Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Is switching to solar energy a feasible investment? A techno-economic

analysis of domestic consumers in Spain
Eloi Codina b, Bruno Domenech a, b, *, Marc Juanpera a, b, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda b,
Rafael Pastor a, b
a
Department of Management, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya – BarcelonaTech (UPC), 08034, Barcelona, Spain
b
Institute of Industrial and Control Engineering (IOC), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya – BarcelonaTech (UPC), 08034, Barcelona, Spain

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

Keywords: Grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) facilities are more attractive than ever due to the electricity price surges and
Self-consumption the reduction of solar energy generation costs. This paper develops a solving procedure including a simulation
Techno-economic analysis model to analyze the techno-economic performance of PV-battery facilities, taking into account the latest
Residential solar facilities
Spanish regulatory framework. The procedure finds the best facilities for multiple objectives, maximum profit­
Batteries
ability and maximum self-sufficiency, in different locations, load profiles and economic scenarios. The results
Spain
indicate that PV modules are profitable without subsidies, with installations between 1 and 6 kWp. Meanwhile,
batteries are only convenient when seeking maximum independence from the grid, with capacities up to 9 kWh.
The findings suggest that the economic feasibility of facilities is influenced by the location and compensation rate
surplus electricity, while the facility is mainly determined by the load profile. A sensitivity analysis shows that a
variation in grid tariffs and technology prices has a limited impact on the facility’s size but modifies the system’s
profitability. Finally, an analysis of the latest unprecedented grid price surges indicates that self-consumption
facilities help become a more resilient society against unexpected events. Therefore, policymakers should keep
promoting the adoption of these technologies and keep the current advantageous regulations.

1. Introduction
The most developed countries have started the decarbonization of
the economy to reduce the effects of the current climate crisis, with
specific plans that target the electricity system by introducing more
renewable sources and distributing the generation points (Research
Service, 2021). Moreover, energy prices in Europe are increasing with
recent spikes due to unprecedented events such as the COVID-19
pandemic and the war in Ukraine (IEA, 2022), and citizens and busi­
nesses are paying never-seen utility bills particularly in Europe. To
depend less on the grid’s price fluctuations, many individuals are
becoming prosumers, consumers who also produce electricity, by
installing rooftop PV facilities. In fact, in last years, rooftop PV facilities
are doubling their installed capacity every two years (López Talavera
et al., 2019).
In this context, it is essential to develop techno-economic tools to
objectively analyze self-consumption facilities’ economic feasibility and
help families and investors guide their decision to adopt solar energy. In
the literature, several authors have examined how techno-economic is­
sues and the country’s regulation influence self-consumption facilities’
profitability, but differ in methods. Aldahmashi et al. (2021) use com­
mercial optimization software (HOMER Grid) and find that the initial
investment cost is the main limiting factor for self-consumption facilities
in Saudi Arabia. D’Adamo et al. (2022) use an economic model to
evaluate the profitability of residential solar energy under a heavily
subsidized scenario showing that subsidies increase these systems’
economic feasibility in Italy. Hassan et al. (2021) propose a simulation
model with a user-friendly interface for the end user validated with real
data from Australia.
The self-consumption setup is often limited to PV panels (Yoomak
et al., 2019; Nhau et al., 2021), although others also add batteries. Han
et al. (2022) use a simulation model to analyze a PV-battery facility for
thirty years in Switzerland and find that batteries are the most profitable
for those consumers with high electricity demand in sunny areas. A

