Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

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

Research Papers

A stochastic method for behind-the-meter PV-battery energy storage

systems sizing with degradation minimization by limiting battery cycling☆
Mostafa Rezaeimozafar a, *, Enda Barrett b, Rory F.D. Monaghan a, c, d, Maeve Duffy a, c, d, e
a
School of Engineering, University of Galway, Ireland
b
School of Computer Science, University of Galway, Ireland
c
Ryan Institute, University of Galway, Ireland
d
MaREI, the SFI Research Centre for Energy, Climate and Marine, University of Galway, Ireland
e
Power Electronics Research Centre, University of Galway, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Global desire for a sustainable future has led to the implementation of new policies to promote the use of behind-
Batteries the-meter (BTM) photovoltaic (PV)-battery energy storage systems (BESSs) for power system end-users. The PV-
Behind-the-meter BESS control problem has received a lot of attention so far, whereas the optimal system design – which is vital for
Design optimization
achieving efficient performance – has not received as much. In this work, a multi-objective optimization tool
Stochastic optimization
Photovoltaic
using the scenario-based two-stage stochastic optimization technique is proposed for optimal sizing of residential
BTM PV-battery systems under optimal operational planning. An objective function is formulated to simulta­
neously minimize the cost of system installation, expected annual electricity bill cost and the frequency of
damaging deep cycles for the battery. Battery cycle control is achieved using a novel model that effectively
controls the battery capacity over the optimization period so that the number of deep cycles is minimized. This
model is not limited to a particular battery technology and can be used for any type of energy storage system with
the cyclic ageing feature. The presented study provides a system design that is comparable to that from opti­
mization with deterministic data when compared to two different case studies.

microgrids have been proposed.

1. Introduction
Concerns about the large contribution of fossil-fuel power plants to
carbon emissions have prompted energy planners to gradually base
electricity generation on renewables [1]. Distributed photovoltaics
(PVs) have recently received increased attention, due to their ease of
installation for the residential sector, one of the largest energy con­
sumers [2]. However, the weather-dependent nature of PV panels has
opened the door for battery energy storage systems (BESSs) within low-
voltage networks to deal with stochastic PV power output [3]. PV
owners with the ability to generate and consume energy on-site, so-
called prosumers, can install a BESS on their premises behind-the-meter
(BTM) and use it for demand load shifting, PV self-consumption and
arbitrage activities [4]. However, utility policies and regulations, and
the PV-BESS design and control strategy significantly affect the efficacy
of the overall system. So far, different models for optimizing PV-BESSs in
In [5,6], optimal battery sizing models for bill cost reduction are
introduced. The authors formulate multi-objective optimization prob­
lems and consider that all the input data are entirely known. Authors in
[7,8] propose BESS optimization models to reduce the payback period
for BTM BESS by maximizing savings on electricity bills. The proposed
models employ mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) models to
solve the optimization problem and rely solely on predictions of changes
in electricity prices. In [9], a heuristic rule-based model is proposed that
coordinates stationary energy storage systems with electric vehicles to
provide virtual storage units for microgrids. However, the size of the PV-
BESS is calculated by simply adding an approximated value to the
maximum on-site load demand. Despite the remarkable results in [5–9],
the authors fail to consider uncertainties in the problem formulation,
potentially impacting the effectiveness of their proposed solutions. To
this end, in [10–12] the authors propose models that use chance-
constrained and robust optimization (RO) techniques for sizing and

This work is funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Interreg North West Europe (NWE) project STEPS.
☆

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.rezaeimozafar1@universityofgalway.ie (M. Rezaeimozafar), enda.barrett@universityofgalway.ie (E. Barrett), rory.monaghan@
universityofgalway.ie (R.F.D. Monaghan), maeve.duffy@universityofgalway.ie (M. Duffy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2024.111199
Received 17 July 2023; Received in revised form 8 December 2023; Accepted 28 February 2024
Available online 16 March 2024
2352-152X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Rezaeimozafar et al. Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

Nomenclature a, b objective function coefficients

Ppanel
pv rated power for one PV panel
Indices qpv cost per PV panel
pv photovoltaic single
Eb energy capacity for one battery pack
b battery
qb cost per battery pack
l on-site load
min/max
g main grid Eb battery capacity range
min/max
RTP real-time price Ppv PV capacity range
FIT feed-in tariff Pmax
g load capacity of the home circuit breaker
i scenario index
Pb battery power range
+/− ,max
t time index
α, β Optimal control system coefficients
Parameters Pmax
inv PV-BESS inverter-charger capacity
Ppv PV power output Budget max budget for PV-BESS installation
ηpv PV panel efficiency ω tuning parameter for battery cycles
Tamb ambient temperature L total battery degradation from a SOC profile
N a vector of random numbers Ψ depth of a full/discharge cycle
U a random number
Variables
ρ probability of a given scenario
Pnom
pv PV capacity from the sizing problem
m, n beta distribution function parameters
Enom battery capacity from the sizing problem
μ, σ mean and standard deviation of historical data b
Pg grid power exchange in the first optimization stage
+/− , #1
SOC battery state-of-charge
ηb battery round-trip efficiency Pg
+/− , #2
grid power exchange in the second optimization stage
πRTP real-time price of electricity Pb
+/− ,#1
battery power in the first optimization stage
πFIT feed-in tariff electricity price
Pb battery power in the second optimization stage
+/− ,#2
Pl on-site load demand

