
Residential and Non-Residential Photovoltaic Systems in the United States.
AEEGSI, 2017. Condizioni economiche maggior tutela [WWW Document]. http://
Bullich-Massague , E., Aragües-Pen ~ alba, M., Sumper, A., Boix-Aragones, O., 2017.
www.autorita.energia.it/it/prezzi.htm.
Active power control in a hybrid PV-storage power plant for frequency support.
AEEGSI, 2015. Deliberazione 2 dicembre 2015 582/2015/R/EEL - Riforma delle tariffe
Sol. Energy 144, 49e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.12.033.
di rete e delle componenti tariffarie a copertura degli oneri generali di sistema
Camilo, F.M., Castro, R., Almeida, M.E., Pires, V.F., 2017. Economic assessment of
per i clienti domestici di energia elettrica. Contestuale aggiornamento delle
residential PV systems with self-consumption and storage in Portugal. Sol.
compensazioni di spesa per.
Energy 150, 353e362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.04.062.
AEEGSI, 2011. Delibera ARG/elt 181/11-Aggiornamento dei provvedimenti
 per l’energia elettrica e il gas, correlati alla deliberazione n. 42/02 Campoccia, A., Dusonchet, L., Telaretti, E., Zizzo, G., 2014. An analysis of feed’in
dell’Autorita
tariffs for solar PV in six representative countries of the European Union. Sol.
in materia di cogenerazione, a seguito dell’emanazione dei decreti ministeriali 4
Energy 107, 530e542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.05.047.
agosto 2011 e 5 settembre 201.
Candelise, C., Westacott, P., 2017. Can integration of PV within UK electricity
AEEGSI, 2010. Delibera ARG/elt 127/10-Modifiche e integrazioni alle deliberazioni
 per l’energia elettrica e il gas 6 novembre 2007, n. 280/07, 3 giugno network be improved? A GIS based assessment of storage. Energy Policy 109,
dell’Autorita
694e703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.054.
2008, ARG/elt 74/08 e 8 gennaio 2009, ARG/elt 1/09 ai fini della validazione
Castillo-Cagigal, M., Caaman ~ o-Martín, E., Matallanas, E., Masa-Bote, D., Gutierrez, A.,
commerciale degli impian.
Monasterio-Huelin, F., Jime nez-Leube, J., 2011. PV self-consumption optimiza-
AEEGSI, 2009a. Delibera ARG/elt 1/09-Attuazione dell’articolo 2, comma 153, della
tion with storage and Active DSM for the residential sector. Sol. Energy 85,
legge n. 244/07 e dell’articolo 20 del decreto ministeriale 18 dicembre 2008, in
2338e2348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.06.028.
materia di incentivazione dell’energia elettrica prodotta da fonti rinnovabili
Comello, S., Reichelstein, S., 2017. Cost competitiveness of residential solar PV: the
tramite la tariffa fissa o.
 e delle con- impact of net metering restrictions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 75, 46e57.
AEEGSI, 2009b. Delibera ARG/elt 186/09-Modifiche delle modalita
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.050.
dizioni tecnico-economiche per lo scambio sul posto derivanti dall’applicazione
Cucchiella, F., D'Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., 2016. Photovoltaic energy systems with
della legge n. 99/09.
battery storage for residential areas: an economic analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 131,
AEEGSI, 2008a. Delibera ARG/elt 74/08-Testo integrato delle modalit a e delle con-
460e474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.157.
dizioni tecnico-economiche per lo scambio sul posto (TISP).
186 G. Cerino Abdin, M. Noussan / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 175e186
De Boeck, L., Van Asch, S., De Bruecker, P., Audenaert, A., 2016. Comparison of
support policies for residential photovoltaic systems in the major EU markets
through investment profitability. Renew. Energy 87, 42e53. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.063.
GME, 2017. Mercato Elettrico [WWW Document]. http://www.mercatoelettrico.org/
It/.
Grantham, A., Pudney, P., Ward, L.A., Whaley, D., Boland, J., 2017. The viability of
electrical energy storage for low-energy households. Sol. Energy 155,
1216e1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.07.063.
GSE, 2017a. Solare Fotovoltaico - Rapporto Statistico 2016. Roma (Italy).
GSE, 2017b. Atlasole version 1.2 [WWW Document]. http://atlasole.gse.it/atlasole/.
HOMER ENERGY, 2017. Homer PRO simulation software.
IEA, 2016. International Energy Statistics.
ISPRA, 2017. Fattori di emissione atmosferica di CO2 e altri gas a effetto serra nel
settore elettrico. n. 257/2017.
Jones, C., Peshev, V., Gilbert, P., Mander, S., 2017. Battery storage for post-incentive
PV uptake? A financial and life cycle carbon assessment of a non-domestic
building. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.191.
Jülch, V., 2016. Comparison of electricity storage options using levelized cost of
storage (LCOS) method. Appl. Energy 183, 1594e1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2016.08.165.