* Corresponding author. Department of Management, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya – BarcelonaTech (UPC), 08034, Barcelona, Spain.
E-mail addresses: eloi.codina@upc.edu (E. Codina), bruno.domenech@upc.edu (B. Domenech), marc.juanpera@upc.edu (M. Juanpera), leopold.palomo@upc.edu
(L. Palomo-Avellaneda), rafael.pastor@upc.edu (R. Pastor).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113834
Received 18 April 2023; Received in revised form 21 July 2023; Accepted 21 September 2023
Available online 28 September 2023
0301-4215/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
E. Codina et al.
similar conclusion is reached by Al et al., 2022 in Australia after
analyzing the economic performance of storage systems for 5,000 con­
sumers. The analysis of real demand and seven price scenarios in 2018 in
the USA performed by Barbour and González (2018) concluded that
batteries are not economically viable yet unless current electricity rates
are raised or the compensation for surplus energy is lowered.
The main indicators used to evaluate PV-battery facilities are sum­
marized in Table 1 and are also employed in this paper. Those who want
to obtain the maximum savings use economic parameters such as the Net
Present Value (NPV) (Stephan et al. (2016) or Zhang et al. (2017)) or the
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (Bertsch et al., 2017). Instead, those who
prefer being the most independent from the grid may use self-sufficiency
(SF) with Nyholm et al. (2016) as an example. Other authors analyze a
mix of indicators or create their own based on the cost-competitiveness
of the self-consumed electricity compared to grid prices (López Talavera
et al., 2019). Another key difference is the provenance of the data used:
while some authors use real data (Tongsopit et al., 2019), others use
estimated or synthetic data (Vieira et al., 2017).
Although this paper’s topic is key worldwide, it is especially crucial
in Europe since renewable energies can help reduce dependence on third
countries. In particular, in Spain, a significant change in the electricity
market regulation was introduced in June 2021: all consumers now have
hourly discrimination-based tolls with, in general, three price levels, as
Section 2.1 describes. This change is expected to favor prosumers since
one of the peak periods coincides with the late morning and noon when
PV facilities produce the maximum energy, and the other occurs during
the evening when batteries can be fully charged. Table 2 summarizes
some studies which have analyzed the profitability of self-consumption
facilities in Spain before this regulation change and employed either
simulation models or statistics and offer insight into Spain’s situation.
For each study, the table illustrates the technologies, objectives,
geographic conditions, load profiles and the facilities’ capacity consid­
ered. Only two of the identified studies consider storage technologies
and all, except for one, only examine economic objectives. The
geographic conditions analyzed are also limited, sometimes focused on a
single city. The consumption patterns are based on national averages or
restricted to a few profiles.
As observed, the literature analyzes the impact of techno-economic
issues and regulatory frameworks on the profitability of PV-battery
system, but some gaps still exist. First, few studies use a wide range of
data, such as economic scenarios or consumption patterns, or examine
how a variation in the data (e.g. tariffs) or the compensation rate for
surplus electricity influences the results. Second, the consumption data
is either estimated or received from smart meters, but no comparison
between real and estimated load profiles is made in the same paper.
Finally, the studies based in Spain do not always consider energy storage
and tariffs are not updated to the latest June 2021 regulation.
This paper contributes to the literature by analyzing the techno-
economic performance of residential PV-battery facilities. It proposes
a solving procedure based on a simulation model tailored to the latest
Spanish regulation. This procedure finds the best facility for two inde­
pendent objectives: maximum profitability (economic) and self-
sufficiency without economic losses (technical). Facilities are
Table 1
Techno-economic indicators used in this paper for evaluating PV-battery
facilities.
Indicator Abbreviation Definition Type
Net present NPV Value of all future cash flows over Economic
value the entire life of the facility in
today’s value
Internal rate IRR The discount rate that makes the Economic
of return NPV zero
Self- SF Energy consumed from the Sun Technical
sufficiency relative to the total demand of the
dwelling
2
Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834
compared using three indicators, NPV and IRR (for the first objective),
and SF (for the second objective). Three experiments involving different
scenarios are conducted. The first experiment uses estimated data to
draw general conclusions using 5 simulated load profiles, 11 cities
representative of the various Spanish climates, and 2 economic sce­
narios. It is complemented with a sensitivity analysis on tariffs and
technology prices to offset the uncertainty in estimating these parame­
ters. The second one considers the effects of recent unprecedented
events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war, that have
increased energy prices, to study how self-consumption could be influ­
enced. The last one uses a real load profile to evaluate how subsidies
influence PV-battery systems’ profitability. Finally, the first and third
experiments are repeated, considering tariffs without a compensation
rate for surplus electricity to study its effects on the profitability of PV
systems.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, the problem’s
context is analyzed, and a proposed solving approach is presented in
Section 2. Next, the simulation model designed to analyze the techno-
economic performance of PV-battery systems is described (Section 3),
and the computational experiments are detailed (Section 4). The results
are discussed in Section 5, and Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Solving approach
Section 1 presented a review of the literature studying the profit­
ability of residential PV-battery facilities and pointed out some gaps that
this paper tries to address. The techno-economic analysis of these fa­
cilities requires a comprehensive understanding of the core concepts of
the electricity market and self-consumption regulations, which vary
between countries. This paper considers the Spanish legislation,
explained in Section 2.1. Then, a simulation model has been developed
based on the implementation proposed by Domenech et al. (2021) and is
further explained in Section 2.2.
2.1. Spanish legislation context
This section introduces the current Spanish legislation, defined in
Law 24/2013 (Spain, 2013), for the electricity market and
self-consumption, implemented in the proposed simulation model. Most
domestic consumers participate in one of the following two retail mar­
kets, buying energy from suppliers:
• Regulated market: the reference suppliers (of at least three years
old and with a minimum of 25,000 customers and equity of at least
500,000 €) offer the Voluntary Price for the Small Consumer scheme
(PVPC). REE publishes daily the hourly electricity prices for the
following day, according to the calculation determined by the royal
decree RD 216/2014 (Spain, 2014).
• Free market: suppliers offer energy at a closed deal to consumers for
a defined period. In these deals, the hourly price may or may not
vary.
Consumers must pay a transmission and distribution toll for each
unit of energy consumed, determined by the National Commission of
Markets and Competition (CNMC), which depends on the voltage level
and power requirements. Domestic consumers usually pay the 2.0TD
toll, which changed on the 1st June 2021 and is one of the differences
between this article and the other Spanish-based research. Its price is
calculated according to Circular 2/2020 (Markets and Competition,
2020) and has three hourly discrimination levels, peak, flat and valley,
described later in Table 7. Although consumers in both markets must
pay this toll, the free-market suppliers can choose to include them in the
deal and hide them from the utility bill.
Self-consumption is defined in RD 244/2019 (Spain, 2019). It is a
significant improvement over the former regulation as it allows pro­
sumers to easily sell surplus electricity to the grid (López Prol and
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

Table 2
Most recent studies under the latest Spanish self-consumption regulation.
Study Technologies Objective Geographic conditions Load profile Facility capacity

López Prol et al., 2020 PV Max IRR Average conditions in Average demand based on No limit
Spain standards
Roldán Fernández et al., PV Max NPV Historical records from Average demand according to 1 to 3.5 kWp
2021 REE a REE
Ballesteros et al., 2021 PV, battery Max NPV, Seville Real data from smart meters No limit
IRR
Domenech et al. (2021) PV, battery Max NPV, SF 5 cities 5 profiles based on behavior 1 to 10 kWp and 1 to 10 kWh
simulation
Vargas-Salgado et al. PV Max IRR 4 buildings in Valencia 4 profiles based on smart meter Depends on the building’s available space for
(2022) city data PV panels
a
Red Eléctrica Española.