scheduling of BESSs in smart grids. However, both the constraint-wise
approach of these methods and their fundamental assumption that all
constraints are hard for all scenarios in the uncertainty set may lead to
conservative solutions for non-sensitive units, e.g., residential house­
holds. Besides, perfect knowledge of the range of uncertainty for un­
certain parameters is needed, which is not easy to obtain, particularly
for PV output. Therefore, the authors in [13,14] employ two-stage sto­
chastic optimization (SO) approaches for optimal sizing and scheduling
of residential PV-BESSs. However, their study are focused on addressing
the uncertainty associated with energy generation and on-site load de­
mand profile, while overlooking the uncertainties in electricity tariffs.
Furthermore, while [10–14] discuss the noteworthy results, the authors
fail to consider the interplay between the sizing and scheduling prob­
lems. More specifically, different factors, e.g., uncertainties in tariffs and
PV generation, shape stochastic household energy consumption profiles
that impact BESS dispatch strategies, which are interrelated with the
battery size.
Additionally, none of the aforementioned studies considers battery
degradation and its impacts on optimization. In this regard, a semi-
empirical model to assess degradation using theoretical analysis and
experimental studies is developed in [15]. In [16], a model based on the
combination of an existing electro-thermal lithium-ion battery model
with the corresponding semi-empirical calendar and cycle ageing
models is developed to analyze degradation imposed by energy dispatch
strategies. In [17,18] parametric battery degradation models are intro­
duced to estimate battery lifetime under different control schemes. The
reviewed battery models and many in the literature are mainly non-
linear models whose accuracy depends on extensive experimental data
sets and are better suited for offline analysis. Also, they often require
parameter tuning to simulate battery degradation in a certain applica­
tion and for a certain battery technology. For example, the model
introduced in [19] is limited to Li(NiMnCo)O2 -based 18, 650 lithium-
ion battery cells and cannot be applied to other battery technologies.
In [20], the degradation is quantified using a semi-empirical model
which takes the number of operating cycles, the depth-of-discharge
(DOD), the current rate and the mean state-of-charge (SOC) into
account. The authors use the rainflow-counting algorithm to derive the
battery cycle parameters based on a SOC time series. However, their
model can only be used to study Lithium manganese oxide batteries and
is not suitable for other battery types.
In light of the foregoing concerns, using a two-stage scenario-based
SO model, this study offers a cost-effective optimization tool that cal­
culates the optimal size for a residential BTM PV-BESS under an optimal
battery control scheme. The model considers prosumers’ preferences in
terms of the available budget as well as uncertainties in PV power
generation, on-site load demand and TOU tariffs. Plus, to minimize
battery degradation, a new model is introduced which is flexible and can
be applied to any type of battery to minimize the number of damaging
deep cycles. The main contributions are summarized as:
1) A two-stage SO model that incorporates uncertainties in PV output,
load demand and tariffs to determine the optimal size of a residential
PV-BESS under an optimal battery charge/discharge scheme to
minimize installation cost, annual bill costs and frequency of deep
cycles. The proposed model considers the interplay between sizing
and scheduling in system design and studies the influence of such
consideration on the initial budget calculation;
2) A novel degradation control model through limiting the number of
damaging deep battery cycles. It can be applied to any type of energy
storage system with cyclic ageing behavior;
3) A thorough evaluation of the performance of the presented model
compared to an ideal case with no uncertainty, an RO-based tech­
nique and a rule-based model, using data from a real-world project.
Also, a detailed analysis of the impact of deterministic factors on the
system design and energy dispatch strategies is given.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 ex­
plains the modelling of the system components in detail. Section 3
corresponds to the formulation of the proposed technology. Section 4
provides the simulation results, and finally, Section 5 concludes the
paper.

2
M. Rezaeimozafar et al. Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

2. System model
2.1. PV panel
Eq. (1) gives the PV output based on its energy conversion efficiency
ηpv , rated power Pnom
pv , normalized solar global horizontal irradiance rt ,
which incorporates both direct normal irradiance and diffuse horizontal
irradiance and the ambient temperature Tamb,t [21].
capacity, ηb gives charging/discharging efficiency and +/− defines the
discharge/charge mode of the battery, respectively. The efficiency of the
battery can vary with SOC and state of health, but this study considers a
healthy battery. Hence, these variations generally have minimal impact
on the PV-BESS problem when compared to uncertainties in other pa­
rameters such as solar irradiance, tariffs and load profiles. Therefore, a
constant ηb is considered in this work for more simplification.

Ppv,t = ηpv Pnom

( ( ))
(1) 2.3. Tariffs
pv rt 1 − 0.004 Tamb,t − 25

Information on solar irradiance and ambient temperature may be
obtained from [22] for any geographical location. It’s worth noting that,
due to the limited effect of changes in temperature on PV output, the
temperature is seen as a deterministic parameter in Eq. (1). Also, in real-
world scenarios, ηpv is influenced by various techno-environmental
factors like panel technology, air temperature and solar irradiance in­
tensity. However, for simplicity in this work, we treat ηpv as a constant
value. Therefore, stochastic solar irradiance is the main factor in
calculating the PV output profiles. Here, using the Monte Carlo simu­
lations, solar irradiance scenarios are generated with their respective
By 2024, residential users in Ireland will be subject to the smart
meter plan, which includes feed-in tariffs (FIT) for grid injections and
real-time prices (RTP) for grid consumption. Since RTP is not yet in ef­
fect in Ireland, historical day-ahead wholesale electricity prices have
been obtained from [25] and are scaled based on the current day/night
rates to generate real-time tariffs, π RTP,t . Using the generated real-time
prices and to create RTP scenarios, the probability of price changes is
described using a Gaussian distribution [26].
( )2
( ) 1 − 1 πRTP,t − μπ
σπ
(9)
2

probabilities, modelled with a beta distribution [23]. To this end, a ρ πRTP,t = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅e
σπ 6.28
vector of random solar irradiances, denoted as R and having a size of T ×
1, is generated using the Box-Muller method in Eq. (2) and fed into the where μπ and σπ are the mean and standard deviation of the historical
beta distribution function in Eq. (3) to calculate the probability of a data set, respectively.
generated solar irradiance at time t, ρ(rt ) [24].
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
R = − 2ln(U1 )cos(2πU2 ) (2) 2.4. On-site demand

1 The probability of load demand profiles is described using the log-

ρ(rt ) = (rt )mt − 1 (1 − rt )nt − 1
(3)
B(mt , nt ) normal distribution function [27]. Here, using Eqs. (10)–(12), stochas­
( )
tic on-site load demand Pl,t and its probability of realization ρ Pl,t , are
Γ(mt )Γ(nt ) generated as follows.
B(mt , nt ) = (4)
Γ(mt ) + Γ(nt )
( ( ) ) Pl,t = e(μl,t +σl,t x) (10)
μs,t 1 − μs,t
mt = μs,t − 1 (5) ⎧ ( )
σ 2s,t ⎪ μ´l,t 2
⎪ μ
⎪ l,t = ln √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪
( ( ) ) ⎪
⎨ μ´l,t 2 + σ´l,t 2
( ) μs,t 1 − μs,t √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (11)
nt = 1 − μs,t − 1 (6) ⎪
⎪ √ ( )
2 σs,t ⎪
⎪ √ σ´l,t 2
⎪
⎪ σ = √ ln 1 +
⎩ l,t ´2 μl,t
where rt ∈ R, and U1 and U2 are vectors of normally distributed random
numbers with the mean and standard deviation of historical data on ( )
solar irradiances, respectively. B is the beta distribution function with
2