Kia, M., Setayesh Nazar, M., Sepasian, M.S., Heidari, A., Sharaf, A.M., 2017. Coordi-
nation of heat and power scheduling in micro-grid considering inter-zonal
power exchanges. Energy 141, 519e536. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENERGY.2017.09.070.
Lai, C.S., McCulloch, M.D., 2017. Levelized cost of electricity for solar photovoltaic
and electrical energy storage. Appl. Energy 190, 191e203. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.153.
Lund, H., Østergaard, P.A., Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B.V., 2017. Smart energy and
smart energy systems. Energy 137, 556e565. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENERGY.2017.05.123.
Mulder, G., Ridder, F. De, Six, D., 2010. Electricity storage for grid-connected
household dwellings with PV panels. Sol. Energy 84, 1284e1293. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.04.005.
Nastasi, B., Lo Basso, G., 2017. Power-to-Gas integration in the transition towards
future urban energy systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 23933e23951. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.07.149.
Nicholls, A., Sharma, R., Saha, T.K., 2015. Financial and environmental analysis of
rooftop photovoltaic installations with battery storage in Australia. Appl. En-
ergy 159, 252e264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.052.
Nún~ ez-Reyes, A., Marcos Rodríguez, D., Bordons Alba, C., Ridao Carlini, M.A.,  2017.
Optimal scheduling of grid-connected PV plants with energy storage for inte-
gration in the electricity market. Sol. Energy 144, 502e516. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2016.12.034.
Obi, M., Jensen, S.M., Ferris, J.B., Bass, R.B., 2017. Calculation of levelized costs of
electricity for various electrical energy storage systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.043.
Olaszi, B.D., Ladanyi, J., 2017. Comparison of different discharge strategies of grid-
connected residential PV systems with energy storage in perspective of
optimal battery energy storage system sizing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.046.
Orioli, A., Di Gangi, A., 2017. Six-years-long effects of the Italian policies for pho-
tovoltaics on the grid parity of grid-connected photovoltaic systems installed in
urban contexts. Energy 130, 55e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2017.04.069.
Parra, D., Swierczynski, M., Stroe, D.I., Norman, S.A., Abdon, A., Worlitschek, J.,
O'Doherty, T., Rodrigues, L., Gillott, M., Zhang, X., Bauer, C., Patel, M.K., 2017. An
interdisciplinary review of energy storage for communities: challenges and
perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.05.003.
Peters, J.F., Baumann, M., Zimmermann, B., Braun, J., Weil, M., 2017. The environ-
mental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters e a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.039.
Ren, J., Ren, X., 2018. Sustainability ranking of energy storage technologies under
uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 1387e1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.JCLEPRO.2017.09.229.
ren21, 2017. Policy landscape [WWW Document]. http://www.ren21.net/gsr-2017/
chapters/chapter_05/chapter_05/.
Rodrigues, S., Torabikalaki, R., Faria, F., Cafo^fo, N., Chen, X., Ivaki, A.R., Mata-Lima, H.,
Morgado-Dias, F., 2016. Economic feasibility analysis of small scale PV systems
in different countries. Sol. Energy 131, 81e95. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2016.02.019.
Schweiger, G., Rantzer, J., Ericsson, K., Lauenburg, P., 2017. The potential of power-
to-heat in Swedish district heating systems. Energy 137, 661e669. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.02.075.
SONNEN, 2017. sonnenBatterie ECO 9.4 Datasheet [WWW Document]. https://
www.sonnenbatterie.it/sites/default/files/datasheet_eco_9.42_0.pdf (Accessed
9.1.17).
Spertino, F., Di Leo, P., Cocina, V., 2013. Economic analysis of investment in the
rooftop photovoltaic systems: a long-term research in the two main markets.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.024.
Staffell, I., Rustomji, M., 2016. Maximising the value of electricity storage. J. Energy
Storage 8, 212e225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2016.08.010.
Sun, X., Liu, X., Li, F., Tao, Y., Song, Y., 2017. Comprehensive evaluation of different
scale cities' sustainable development for economy, society, and ecological
infrastructure in China. J. Clean. Prod. 163, S329eS337. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.09.002.
Uddin, K., Gough, R., Radcliffe, J., Marco, J., Jennings, P., 2017. Techno-economic
analysis of the viability of residential photovoltaic systems using lithium-ion
batteries for energy storage in the United Kingdom. Appl. Energy 206, 12e21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.08.170.
Vergragt, P.J., Dendler, L., de Jong, M., Matus, K., 2016. Transitions to sustainable
consumption and production in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 1e12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.050.
Yamamoto, Y., 2012. Pricing electricity from residential photovoltaic systems: a
comparison of feed-in tariffs, net metering, and net purchase and sale. Sol.
Energy 86, 2678e2685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.06.001.