Steininger, 2020), using one of the following remuneration mechanisms:
• Simplified monthly net billing system:consumers receive a
monthly credit for the sold electricity, discounted from the electricity
bill for installations under 100 kW. The electricity is valued at either:
o Regulated market: the wholesale price. Consumers can only
compensate for the energy part of the bill (e.g., they will need to pay
the tolls, and this part cannot be negative at any month).
o Free market: the agreed price between the consumer and the sup­
plier. The maximum compensation depends on the agreed
conditions.
• Direct sell: consumers can also sell the surplus electricity at the
wholesale price minus the generation tax and the grid-access charge.
It allows installations of any size but with higher administrative and
technical requirements.
This study focuses on prosumers in the regulated market that sell
electricity to the grid using the simplified monthly net billing system.
2.2. Proposed solution procedure
This paper proposes a new solving procedure based on the results of a
simulation model that finds the best facility capacities for a given solar
radiation profile, demand, and economic scenario, according to the
values of the three indicators summarized in Table 1, NPV, IRR and SF,
individually. It is based on the proposal of Domenech et al. (2021),
incorporating the following improvements:
• Tariffs can have different hourly prices, so PVPC tariffs can be
analyzed. Electric tolls have three periods, following the new
legislation.
• Batteries can also be charged directly through the grid, if necessary,
in order to fully use the energy storage system and make it more
economically feasible.
• The model can consider subsidies prosumers may receive.
These improvements adjust the simulation model closer to real-life
conditions. However, they require to re-define the control strategy of
the designed facilities and have a relevant impact in the calculation of
the total cost of ownership (all the incomes and costs, such as initial
investment, maintenance or replacement costs) during a defined project
horizon.
The simulation model considers a standard PV-battery setup for grid-
connected facilities (Fig. 1), where electric needs are always met by the
PV panels, the battery, or the utility grid, according to the control
strategy (Section 3.2). A single inverter is shared between the PV
modules and the battery management system (or charge controller),
giving power to the household and the grid.
PV modules convert solar radiation into DC power, which can be
achieved through different technologies (Ogbomo et al., 2017). They
differ in price, thus making it possible to configure the simulation model
to use any of them by changing the appropriate options. A maximum
power point tracking system (MPPT), which decouples the load and PV
modules and forces the voltage of the PV panels to be the one that
maximizes power output is considered inside the appropriate inverter
(Reza Reisi et al., 2013), which is responsible for converting electricity
between DC and AC (commonly used in households).
Regarding batteries, the model considers Li-ion technologies as their
energy density and efficiency are better than older technologies
(Vega-Garita et al., 2019). The charge controller or battery management
system controls the rates of charge and discharge of the batteries to
protect them from overcharges or deep discharges, which could damage
them (Ouyang et al., 2018).
The solving procedure is used to calculate the cost of installing a PV-
battery system in independent residential buildings during a defined
project horizon and optimize the PV and battery capacities according to
one of the two objectives of this study: maximum profitability (eco­
nomic) or maximum self-sufficiency (technical). Fig. 2 summarizes how
the proposed procedure generally works, which uses input data
explained in further detail in Section 4.
The solving procedure considers a set of discrete PV-battery combi­
nations for a consumer in a particular location considering one eco­
nomic scenario represented by a radiation profile, load profile, and
tariff. For each combination, it simulates the system’s state and its
evolution for each hour of the project horizon, which includes the
amount of energy generated, bought from the grid, stored and drawn

Fig. 1. Standard PV-battery setup considered in the simulation model.

3
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

Fig. 2. Solving procedure including the simulation model.

from the batteries. This state is used to estimate the value of the yearly
Table 3
savings in the electricity bill and the ownership costs, required to
Technical and economic parameters.
calculate the indicators at the last year of the project horizon, NPV and
IRR (to assess profitability), and SF (to assess self-sufficiency). Symbol Meaning Limits
The solving procedure then compares all the combinations and d Annual diminution in technology prices [unit
outputs the PV-battery capacity combinations that maximize each in­ fraction]
dicator individually. Thus, the user is provided with extensive economic LPyh Demand for every hour (h) of every year (y) of h ∈ {1, …, 8760}y ∈
the horizon [kWh] a {1, …, L}
and technical information to assist in the selection of the best PV-battery BAT Annual battery degradation [unit fraction]
D
capacity combination. DPV Annual PV panel degradation [unit fraction]
The procedure presented above has been developed in Java e Global initial efficiency of the system [unit
(OpenJDK 11) and executed in a server with a dual Intel Xeon E5-2630 fraction]
CPUs with 20 cores each and 64 GB RAM. The code has been parallelized i Annual discount rate [unit fraction]
Initial useful battery capacity [kWh]
to test multiple combinations at the same time and takes ~35 s to find a KBAT
0
KPV Initial PV capacity [kWh]
solution for a given consumer in a particular location considering one 0
L Project lifespan (horizon) [years]
economic scenario. The procedure’s output has been analyzed in Python LBAT Expected battery lifetime [years]
3.10 using the libraries pandas (The pandas development team, 2023) LINV Expected inverter’s lifetime [years]
and matplotlib (Caswell et al., 2023). LPV Expected solar PV panel’s lifetime [years]
PINI Initial installation price (excluding battery, PV
module and inverter) [€]
3. Simulation model PBAT Battery price [€/kWh]
PINV Inverter price [€/kWp]
This section describes in detail the simulation model introduced in PPV PV module price [€/kWp]
Section 2.2. In particular, Section 3.1 enumerates the notation used MBAT Annual battery maintenance cost [% of the
throughout the paper. Section 3.2 showcases the control strategy, and original price]
Annual PV panel maintenance cost [% of the
Section 3.3 gives an insight into the technical aspects of the model. MPV
original price]
Finally, Section 3.4 describes the indicator calculations. m Annual increase in maintenance prices [unit
fraction]
MCF Maximum battery charge factor [% per hour] a
Maximum battery discharge factor [% per hour]
3.1. Notation MDF
a