−
(ln(Pl,t )− μl,t )
( ) 2σ 2
shape parameters mt and nt . Γ represents the gamma function and the ρ Pl,t =
1
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅e
l,t
(12)
mean and standard deviation of historical solar irradiance data at time t, Pl,t 6.28
respectively, are given by μs,t and σs,t .
where x is a standard normal variable, μl,t and σ l,t are the log-normal
It is important to note that the mean and standard deviation of his­
torical data are calculated on an hourly basis. This approach acknowl­ distribution parameters and are calculated from the mean and stan­
edges the variations in values from hour to hour, capturing the dynamic dard deviation of historical data on on-site load demand profiles, μ´ and l,t
nature of the historical data in scenario generation. The same method­ σ´l,t , respectively.
ology is applied to the generation of scenarios for tariffs and on-site
demand profiles. 3. Problem formulation

The PV-battery optimization problem in this work is formulated as a

2.2. Battery energy storage system
two-stage SO model. The first stage determines the optimal capacity for
the PV-BESS, power exchange with the main grid and BESS control
The dynamics of the battery SOC and its bidirectional power flow are
scheme (here-and-now variables) based on the available data before
given in Eqs. (7) and (8) [21].
realizing probabilistic scenarios (initial estimate of the future system
( + )
Pb,t P−b,t ηb state). The first-stage decisions set the foundation for the second stage of
SOCt = SOCt− 1 − − Δt (7)
nom
ηb Eb Eb nom optimization. In the second stage, here-and-now variables are fixed, but
recourse actions are calculated to compensate for mismatches between
Pb,t = P+ −
b,t − Pb,t (8) the first-stage solutions and the system state after scenario realization.
This involves calculating second-stage variables for each scenario,
where SOCt is the battery state-of-charge at a given time t, Pb,t is the including power exchange with the grid and battery charge/discharge
bidirectional power flow of the battery, Enom
b represents nominal battery power (wait-and-see variables). Finally, the optimal solution for the PV-

3
M. Rezaeimozafar et al. Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

BESS is obtained by calculating the weighted average value of the results PV capacity, Pnom
pv . Pl gives the household load demand. The rated power
from both the first and second stages. It is worth noting that the weights for one PV panel is represented by Ppanel and its associated cost is given
pv
assigned correspond to the probabilities of each scenario occurring single
by qpv . The capacity for one battery pack is given by Eb and its cor­
within the reduced scenario set. The SO framework used in this work is
detailed in [28]. responding cost is qb . These four parameters are constant values, and
In both the first and second stages, the BESS can be charged from their values will be discussed in Table 1. The maximum budget a
both the grid and PV power generation. It can also be discharged for on- household is willing to spend on a PV-BESS is referred to as Budget,
site use and injecting electricity into the grid. Moreover, real-time power necessary for the sizing problem. Overall, Eq. (13) has two terms with
exchange with the grid to correct mismatches between the first-stage coefficients a and b for optimizing two objectives with different
solution and second-stage system state is permitted with no penalty. importance. In the first term, f1 , calculates the expected annual elec­
The optimization problem is formulated as a multi-objective MILP tricity bill cost considering the first and second stages of the SO. The
model to minimize PV-BESS installation cost, the expected annual likelihood of each scenario realization is calculated by Eq. (14), ac­
electricity cost and the frequency of deep battery cycles with a one-hour cording to the multiplication rule of probability. In the second term, f2 ,
resolution. It is worth noting that, due to differing types, battery cycle solves the PV-BESS sizing problem aiming to minimize PV-BESS instal­
control is defined as a set of constraints, while the other two objectives lation cost. The limits for the PV-BESS nominal capacity are given in Eqs.
directly contribute to the problem’s cost function. This is a common (15) and (16). For each scenario i at time t, the demand-supply balance is
practice in multi-objective problems with objectives of different types. ensured with Eq. (17), and Eqs. (18)–(21) prevent simultaneous power
import/export and battery charge/discharge using binary variables α
min(af 1 + bf 2 ) and β. To satisfy the hybrid PV-BESS inverter’s capacity, Pmax inv , the
∑T ( #1
) combined power from the PV output and the battery is limited by Eq.
f1 = P+,#1 − ,#1
g,t π RTP,t − Pg,t π FIT Δt
t=1 ) (22). The household budget in designing the system is considered in Eq.
∑Ns ∑T ( )
(23).
+ i=1 ρ(si ) t=1 P+,#2 (13)
#2 − ,#2
g,i,t π RTP,i,t − Pg,i,t π FIT Δt
In this study, here-and-now target variables encompass Pnom,#1 pv ,
[ ] [ ] Enom,#1
b , P+,#1
g,t , Pg,t , Pb,t
− ,#1 +,#1
and P−b,t,#1 , while wait-and-see target vari­
Pnom,#1
pv Ebnom,#1
f2 =
Ppanel
qpv +
Ebsingle
qb ables include P+,#2
g,i,t , Pg,i,t , Pb,i,t and Pb,i,t . Wait-and-see variables are
− ,#2 +,#2 − ,#2
pv
influenced by the values of here-and-now variables and the state of a
Subject to realized scenario, without any differential relation with respect to the
( ) ( ) here-and-now variables.
ρ(si ) = ρ(ri )ρ πRTP,i ρ Pl,i (14)

Ebmin ≤ Ebnom,#1 ≤ Ebmax (15) 3.1. Battery cycles control

Pmin nom,#1
pv ≤ Ppv ≤ Pmax
pv (16) Battery capacity can deteriorate due to non-operational factors such
as the environment (temperature and humidity) and the battery’s age
P+,#1 + P+,#2 +,#1
g,i,t + Pb,t + P+,#2 #1 #2 #1
b,i,t + Ppv,t + Ppv,i,t − Pl,t and state of life, and operational factors like the cycle depth, over­
(17)
g,t

− P#2 − ,#1
− P−b,i,t
,#2
− P−g,t,#1 − P−g,i,t
,#2 charging, over-discharging, current rate and average SOC. Overall, there
l,i,t − Pb,t =0
is limited control over non-operational factors, hence this study does not
consider them. Regarding operational factors, overcharging and over-
P+,#1 + P+,#2 max
g,i,t ≤ αPg (18)
discharging can be prevented by setting SOC limits through dispatch
g,t

or a battery controller. As for the current rate and average SOC, labo­
P−g,t,#1 + P−g,i,t
,#2
≤ (1 − α)Pmax (19)
g
ratory studies have demonstrated that they have limited impacts on
degradation and can also be controlled by setting upper and lower limits
P+,#1
b,t + P+,#2 +,max
b,i,t ≤ βPb (20) [29,30]. But, according to [19], the cycle depth is the key factor in a
battery degradation analysis. In this study, as discussed, degradation
P−b,t,#1 + P−b,i,t
,#2
≤ (1 − β)P−b ,max (21) control is incorporated into the optimization problem as a set of