The notation used to describe the model is summarized in this sec­ Sy Government incentive received by the prosumer y ∈ {0, …, L}
tion. Table 3 and Table 4 list the technical and economic parameters, at year y (subsidy) [€]
SOCMIN Minimum battery state of charge [%]
and variables used.
SRyh Solar radiation for every hour (h) of every year h ∈ {1, …, 8760}y ∈
(y) of the project horizon [peak sun hours] {1, …, L}
a
Used in Section 4.
3.2. Control strategy

This section describes the simulation model’s control strategy
(Fig. 3). For each hour of the project horizon, the model decides the
electricity source to be used, which is prioritized as follows:
1. First, PV modules will be used to cover the demand.
2. If PV modules cannot cover the demand and the battery has a state of
charge greater than SOCMIN, the battery is used.
3. Finally, if the PV-battery system cannot cover the demand, the grid,
considered as an unlimited energy source, is used.
• The battery has reached SOCMIN in that charge-discharge cycle and
still has not charged to 100%, in order to minimize the charge-
discharge cycles.
• Solar panels cannot cover the household demand.
• The electricity rate for that hour is less than the year’s average to buy
the cheapest electricity possible only, similar to the approach pro­
posed by Manso-Burgos et al. (2022).
3.3. Technical description

If solar panels generate more energy than needed, the excess is stored
in the battery. It is sold to the grid if the battery is fully charged or has
not been installed. Moreover, the battery can also be charged through
the grid whenever all the following conditions are met:
The simulation model calculates the amount of electricity generated
from PV modules for each hour of the project lifetime according to
Equation (1), which considers the installed PV capacity, KPV
y , mean solar
radiation, SRyh , and global efficiency, e.

4
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

SAV
Table 4 • Iym : the direct saving in the monthly utility bill obtained by not
Technical and economic variables. purchasing from the grid the total amount of electricity consumed. It
Symbol Meaning Limits is calculated monthly as the demand covered by the sun and the
CMNT Maintenance cost at year y [€] y ∈ {1, …, L} battery valued at the grid price and tolls.
DSC
• Iym : the discount prosumers receive on the monthly utility bill. It is
y
CRPL
y
Replacement cost in the installation of PV module, y ∈ {1, …,
battery and inverter at year y [€] L − 1} calculated monthly as the energy sold to the grid valued at the price
Cash flow value at year y [€ ] y ∈ {0, …, L}
CFy
defined in the net billing system and can only be as much as the
Gyh Solar electricity generated at hour h of year y [kWh] y ∈ {1, …, L}
h ∈ {1, …,
energy part of the bill.
8760} • Sy : the government incentive received by the prosumer.
IDSC
ym
Discount received in the utility bill for sold surplus y ∈ {1, …, L} • ISVG : the equipment’s salvage value at the project horizon’s last year,
electricity every month (m) of year y [€] m ∈ {1, …, since it may have a longer life than the project. Equation (6) shows
Savings obtained by using solar energy instead of the grid 12}
ISAV
ym that it is calculated as the fraction of the initial price corresponding
calculated as the PV energy consumed valued at the tariff
rate for month m of year y [€] to the years the equipment could still function. It considers a
ISVG Salvage value of the equipment at the end of the project decrease in technology prices.
horizon [€] [(⌈ ⌉ ) (⌈ ⌉ )
KBAT Useful degraded battery capacity at year y [kWh] y ∈ {1, …, L} L L L L
y I SVG = (1 − d)L − P PV PV
K 0 + − PBAT K0BAT
KPV Degraded PV peak power at year y [kWp] y ∈ {1, …, L} LPV LPV LBAT LBAT
y (⌈ ⌉ ) ]
L L
+ INV
− INV PINV K0PV
L L
Gyh = e KyPV SRyh y ∈ {1, …, L}h ∈ {1, …, 8760} (1) (6)
To account for the degradation that PV panels experience over their With all the costs and incomes defined, the cash flow updated to the
lifetime, the model updates the installed capacity every year according present value according to the discount rate, i, is calculated as Equations
to Equation (2). This equation takes into consideration the initial PV (7)–(9) show. It is a straightforward calculation of subtracting the
capacity, KPV
0 , and how much it diminishes each year due to the annual different costs from the income, updating to initial instant, with the
PV degradation, DPV , as well as the years the panels have been installed following key considerations:
relative to their expected lifespan, LPV , since they were last replaced.
( )(y− 1)mod LPV • The initial instant (Equation (7)) is particular since most costs occur
KyPV = K0PV 1 − DPV y ∈ {1, …, L} (2)
at that time: equipment purchases and installation, while no savings
Similarly, batteries degrade over time, incurring a capacity loss. The are obtained.
model updates the battery capacity every year of the project lifetime, as • The last year (Equation (9)) is also particular since the equipment is
shown in Equation (3), which follows the same structure as Equation (2). not replaced, so its salvage value is considered.
( )(y− 1)mod LBAT CF0 = S0 − PPV K0PV − PBAT K0BAT − PINV K0PV − PINI (7)
KyBAT = K0BAT 1 − DBAT y ∈ {1, …, L} (3)
∑12 ( DSC SAV
)
Sy + Iym + Iym − CyMNT − CyRPL
3.4. Indicator calculation CFy =
m=1
y ∈ {1, …, L − 1} (8)
(1 + i)y
Three indicators are used to analyze and compare PV-battery facil­ ∑12 ( )
ities. The two economic indicators, NPV and IRR, are based on a prof­
DSC SAV
SL + ILm + ILm + I SVG − CLMNT
CFL = m=1
(9)
itability analysis through the cash flow value, while SF analyzes the (1 + i)L
independence from the grid.
Two different recurring costs are calculated to analyze the invest­ With the cash flow expression for every year of the project horizon, the
ment. two economic indicators can be calculated. In particular, the NPV is the
sum of all cash flows of the project’s lifetime, and the IRR is the discount
• CRPL rate that makes the NPV zero. The third indicator, SF, is defined as the
y : the replacement cost in the installation of PV module, battery
fraction of the total demand covered by solar energy.
and inverter. Equation (4) shows that is calculated for each year of
the project horizon whenever any of the three elements reaches its
4. Data for the computational experiments
expected lifetime. It based on the initial price of the equipment,
considering that technology prices decrease.
This section describes the data for the three experiments carried out
in this paper to validate the proposed procedure. The first experiment

{ { {
(1 − d)y PPV K0PV y mod LPV = 0 (1 − d)y PBAT K0BAT y mod LBAT = 0 (1 − d)y PINV K0PV y mod LINV = 0
CyRPL = + + y ∈ {1, …, L − 1} (4)
0 otherwise 0 otherwise 0 otherwise

• CMNT
y : the maintenance cost, as a fraction of the equipment’s initial uses five different simulated annual load profiles with an hourly reso­
price as Equation (5) shows. It also considers a yearly increase. lution, and is complemented with a sensitivity analysis of the tariffs and
( ) technology prices. The second experiment considers the same data as the
CyMNT = (1 + m)y PPV K0PV M PV + PBAT K0BAT M BAT y ∈ {1, …, L} (5) first one but with a sharp tariff increase, in order to consider potential
disruptive events (such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic or the war in
Four different incomes are considered.

5
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

Fig. 3. Control strategy flowchart for each simulation hour.

Ukraine). Finally, the third is a practical application that uses the load
profile obtained from a real smart meter.
The rest of the section is devoted to presenting the data needed for
the experiments: the locations analyzed (Section 4.1), load profiles
(Section 4.2), tariffs (Section 4.3), subsidies (Section 4.4), and various
techno-economic parameters (Section 4.5). The results of the experi­
ments are discussed in Section 5.
4.1. Locations
Eleven Spanish province capitals distributed uniformly geographi­
cally and representative of the various climates in the country have been
selected to establish the solar radiation’s effect on the profitability and
self-sufficiency of PV-battery systems for the first and second experi­
ments (Table 5). The cities have been sorted by the annual average PV
yield, since it helps compare the theoretical performance of these fa­
cilities, and evenly split into sunny and cloudy locations.
The solar radiation profile considers the optimal azimuth and slope,
similar to the approach by López Talavera et al. (2019). Thus, the results
of this paper represent the best-case scenario, which allows a fair com­
parison between cities and other papers found in the literature. In re­
ality, prosumers without the conditions for an optimally installed
facility should expect a minor economic performance and
self-sufficiency. However, a Germany-based study (Tjaden, et al., 2014)
found that self-sufficiency may only vary up to 5% in all possible azi­
muth angles and a slope angle between 10◦ and 60◦ . Similarly, a study in
Spain found that a deviation of up to 10◦ from the optimal tilt angle
incurs in negligible energy losses, while an installation with a deviation
of around 30◦ loses 10% of the energy (Barbón, et al., 2022). Therefore,
the order of magnitude of this paper’s results should be applicable to real
prosumers.
Additionally, this paper’s practical application (second experiment)
focuses on Terrassa, a city near Barcelona. The characteristics and re­
strictions of this location are as follows:

Table 5
Locations considered in this experiment, with the corresponding annual PV yield calculated from the considered solar radiation profiles.
a
City Köppen climate classification subtype Annual PV yield [kWh/kWp]

Sunniest Santa Cruz de Tenerife BSh: hot steppe (semi-arid) 2207

Sevilla Csa: temperate with dry and hot summer 1943
Barcelona Csa: temperate with dry and hot summer 1877
Badajoz Csa: temperate with dry and hot summer 1876
Palma de Mallorca BSk: cold steppe (semi-arid) 1871
Madrid BSk: cold steppe (semi-arid) 1858
Cloudiest Albacete BSk: cold steppe (semi-arid) 1783
Leon Csb: temperate with dry and warm summer 1764
Zaragoza BSk: cold steppe (semi-arid) 1757
Santiago de Compostela Cfb: temperate with no dry season and warm summer 1462
Bilbao Cfb: temperate with no dry season and warm summer 1368
a
Source: Chazarra Bernabé et al., 2018

6
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

• Azimuth: 3◦ (South) price with a 2% yearly increase. Their first-year prices can be found in
• Slope: 37◦ (optimal) Table 7.
• Available space: 12 m2 Finally, the compensation rate for surplus electricity is based on the
• Maximum power capacity due to space constraints: 2.5 kWp wholesale market price, but the difference between this price and the
(considering a 210 Wp/m2 yield) hourly energy cost defined above differs daily due to the calculation
method described in RD 216/2014 (Spain, 2014). Therefore, the
The PVGIS-CMSAF database between 2007 and 2016 (Huld et al., compensation rate has been calculated based on the hourly cost intro­
2012) has been used to generate all the radiation profiles by applying a ducing some randomness that simulates the variability found in the first
random year-to-year variation of up to 5%. 9 months of the new tariff. The first and second experiments also
consider no compensation rate for surplus electricity to investigate its
influence on the results.
4.2. Load profiles