P+,#1
b,t + P+,#2 #1 #2 max
b,i,t + Ppv,t + Ppv,i,t ≤ Pinv (22) Table 1
[ ] [ ] Parameters of the system under study [34–36].
Pnom,#1 Ebnom,#1 PV system
(23)
pv
qpv + qb ≤ Budget
Ppanel
pv Ebsingle Rated power per panel 370 W
Panel dimension 1.6 m2
where t gives the time step within the total optimization horizon T. The Efficiency 21 %
first-stage and second-stage parameters are distinguished by super­ Nominal PV power range (for optimization) 0–18.5 kW
scripts #1 and #2, respectively. Power exchange with the grid is given Cost per panel €340

by Pg , where the load capacity of the home circuit breaker is

+/−
BESS
considered the maximum possible value, Pmax
g . It should be mentioned Technology Lithium-ion
that, apart from Pmax
g , there are no additional restrictions on power in­ Useable capacity per battery 5.9 kWh
jection into the grid, as Irish power utilities do not impose any limita­ Max power 4.2 kW
Round-trip efficiency 95 %
tions. This is because the residential sector has limited PV capacity and SOC range 0–100 %
most of the generated power is consumed within households. πRTP de­ Cost per battery €4380
notes real-time electricity prices and feed-in-tariffs are given by πFIT . The
battery power is given by Pb and Pmax represents the maximum
+/−
b Inverter/charger
charge/discharge power of the BESS. The PV output is represented by Technology MultiPlus-II 48/3000/35–32
Max efficiency 95 %
Ppv which is calculated considering the value obtained for the nominal
Max output power 5.5 kW

4
M. Rezaeimozafar et al. Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

constraints outlined in Eqs. (24)–(27), imposing limits on damaging which can be studied in further detail in [33]. Fig. 1 gives the diagram of
deep cycles. the proposed PV-BESS optimization model.
( +,#1 )
Pb,t + P+,#2 ( )
Eb,t = Eb,t− 1 −
b,i,t
− P−b,t,#1 + P−b,i,t
,#2
ηb Δt (24) 4. Results and discussion
ηb
( ) The results presented in this section are from a year-long (Aug
( )
P−b,t,#1 + P−b,i,t
,#2
− P+,#1
b,t − P+,#2
b,i,t Δt ≤ Ebnom,#1 − Eb,t− 1 (25) 2021–Aug 2022) optimization using data from a house in Tipperary,
Ireland with 80 m2 of its rooftop area suitable for PV panel installation.
( ) ( ) As for FIT, according to the MicroGen scheme announced by the Irish
P+,#1 + P+,#2 − ,#1
b,i,t − Pb,t − P−b,i,t
,#2
Δt ≤ Eb,t− 1 − Ebmin (26)
b,t
government, every kWh of energy provided to the grid by prosumers will
earn them ¢13 in credits. Values are assigned to parameters a and b in
∑T ( ) TEnom,#1
Ebnom,#1 − Eb,t ≤ b (27) the objective function (13) considering the higher importance placed on
t=1 ω the electricity bill given the ratio of installation to electricity bill lifetime
The dynamic of energy stored in the battery is given by Eq. (24), costs of the system. Parameter a is assigned the value of 1, while
while Eqs. (25) and (26) keep the level of stored energy within an parameter b is set to 0.3. It should be noted that different perspectives
allowable range. The battery’s cycles are controlled in Eq. (27), which is may result in varied choices, but this work does not incorporate alter­
specifically designed to limit the number of deep cycles. The right side of native values for a and b, as doing so would only generate different re­
Eq. (27) is considered as the overall battery capacity available within the sults without offering any significant findings worth mentioning. To
optimization horizon to participate in the dispatch strategy. This avail­ account for uncertainties in PV output, load demand and RTP changes,
able capacity can be adjusted using the tuning parameter, ω. The left 100,000 scenarios are generated using probabilistic models and Monte
side encourages shallow battery cycles to avoid depleting the available Carlo simulations. The time series of prediction error for PV power
capacity too quickly. More specifically, given that deep cycles use a output, on-site load demand and real-time tariffs is presented in Fig. 2. A
sizeable percentage of the capacity and given the effects of lower FIT k-means clustering technique is used for scenario reduction and selects
compared to RTP, along with the demand-supply balance in Eq. (17), the 100 PV scenarios, 10 tariff scenarios and 10 load profile scenarios. Then,
left side minimizes the number of unnecessary deep cycles to distribute the probability of occurrence for each centroid of the clustered scenarios
the available capacity over the optimization period. Results are pre­ is calculated using the multiplication rule of probability for independent
sented later in Section 4 to illustrate the effect of varying ω depending on events. Hence, the optimization problem is solved for 10,000 scenarios
grid energy costs and load demand. overall.
Let’s consider an example. At time t, there is insufficient PV output, According to Fig. 2, while Monte Carlo simulations can generate
but there is a high demand for on-site electricity consumption. The accurate scenarios for load demand and electricity tariffs, they are not
battery is adequately charged, but fulfilling this demand requires a deep capable of accurately generating scenarios for PV power output due to
discharge cycle. Now, since cycle control is integrated into the MILP,
and the algorithm considers the effects of demand-supply balance, along
with the formulation of the bill cost in the cost function, the algorithm Start
may opt to discharge the battery deeply (if necessary) to meet the on-site
demand, if RTP is expensive. Otherwise, if the RTP is relatively low, it
preserves the available battery capacity for future expensive hours or
simply discharges the battery with a shallow cycle, and meets the Input data: Historical load demand, real-time
remaining load through grid consumption. This approach grants the prices, solar radiations, component parameters
algorithm the authority to optimally control cycle depth compared to
methods that simply impose limits on the battery SOC range.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, all degradation models pro­
posed in the literature are either technology-specific or rely on assigning Probabilistic First stage optimization
marginal costs to battery degradation or sometimes a combination of scenarios (here-and-now decisions)
both. The first group necessitates parameter tuning using experimental
data obtained from the analysis of battery behavior under various
operational scenarios, which may not be readily accessible for all tech­ Second stage optimization
nologies in the market [15,16,18,19,31]. The second approach relies on (wait-and-see decisions)
estimated marginal costs, often calculated by dividing the battery
replacement cost by the total number of cycles the battery can withstand
[16,19,20]. However, this strategy requires linearizing the non-linear
nature of battery cyclic degradation, which can affect the quality of No
the solutions. Stopping
= +1
The design of the proposed model in this study takes inspiration from criteria
the resource allocation problems in operations research. This problem
involves the strategic assignment of available resources (available bat­ Yes
tery capacity) to tasks (charge/discharge/idle), all aimed at supporting
objectives (minimizing the electricity bill and frequency of deep cycles Calculate the weighted average
for the scheduling problem) [32]. Unlike the literature, it does not value of results from the first and
require parameter tuning and the need for estimating marginal costs, second stage optimizations
thereby eliminating potential inaccuracies associated with linearizing
degradation. It is easy to implement and offers flexibility to BESS owners
to set limits on cycle depth, empowering them to make informed de­
Stop
cisions without specific knowledge about BESS technology.
As stated, the optimization problem is formulated as a MILP model,
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed PV-BESS optimization process.