Five simulated load profiles (LP) have been generated using the Load
4.4. Subsidies
Profile Generator tool (Pflugradt et al., 2013) to study the effect of
different load profiles for the first and second experiments. This tool
The first and second experiments do not consider any subsidy.
creates LPs based on a behavior simulation of the people in a household
Instead, the third experiment considers the subsidies available in Ter­
according to a psychological model. Instead, the practical application is
rassa (location of the real case) during February 2022. In particular:
based on real data obtained from the prosumer’s smart meter for the
period 2019–2021.
1. City council:
Table 6 shows the most relevant characteristics for each load profile
a. Property tax reduction of 50% for the first five years: 512.50 € per
considered in this study. It shows that LP04 is the one that consumes less
year.
energy since it belongs to a single retired man, while LP03 is the largest
2. Next Generation aid: installation cost bonus, with the total amount
in terms of inhabitants and consumption. The real case is similar to
capped to the installation cost. The administration may take up to 6
LP02. Moreover, Fig. 4 shows the consumption for each hour of a year
months to concede the aid, but the payment is considered in the
for each load profile. It shows that LP03 is the one that consumes the
initial instant.
most energy throughout the whole day, while LP01 and LP02 concen­
a. PV module: 600 €/kWp
trate their consumption during the after-work hours. It also shows that
b. Battery: 490 €/kWh
LP01, LP04, and LP05 take two vacations per year, and LP02 and LP03
one. The practical application presents a homogeneous consumption
throughout the day. 4.5. Other techno-economic parameters

4.3. Tariffs The rest of the techno-economic parameters have been set based on
those available in Domenech et al. (2021) and updated according to a
Two different economic scenarios have been analyzed in this paper, commercial catalog (Europe - Solar Store, 2022).
representing possible price tendencies in the regulated market during
the simulation’s time frame. Three elements are required to define the • PV modules:
tariffs (described in the next paragraphs): hourly energy cost, tolls, and o Initial PV capacity for the general experiment (KPV 0 ): the simula­
compensation rate for surplus energy. tion tests from 1 to 15 kWp with increases of 1 kWp.
The two energy cost scenarios have been designed using annual av­ oInitial PV capacity for the practical application (KPV 0 ): the
erages. Then, the tariff behavior between the 1st June 2021 and 28th simulation tests from 0.25 to 2.5 kWp with increases of 0.25 kWp.
February 2022 has been analyzed, and the hourly energy cost has been oPV modules price (PPV): 470 €/kWp (including an MPPT).
randomly generated, simulating the behavior found. With these inputs, oExpected solar PV panels’ lifetime (LPV): 20 years.
the description of the two scenarios is as follows: oAnnual PV panels degradation (DPV): 0.5%.
oAnnual PV panels maintenance cost (MPV): 1% of the original
• REG1: average first-year energy price of 0.15 €/kWh and a 2% price.
annual linear increase. • Battery (lithium-ion):
• REG2: the annual average price follows an inverted V, with an initial oInitial useful battery capacity (KBAT
0 ): the simulation tests from
cost of 0.18 €/kWh and a peak of 0.25 €/kWh in year 5. It then de­ 0 to 10 kWh with increases of 1 kWh.
scends at a rate of 1% yearly. oBattery price (PBAT): 800 €/kWh.
oExpected battery’s lifetime (LBAT): 8 years.
Both scenarios consider the same tolls added on top of the energy oMaximum battery charge factor (MCF): 50% of capacity per
hour.
Table 6 oMaximum battery discharge factor (MDF): 10% of capacity per
Details of each load profile’s demand. hour.
Code Characteristics Average hourly Maximum hourly oAnnual battery degradation (DBAT): 0.5%.
demand [kWh] demand [kWh] oAnnual battery maintenance cost (MBAT): 2% of the original
LP01 Couple both with work 0.40 3.47 price.
LP02 Family, 3 children, both 0.41 2.18 oMinimum battery state of charge (SOCMIN): 30%.
adults with work • Inverter:
LP03 Working couple, 2 0.86 2.42
oInverter price (PINV): 200 €/kWp.
children, 2 seniors
LP04 Retired single man over 65 0.16 0.61 oExpected inverter’s lifetime (LINV): 10 years.
years • Project lifespan (horizon of the simulation) (L): 20 years.
LP05 Retired couple, no work 0.26 0.89 • Annual diminution in technology prices (d): 2%.
Real Family, 3 children, both 0.37 1.98 • Annual increase in maintenance prices (m): 1%.
case adults with work
• Annual discount rate (i): 5%.

7
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

Fig. 4. One year’s demand per load profile. Horizontal axis: the year’s day. Vertical axis: the hour of that day.

5.1. First experiment: General experiment

Table 7
First-year tolls for the REG tariffs (Markets and Competition, 2020).
The general experiment consists of 5 simulated load profiles in 11
Period Time range (Europe/Madrid) Price (€/MWh) cities considering different tariffs, as presented in Section 4.
Valley Weekends & non-working days 6.001
Working days: 00:00 to 07:59 5.1.1. Maximum profitability
Flat 08:00 to 09:59 41.772
The maximum profitability objective has been analyzed using two
14:00 to 17:59
22:00 to 23:59
indicators independently, the NPV and IRR.
Peak 10:00 to 13:59 133.118 Fig. 5 displays the results for the PV-battery combination of capac­
18:00 to 21:59 ities installed that maximize the NPV. Specifically, it shows the range
taken for each one of the 5 load profiles in all tariffs and cities of: PV
capacity (top left), the highest NPV achieved (bottom left), self-
• Initial installation price (excluding battery, PV modules and
sufficiency (top right) and IRR (bottom right). Then, each of the 4
inverter) (PINI): 1,000 €.
squares are divided in 5 cells (one for each load profile), and in each cell
• Global system efficiency (e): 90%.
4 boxplots are printed, for all scenarios combining cities (classified as
cloudy, C, or sunny, S), and compensation rate for the surplus energy
5. Results and discussion
(CR = 0, not compensated; or CR– – R, compensated according to the
current regulations). The battery’s capacity is not displayed since the
The following section presents the results of the three computational
maximum NPV led to combinations with no battery installed.
experiments designed for this study: a general one (Section 5.1), the
The PV capacity (top left) ranges between 1 and 6 kWp. No signifi­
analysis of the energy price surges (Section 5.2), and a practical appli­
cant differences are observed between cities or tariff types except for
cation (Section 5.3). The experiments’ results are presented separately
LP3, which shows some variability with the current compensation rate
for each objective: maximum profitability, and maximum self-
for surplus energy. All this indicates that the load profile is the main
sufficiency. The data is generally displayed using boxplots, which are
driver for the installed PV capacity.
used to:
Despite the combination of PV-battery capacities selected is the one
that maximizes the NPV, the self-sufficiency values (top right) are still
• display the range of combinations of PV-battery capacities installed
relatively high, reaching 58% for LP03, while it is generally higher than
to maximize one indicator (NPV, IRR or SF) for each load profile in
30% in all other cases. The city type causes up to 6% variation in this
all considered locations and tariffs.
indicator. Two variables impact the SF values: on the one hand, the PV
• display the range of the values for the three indicators for the com­
capacity installed, which can be seen by comparing the behavior of the
binations of PV-battery reported, also for each load profile in all
PV capacity plot to the SF one. On the other, the consumption patterns
considered locations and tariffs.
also influence since batteries are not included: the more electricity
consumed during daytime hours (LP03 and LP05), the higher it is.
In all cases, the box extends from the first to the third quartile of the
The NPV (bottom left) reaches up to 5,000€ for all profiles except for
data, the whiskers extend from the box by 1.5 inter-quartile range and
LP03 with 14,250€. Meanwhile, the IRR (bottom right) shows it is an
the points are past this range.
interesting investment with a value as high as 35% for LP03. Since the