5
M. Rezaeimozafar et al. Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

Table 2
Numerical results from the BTM PV-BESS optimization for one year.
SO Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

BESS size (kWh) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

#Batteries 1 1 1 1
PV size (kW) 7.8 7.8 10.3 3.7
#PV panels 21 21 28 10
PV-BESS installation cost (€) 11,520 11,520 13,900 7780
Annual bill cost (€) 318.8 276.9 356.4 565.6
Annual bill savings (€) 497.4 539.8 459.6 250.3
Average weekly BESS cycle depth (%) 30.1 27.1 65.4 42
Payback period (years) 23.1 21.3 30.2 31.1
Processing time 9h 7s 7s 4s

Fig. 2. Time series of prediction error for uncertain parameters.
its stochastic nature. Factors such as temperature, shading and irradi­
ance greatly affect PV output, making it challenging for probabilistic
models to capture sudden changes. However, in the context of this study,
the obtained results can still be considered accurate enough for long-
term planning and system design.
The model presented in this work (referred to as SO in figures and
tables) is assessed by comparing its performance against three distinct
case studies as follows.
Case 1 The problem data with no uncertainty is entirely accessible
(deterministic optimization). Therefore, Eqs. (13)–(27) are
solved only for one deterministic scenario to minimize installa­
tion cost, annual bill costs and battery degradation.
Case 2 A robust optimization-based technique developed by [12]. The
authors define the range of uncertainty in PV output and on-site
load demand profiles and solve the problem for a worst-case
scenario (maximum load demand with minimum PV output —
10 % deviation from available values). Meanwhile, for a fair
comparison, RTP is also considered stochastic and is modelled
using the model provided by the authors.
Case 3 A commonly used rule-based model for PV-battery systems in the
market that simply follows PV output and tariff profiles (charge
when there is excess PV output and also during hours 1–6 am,
discharge during remaining hours when there is not enough PV
output for the on-site load demand). In this case, the PV-BESS
capacity is calculated considering the average daily energy
usage and average daily peak sunlight hours for achieving two
days of autonomy.
Table 1 lists the component parameters. It is worth noting that the
SOC range is not limited to better analysing the effectiveness of the
degradation control method. Simulations are run in MATLAB R2022b on
a 7th generation Intel Core i7 – 1058H 2.7 GHz Windows-based Dell
Precision 3551 with 32 GB RAM specifications. The results are as
follows.
4.1. Numerical results
Table 2 provides a comparative analysis between the SO model and
Case 1, Case 2 and Case 3. It is important to note that the optimization is
carried out considering there is a € 12, 000 budget available for system
design. Plus, the electricity bill for each scenario is calculated on an annual
basis, following the decisions obtained from the optimization process.
The model presented in this study yields the most accurate optimi­
zation results when compared to the results from Case 1, with no un­
certainty. Due to the limited budget and the inefficiency of using more
than one battery for the system, all four models calculate one battery for
energy storage. However, the impacts of an increase in the budget on the
system design are thoroughly analyzed in Table 3. The PV capacity
generated by the SO model is equal to that of the ideal case. This is
because the data used for Case 1 and the first stage of the SO are iden­
tical. This is a valid consideration as in a real-world project, the system’s
design is based on the available data. However, for Case 1, the available
data is assumed to be error-free for the year ahead and is also used for
PV-BESS scheduling. But, for SO, the data set is considered with un­
certainties, and different probabilistic scenarios are generated for the
scheduling step. Case 2 calculates 7 more PV panels than Case 1 does
since the calculations are for a worst-case scenario where it is expected
that the PV generates 10% less electricity while load demand and tariffs
are 10% higher. Case 3 has the least expensive installation cost due to
the installation of only 10 PV panels. This number is calculated based on
an approach that divides the average daily load demand by the average
daily sunlight hours and then multiplies the resulting number by (1 +
ηpv ). Many businesses that offer PV-BESS designs for houses use this
technique [37].
When compared to the ideal case, the SO model offers the most ac­
curate scheduling solutions. It yields an annual saving of € 497.4, which
is 8.2% higher than that from Case 2 and almost twice the savings from
Case 3. Also, compared to its counterparts, the SO model can retain a
lower average weekly cycle depth because of the introduction of the
control on battery cycles in Eqs. (24)–(27). This feature has positive
impacts in terms of battery degradation [19]. Comparing SO with Case
3, although SO’s initial investment cost is higher, its payback period is
shorter. This is because the SO model can reduce annual bill costs more
than Case 3, which demonstrates the ineffectiveness of rule-based
techniques for systems with RTP. Rule-based approaches are more
suitable for systems with tariffs known in advance, where scheduling is
planned to take advantage of gaps between time-of-use tariffs. Case 2
has the highest average annual cycle depth which is mainly because
there is no cycle depth control considered in [12].
While the SO outperforms the other two algorithms, its challenge lies
in the computational time for decision-making, a significant concern in
scenario-based SO models. Solving 10,000 scenarios ensures accuracy
but extends processing time. Fewer scenarios yield quicker but poten­
tially less accurate results. Notably, the sizing problem is addressed once
at the system design level, allowing this issue to be overlooked.
Fig. 3 compares the models by assessing their performance over two
consecutive days with the highest recorded solar irradiation in the
dataset, 14th–15th May 2022. In Case 1, the PV and battery together
satisfy the on-site load demand through PV self-consumption, and there
is no need for grid consumption. More specifically, the PV-BESS provides
two days of autonomy for the household when there is enough solar
radiation. As for SO with uncertain parameters, there are mismatches
between the BESS control scheme and the real-time system state. The
main grid is used to exchange electricity to correct these mismatches.