8
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

Fig. 5. Boxplot representing the PV capacity, SF, NPV, and IRR range for each load profile in all tariffs and locations when maximum NPV is the objective. CR = 0: no
compensation rate; CR– – R: current compensation rate.

Fig. 6. Boxplot representing the PV capacity, IRR, and self-sufficiency range for each load profile in all tariffs and locations when maximum IRR is the objective. CR
= 0: no compensation rate; CR– – R: current compensation rate.

9
E. Codina et al.
PV capacity does not depend on the city type, the differences between
cloudy and sunny cities in the NPV and IRR indicate that the facilities’
profitability is mainly influenced by the solar radiation profile, where
sunny cities obtain higher values.
When prosumers are not compensated for surplus electricity (“c” and
“s” cases in the figure: i.e., first and third boxplot in each cell), PV in­
stallations have less PV capacity, although differences are minimal,
suggesting PV modules are already profitable with the current tech­
nology prices and do not require compensation. However, this highly
impacts the NPV by up to 70%, and the IRR drops to 5% excluding LP03.
The results obtained when maximizing the IRR are summarized in
Fig. 6, which follows the same structure as Fig. 5. They show similar
behavior to the one described for maximum NPV but with smaller fa­
cilities, with an installed PV capacity ranging between 1 and 4 kWp. As
Equation (8) shows, increasing the discount rate penalizes high initial
investments with low annual returns. The IRR reaches up to 40% and SF
of up to 50% due to the smaller facilities.
The results for this objective show that solar facilities are, in general,
profitable by themselves. LP03 would carry out an installation under
any of the considered economic scenarios and locations since it is the
largest in terms of inhabitants and consumes a big part of electricity
during daytime hours. Other profiles (such as LP04) require keeping the
current compensation rate in some cloudy cities to obtain profitable
facilities. Moreover, batteries are not included in any combination,
indicating that they still are too expensive. The savings from the extra
solar energy consumed do not offset their initial investment.
5.1.2. Maximum self-sufficiency
Fig. 7 displays the results for the PV-battery combination of capac­
ities installed that maximize the SF. Specifically, it shows the range
taken for each one of the 5 load profiles in all tariffs and cities of: PV
capacity (top left), the battery capacity (top right), and the self-
sufficiency (bottom left). This objective seeks maximum independence
Fig. 7. Boxplot representing the PV and battery capacities and self-sufficiency range for each load profile in all tariffs and locations when maximum SF is the
objective. CR = 0: no compensation rate; CR–
–R: current compensation rate.
10
Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834
from the grid. Since this would be obtained with the largest PV facility
possible, which would be very expensive, the simulation only analyses
those combinations without economic losses (NPV close to 0), which is
why the economic indicators are not plotted.
PV capacity (top left) ranges between 1 and 12 kWp, with in­
stallations much bigger than those obtained with the maximum profit­
ability indicators: the capacity doubles in many cases. Batteries (top
right) are included in all city types when prosumers are compensated for
surplus energy. When there is compensation, capacities could be as high
as 8.5 kWh for LP03, while LP01 and LP02 would still install a 3 kWh
battery. As observed with the other indicators, there is little variability
between sunny and cloudy cities in PV capacities, while the load profile
influences the PV module dimensions. The battery capacity also behaves
the same way: the results suggest that the load profile mainly defines
their size. Moreover, since cloudy cities need more PV modules to
generate the same amount of electricity as sunny cities and increase
their self-sufficiency values, they would install more PV capacity than
their sunny counterparts with the current compensation rate for the
surplus energy.
With this objective, self-sufficiency values (bottom left) are as high as
80% in all city types for LP03, while the other load profiles show sig­
nificant improvement over the results found with the profitability
objective.
Moreover, the compensation rate does not greatly influence PV ca­
pacity in this case either. Instead, batteries greatly depend on this rate:
only LP03 and LP05 would install batteries if consumers were not
compensated for surplus energy, which complements the results of the
other indicators: batteries are not yet very profitable and are not
included unless they help achieve substantial savings.
5.1.3. Sensitivity analysis
The results presented up to this point consider different economic
scenarios, compensation rates for surplus energy, and locations. In this
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

Table 8
Results of the sensitivity analysis when the objective is to maximize the NPV and tariffs vary − 20% and +20%. Average for all cities and tariffs for each LP. CR:
compensation rate; LP: load profile.
CR LP PV [kWp] NPV [€] IRR [%] PV [kWp] NPV [€] IRR [%] PV [kWp] NPV [€] IRR [%]