6
M. Rezaeimozafar et al. Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

Table 3
Numerical Results of Optimization with Various Investment Budget Levels.
#Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Budget (€) 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
#PV panels 10 4 10 16 21 21 21 21
#Batteries 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Installation cost (€) 3400 5740 7780 9820 11,520 11,520 11,520 11,520
Annual savings (€) 192.1 126.9 269.2 388.2 497.4 497.4 497.4 497.4
Payback period (years) 17.7 45.2 28.9 25.3 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1

tuning parameter, ω, from 1 to 10 with the step of 0.2, on the average

weekly cycle depth and annual bill cost. For this study, the value of 5 is
chosen for ω through expert analysis and parameter optimization. Ac­
cording to Fig. 4, the BESS participation in energy dispatch is limited as
ω increases to prevent frequent deep cycles. Hence, there is less storage
capacity available for energy dispatch which increases the annual bill
costs. Conversely, more storage available lets more frequent deep cycles
for energy dispatch when ω is smaller, which results in a reduced bill
cost. The average weekly SOC profile for ω values ranging from 1 to 10,
incremented by 1, is studied in more depth in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 validates the proposed model’s effectiveness in reducing bat­
tery cycle depth by comparing it to the model introduced in [19] over
48 h (14th–15th May 2022). The reason for this comparison is that both
models aim to minimize degradation through cycle minimization, which
is the primary focus of our research. The rainflow-counting algorithm is
employed for cycle analysis, and detailed instructions on its imple­
mentation can be found in [29]. It is crucial to note that the model
presented in [19] is designed for Li(NiMnCo)O2 -based 18, 650 lithium-
ion batteries and cannot be used for other technologies. Nevertheless, for
the purpose of comparison, it is assumed in this study that the battery
technology employed is also a Li(NiMnCo)O2 -based 18, 650 lithium-ion
battery. This assumption is valid as it is claimed that our model is not
technology-specific and can be applied to any technology with cyclic
degradation behavior.
Based on Fig. 6, both models effectively restrict the cycle depth for
the battery. The model proposed in this study reports one full cycle, two
half-discharge cycles and one half-charge cycle. Conversely, the model
discussed in [19] identifies three half-discharge cycles and two half-
charge cycles. The authors in [19] suggest that the impact of half-
discharge cycles on battery degradation can be considered equivalent
to that of full cycles with the same depth. Hence, it can be argued that
our model demonstrates outstanding performance while being much

Fig. 3. The results for the days 14th–15th of May 2022. a) Case 1; b) SO; c)
Case 2; d) Case 3.

Nonetheless, the system operation remains largely similar to that of the

ideal case, confirming the accurate performance of SO. Case 2 offers a
conservative solution because it considers a worst-case scenario, where
the battery is charged to a higher level than SO, guaranteeing enough
energy storage for the on-site load. In Case 3, the battery is charged to its
full capacity during the hours of 1–6 am. This may seem a good approach
for days when there is not enough PV output during the day, or for
systems with huge gaps between night rate and day rate tariffs. But, as it
stands out from Fig. 3, this strategy prevents the battery from storing the
excess PV generation during the day as there is not enough free battery
capacity. Hence, the surplus PV output is sold back to the grid at a much
cheaper price than it was paid to charge the battery, making the method
inefficient. It is important to note that the PV output in Case 2 and Case 3
differ from that in SO and Case 1 due to the difference in their nominal
PV capacity, as discussed in Table 2.
Fig. 4 studies the impacts of 46 different values for the cycle depth Fig. 4. The impact of different ω values on the system’s performance.

7
M. Rezaeimozafar et al.
Fig. 5. The impact of different ω values on the BESS SOC profile.
Fig. 6. Battery cycle depth analysis under the a) model proposed in this work;
and b) model proposed in [19].
easier to implement. The only distinction is that our model maintains the
SOC at a higher level compared to the model presented in [19]. This is
due to our model solely restricting the available capacity for the dispatch
strategy, without imposing minimum or maximum limits on the SOC
levels.
For further comparison, the degradation model presented in [19] is
utilized to quantify the rate of battery degradation caused by the SOC
profile depicted in Fig. 6.
∑X
L= x=1
Φ(Ψi ) (28)
Φ(Ψ) = (5.24e − 4)Ψ2.03
where L is the total capacity degradation from a SOC profile, and Φ(Ψ) is
a cycle depth stress function which gives the life loss from a full/
discharge cycle depth Ψ. The analysis shows degradation of 1.38e− 2 %
and 1.13e− 2 % for the battery, based on our model and the model
proposed in [19], respectively. This reaffirms the effectiveness of our
proposed model in mitigating battery degradation when compared to
the benchmark model introduced in [19].
Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199
It is crucial to include information on the expected minimum/
maximum budget needed for an optimal design when offering a PV-BESS
for a house. In this regard, a simple optimization is conducted, with the
initial budget as the target variable, to analyze the effects of changes in
the initial budget on the system design and expected payback period.
The results of this analysis, Fig. 7 and Table 3, provide essential infor­
mation for financial planning, affordability assessment, decision-making
and setting realistic expectations.
The minimum/starting budget is €4000, which results in 10 PV
panels and no battery. This configuration yields annual savings of
€192.1 with a payback period of 17.7 years. Installing a BESS to enable
demand load shifting, energy arbitrage and greater PV self-consumption
is possible by adding €2000 to the budget. However, a decrease in yearly
savings of €65.2 is observed, which is not ideal. With a budget of €8000,
the design includes 10 panels with a BESS, which results in a significant
increase in annual savings. It is important to note that a €2000 increase
in the initial budget compared to scenario 2 results in a shorter payback
period, which can encourage households to invest more in PV-BESS. Up
until the budget of €12,000, where there are 21 panels and one battery,
the payback period keeps getting shorter. The maximum annual saving
is achieved with this configuration, and the payback period is 23.1
years. This is regarded as the maximum budget for the ideal system
design, as budget increases after this point no longer have an impact on
the system design, annual bill expenses, or payback period. This illus­
trates that the most efficient PV-BESS design is achieved if the interplay
between sizing and scheduling is considered. Otherwise, for example,
merely concentrating on sizing without considering bidirectional im­
pacts on the scheduling could result in maximizing the system capacity
to the limit. For instance, having 50 panels in the available rooftop area
that can increase the annual saving to a great extent. However, when
considering the high PV-BESS installation cost and comparing it with
potential revenue with cheap FIT, the greater annual saving would be
negligible in comparison to the higher system installation cost.
Another important factor that affects a household’s willingness to
invest in PV-BESS is the design of the metering and billing system, which
also has great importance from the utilities’ point of view [4]. The re­
sults in this study are based on a FIT of 13 ¢/kWh and scaled RTP. First,
the impacts of an increase in FIT on the system design are analyzed in
Table 4.
An important conclusion from Table 4 is that while the number of PV
panels reaches a maximum as a result of raising the FIT from 13 to 20
¢/kWh, the algorithm does not consider additional battery capacity.
This is so because installing a battery is more expensive than installing a
(29)
Fig. 7. The impacts of changes to the initial budget on the payback period.
8
M. Rezaeimozafar et al. Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199

Table 4 Table 5
Numerical results of optimization with various FIT. Numerical results of optimization with different pricing schemes.
#Scenario RTP Night saver

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BESS size (kWh) 6.5 6.5

#Batteries 1 1
FIT (¢/kWh) 13 15 17 20 25 30 40 50
PV size (kW) 7.8 5.5
#PV panels 21 24 27 50 50 50 50 50
#PV panels 21 15
#Batteries 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PV-BESS installation cost (€) 11,520 9480
P2B (%) 26 23 17 10 2 0 0 0
Annual bill cost (€) 318.8 328.2
P2L (%) 72 72 72 72 72 61 36 0
Annual bill savings (€) 497.4 488
P2G (%) 2 5 11 18 26 39 64 100
Average weekly BESS cycle depth (%) 30.1 31.4
B2L (%) 100 100 100 100 92 73 62 51
Payback period (years) 23.1 19.4
B2G (%) 0 0 0 0 8 27 38 49
G2L (%) 10 10 16 23 30 41 73 92
G2B (%) 90 90 84 77 70 59 27 8
strategy, respectively. Additionally, it delivers a payback period that is
P2B: PV to battery, P2L: PV to load, P2G: PV to grid, B2L: battery to load, B2G: 7.1 and 8 years shorter than that of RO and rule-based approaches,
battery to grid, G2L: grid to load, G2B: grid to battery. respectively, while keeping the frequency of damaging deep battery
cycles at a minimum thanks to a more effective system design and BESS
solar panel. Hence, to keep the objective function at a minimum, the control scheme.
algorithm decides to increase the quantity of PV panels rather than The model considers entirely random on-site load demand, but
adding another battery to the system. Besides, in scenarios with high modern monitoring and controlling technologies have enabled house­
FIT, prosumers are encouraged to sell their excess energy to the grid holds to better regulate their energy usage. In this regard, to thoroughly
rather than purchasing a battery to store energy for later use. Therefore, study the idea of home management strategies, future work will be
it is no longer required to increase the BESS capacity as the battery focused on a smart house with shiftable/controllable loads and also
would be only utilized for arbitrage activities and demand load shifting equipped with an EV charger. Moreover, whereas the techno analysis of
for limited hours. For example, in scenario 8, all PV output is sold to the home PV-BESS has been well studied in the literature, less attention has
grid, and the on-site load is met by grid consumption and battery been paid to its long-term economic and environmental effects from
discharge. 49 % of the battery’s capacity is used for energy arbitrage, both the households’ and utilities’ points of view. Future work will
while 51 % is used for load demand shifting. 92 % of the grid’s imported therefore offer a more in-depth analysis of this subject.
energy is used for the on-site load, while the remaining 8 % is stored in
the battery. CRediT authorship contribution statement
Next, the impacts of changes in the pricing system on the optimiza­
tion results are given in Table 5. Now, almost all Irish PV-BESS owners Mostafa Rezaeimozafar: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
are subject to the night saver scheme, which offers 22.8 ¢/kWh for grid analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software,
consumption during times 12 pm to 9 am, and 43.27 ¢/kWh for the Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Enda Barrett: Su­
remaining hours. However, this scheme is being replaced with RTP by pervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Rory F.D. Mon­
utilities to deliver a fair pricing signal that represents the actual costs of aghan: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Maeve
the power system. Although RTP benefits utilities, the findings indicate Duffy: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review &
that it raises households’ overall costs. This impact is shown in Table 5, editing.
where the system under RTP exhibits higher installation costs and a
longer payback period as it requires a larger number of PV panels to Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the
achieve efficient performance. To this end, multiple grants and subsidies writing process
have been offered to end-users by the Irish government to the satisfac­
tion of both parties. It is worth mentioning that Tables 4 and 5 are only During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT to
focused on the effects of metering and billing systems on the PV-BESS improve the language and readability of the presented work to a limited
problem. Hence, the constraint on the investment budget is ignored. extent. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content
as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.
5. Conclusion
Declaration of competing interest
This paper proposes a practical optimization tool for optimal sizing
and scheduling of PV-battery systems for households. A two-stage sce­ Mostafa Rezaeimozafar reports financial support was provided by
nario-based stochastic optimization framework that considers probabi­ European Regional Development Fund.
listic scenarios for PV output, load demand and real-time electricity
price profiles is developed to overcome uncertainties in real-world Data availability
projects. A multi-objective function is formulated to minimize initial
investment cost, the annual electricity bill cost and the frequency of Data will be made available on request.
battery deep cycles which is solved using year-long real-world data
collected from a residential unit in Ireland. The BESS cycles are References
controlled by introducing a method that can be applied to any type of
energy storage system with cyclic ageing characteristics. This model, [1] H. Bluhm, S. Gährs, Environmental assessment of prosumer digitalization: the case
designed based on the resource allocation problem, is easy to implement of virtual pooling of PV battery storage systems, J. Energy Storage 59 (Mar. 2023)
106487, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EST.2022.106487.
and highly effective in controlling the battery’s cycle depth. The opti­ [2] X. Lü, T. Lu, C.J. Kibert, M. Viljanen, Modeling and forecasting energy
mization tool is assessed by comparing its performance against an ideal consumption for heterogeneous buildings using a physical–statistical approach,
case study with uncertainty-free data, an RO-based approach and a rule- Appl. Energy 144 (Apr. 2015) 261–275, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2014.12.019.
based strategy. The results confirm our model provides comparable so­ [3] H.A. El-Sattar, H.M. Sultan, S. Kamel, T. Khurshaid, C. Rahmann, Optimal design of
lutions to that from the ideal case study, and it saves 8.2 % and 98.7 % stand-alone hybrid PV/wind/biomass/battery energy storage system in Abu-
more on electricity bills than the RO-based model and the rule-based Monqar, Egypt, J. Energy Storage 44 (Dec. 2021) 103336, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.EST.2021.103336.

9
M. Rezaeimozafar et al.
[4] M. Rezaeimozafar, R.F.D. Monaghan, E. Barrett, M. Duffy, A review of behind-the-
meter energy storage systems in smart grids, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 164
(Aug. 2022) 112573, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2022.112573.
[5] A. Amer, K. Shaban, A. Gaouda, A. Massoud, Home energy management system
embedded with a multi-objective demand response optimization model to benefit
customers and operators, Energies 14 (2) (Jan. 2021) 257, https://doi.org/
10.3390/EN14020257.
[6] M. Tostado-Véliz, D. Icaza-Alvarez, F. Jurado, A novel methodology for optimal
sizing photovoltaic-battery systems in smart homes considering grid outages and
demand response, Renew. Energy 170 (Jun. 2021) 884–896, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.02.006.
[7] H. Chitsaz, P. Zamani-Dehkordi, H. Zareipour, P.P. Parikh, Electricity price
forecasting for operational scheduling of behind-the-meter storage systems, IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid 9 (6) (Nov. 2018) 6612–6622, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TSG.2017.2717282.
[8] R. Karandeh, M. Davoudi, V. Cecchi, Distributed control of behind-the-meter
energy resources for multiple services, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 37 (3) (Jun. 2022)
2050–2059, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2021.3103661.
[9] V. Muthiah-Nakarajan, S.H.C. Cherukuri, B. Saravanan, K. Palanisamy, Residential
energy management strategy considering the usage of storage facilities and electric
vehicles, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 45 (Jun. 2021) 101167, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SETA.2021.101167.
[10] K. Baker, G. Hug, X. Li, Energy storage sizing taking into account forecast
uncertainties and receding horizon operation, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 8 (1)
(Jan. 2017) 331–340, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2016.2599074.
[11] N. Yahya Soltani, A. Nasiri, Chance-constrained optimization of energy storage
capacity for microgrids, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 11 (4) (Jul. 2020) 2760–2770,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2020.2966620.
[12] M. Aghamohamadi, A. Mahmoudi, M.H. Haque, Two-stage robust sizing and
operation co-optimization for residential PV-battery systems considering the
uncertainty of PV generation and load, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 17 (2) (Feb. 2021)
1005–1017, https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.2990682.
[13] Z. Zheng, X. Li, J. Pan, X. Luo, A multi-year two-stage stochastic programming
model for optimal design and operation of residential photovoltaic-battery
systems, Energ. Buildings 239 (May 2021) 110835, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENBUILD.2021.110835.
[14] R. Li, S. Guo, Y. Yang, D. Liu, Optimal sizing of wind/ concentrated solar plant/
electric heater hybrid renewable energy system based on two-stage stochastic
programming, Energy 209 (Oct. 2020) 118472, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2020.118472.
[15] B. Xu, A. Oudalov, A. Ulbig, G. Andersson, D.S. Kirschen, Modeling of lithium-ion
battery degradation for cell life assessment, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 9 (2) (2018)
1131–1140, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2578950.
[16] C. Goebel, H. Hesse, M. Schimpe, A. Jossen, H.A. Jacobsen, Model-based dispatch
strategies for lithium-ion battery energy storage applied to pay-as-bid markets for
secondary reserve, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 32 (4) (Jul. 2017) 2724–2734, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2626392.
[17] D. Borkowski, P. Oramus, M. Brzezinka, Battery energy storage system for grid-
connected photovoltaic farm — energy management strategy and sizing
optimization algorithm, J. Energy Storage 72 (Nov. 2023) 108201, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.EST.2023.108201.
[18] H. Ekhteraei Toosi, A. Merabet, A. Swingler, Impact of battery degradation on
energy cost and carbon footprint of smart homes, Electr. Pow. Syst. Res. 209 (Aug.
2022) 107955, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EPSR.2022.107955.
10
Journal of Energy Storage 86 (2024) 111199
[19] B. Xu, J. Zhao, T. Zheng, E. Litvinov, D.S. Kirschen, Factoring the cycle aging cost
of batteries participating in electricity markets, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 33 (2)
(Mar. 2018) 2248–2259, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2017.2733339.
[20] Z. Zhang, J. Shi, Y. Gao, N. Yu, Degradation-aware valuation and sizing of behind-
the-meter battery energy storage systems for commercial customers, in: 2019 IEEE
PES GTD Gd. Int. Conf. Expo. Asia, GTD Asia 2019, May 2019, pp. 895–900,
https://doi.org/10.1109/GTDASIA.2019.8715850.
[21] V.A. Tikkiwal, S.V. Singh, H.O. Gupta, Multi-objective optimisation of a grid-
connected hybrid PV-battery system considering battery degradation, Int. J.
Sustain. Eng. 14 (6) (2021) 1769–1779, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19397038.2021.1982064.
[22] European Commission, JRC photovoltaic geographical information system
(PVGIS). https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html (accessed Feb. 02,
2023).
[23] T. Markvart (Ed.), Solar Electricity — Google Books, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd., 2000.
[24] W.J. Thistleton, J.A. Marsh, K. Nelson, C. Tsallis, Generalized Box-Müller method
for generating q-Gaussian random deviates, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 53 (12) (2007)
4805–4810, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2007.909173.
[25] SEMOpx historical market data, Accessed: Feb. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: https
://www.semopx.com/documents/general-publications/lookback_mkt.xlsx.
[26] G.B. Shrestha, B.K. Pokharel, T.T. Lie, S.E. Fleten, Medium term power planning
with bilateral contracts, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20 (2) (May 2005) 627–633,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846239.
[27] W. Lee, L. Xiang, R. Schober, V.W.S. Wong, Direct electricity trading in smart grid:
a coalitional game analysis, IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 32 (7) (2014) 1398–1411,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2014.2332112.
[28] W.B. Powell, S. Meisel, Tutorial on stochastic optimization in energy — part II: an
energy storage illustration, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 31 (2) (Mar. 2016) 1468–1475,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2424980.
[29] J. Wang, et al., Degradation of lithium ion batteries employing graphite negatives
and nickel–cobalt–manganese oxide + spinel manganese oxide positives: part 1,
aging mechanisms and life estimation, J. Power Sources 269 (Dec. 2014) 937–948,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPOWSOUR.2014.07.030.
[30] A. Millner, Modeling lithium ion battery degradation in electric vehicles, in: 2010
IEEE Conf. Innov. Technol. an Effic. Reliab. Electr. Supply, CITRES 2010, 2010,
pp. 349–356, https://doi.org/10.1109/CITRES.2010.5619782.
[31] W. Vermeer, G.R.C. Mouli, P. Bauer, Real-time building smart charging system
based on PV forecast and Li-ion battery degradation, Energies 13 (13) (2020) 3415,
https://doi.org/10.3390/EN13133415.
[32] Resource allocation problems. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262090278/
resource-allocation-problems/ (accessed Jul. 04, 2023).
[33] Y. Pochet, L.A. Wolsey, Production planning by mixed integer programming, in:
Springer Ser. Oper. Res. Financ. Eng, 2006, pp. 1–499, https://doi.org/10.1007/0-
387-33477-7/COVER.
[34] Datasheet_LGES_RESU6.5_2.7.pdf - Google Drive. https://drive.google.com/file/d
/1oCdkE9PmpDps54eemYTBa0fjqqGdLryE/view (accessed Jul. 03, 2023).
[35] A. Better, Fundamentally different. The SunPower Maxeon ® solar cell, Accessed:
Jul. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.sunpowercorp.co.uk.
[36] MultiPlus-II inverter/charger, Accessed: Jul. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://ve3.nl/6H.
[37] How to size a PV system from an electricity bill | Aurora Solar. https://aurorasolar.
com/blog/how-to-size-a-pv-system-from-an-electricity-bill/ (accessed Feb. 28,
2023).