Tariff − 20% No variation Tariff +20%

0 1 – – – 1.6 155.8 5.1 1.7 662.9 7.7

2 – – – 1.6 105.7 4.7 1.7 604.8 7.3
3 3.3 3,086.5 14.7 3.7 4,862.1 18.8 3.8 6,654.7 23.2
4 – – – – – – – – –
5 – – – 1.1 245.2 6.2 1.7 747.7 8.2
Current 1 2.1 2,146.7 13.9 2.6 3,150.8 16.1 3.1 4,220.8 18.7
2 2.1 1,995.4 13.2 2.6 2,998.2 15.6 2.8 3,973.9 18.3
3 4.6 6,643.6 20.8 5.1 9,157.1 24.9 5.7 11,716.9 28.3
4 1.0 346.2 6.8 1.0 805.9 9.8 1.1 1,234.4 12.2
5 1.6 1,070.8 9.8 1.7 1,805.7 12.9 2.0 2,560.2 15.9

Table 9
Results of the sensitivity analysis when the objective is to maximize the NPV and technology prices vary − 20% and +20%. Average for all cities and tariffs for each LP.
CR: compensation rate; LP: load profile.
CR LP PV [kWp] NPV [€] IRR [%] PV [kWp] NPV [€] IRR [%] PV [kWp] NPV [€] IRR [%]

Technology price − 20% No variation Technology price +20%

0 1 1.7 422.9 6.7 1.6 155.8 5.1 1.6 116.3 4.8

2 1.7 374.5 6.4 1.6 105.7 4.7 1.6 65.3 4.4
3 3.8 5,463.4 22.7 3.7 4,862.1 18.8 3.7 4,770.5 18.2
4 – – – – – – – – –
5 1.7 493.6 7.2 1.1 245.2 6.2 1.0 219.3 6.1
Current 1 2.7 3,580.2 19.3 2.6 3,150.8 16.1 2.6 3,085.7 15.6
2 2.7 3,420.4 18.8 2.6 2,998.2 15.6 2.6 2,933.1 15.1
3 5.6 10,021.6 29.4 5.1 9,157.1 24.9 5.1 9,029.2 24.4
4 1.0 967.3 11.3 1.0 805.9 9.8 1.0 780.9 9.6
5 2.0 2,098.7 15.2 1.7 1,805.7 12.9 1.6 1,763.8 12.6

section, a variation of − 20% and +20% on tariffs and technology (PV
modules and batteries) prices is considered for the maximum NPV
objective to increase the robustness of the analysis for these difficult-to-
predict data.
Table 8 and Table 9 summarize all the findings. The results are
classified according to the compensation rate CR (not compensated for
surplus electricity or compensated according to the current regulation)
and load profile LP. Then, each subtable shows the results when one
variable changes its value (tariff, Table 8; or technology price, Table 9).
The results presented are the average for all the cities.
The initial case (no variation on any parameter) shows the previously
described behavior in Section 5.1.1: it is always profitable to install PV
modules, except for LP04 without a compensation rate.
When considering a − 20% and +20% tariff price variation, the NPV

Fig. 8. Boxplot representing the NPV, PV capacity, IRR, and SF, comparing original and increased prices when maximizing the NPV is the objective.

11
E. Codina et al. Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834

significantly fluctuates, as expected. It is between 24% and 54% higher
for LP03 and LP04, respectively, with a tariff increase. Instead, the
difference in PV capacity is minimal, at less than 0.6 kWp for all profiles.
However, those initially hardly profitable load profiles (LP01, LP02, and
LP05: NPV less than 245.2€ and IRR less than 6.2%) would not consider
installing PV facilities if the grid price decreased and were not
compensated for surplus electricity.
A variation in technology prices minimally influences PV capacity: as
much as 0.6 kWp for LP05. However, similar to the variation in tariff
prices, the NPV varies significantly, up to 20%, with a corresponding
variation of the technology prices. Obviously, when the prices decrease,
the NPV is higher.
This analysis concludes that PV facilities are profitable and should
remain so even if the current market conditions change. In fact, all
profiles would install profitable PV-battery facilities in all the scenarios
except with 20% cheaper tariffs without a compensation rate.
install up to 8 kWp. Even with this sharp tariff increase, batteries are still
not profitable enough to be installed for this indicator.
Fig. 9 presents the results of the PV-battery facility that maximizes
self-sufficiency. In this case, all the extra savings obtained due to the
higher energy prices are used to increase PV and battery capacities, with
an average of 32% and 63%, respectively. With them, consumers can
become around 12% more independent. The extreme case is LP03, the
largest one, which would install up to 15 kWp and 14 kWh battery fa­
cility, obtaining up to a 93.1% self-sufficiency value.
The results of this section show that residential renewable energies,
specifically solar, can reduce the citizens’ utility bills in times of un­
certain, volatile, and high energy prices, making self-consumption even
more attractive during unexpected events since it helps citizens become
more resilient and less dependent on gird price fluctuations.
5.3. Third experiment: practical application

5.2. Second experiment: Energy price surges The third experiment conducted in this study considers data from a
smart meter and space constraints in a practical case, which limit the
Energy prices have recently spiked due to many factors, including the maximum PV capacity at 2.5 kWp, as presented in Section 4.1. The
COVID-19 pandemic (Khan et al., 2022) and the war in Ukraine (Osička solving procedure considers the same two objectives as Section 5.1 and
and Černoch, 2022). While this increment should be transitory, it is the same indicators: NPV, IRR and SF.
interesting to see what impact it would have if prices did not normalize Table 10 summarizes all the results for this section. PV capacity
in the foreseeable future, or if similar events happened again. Thus, this ranges between 2.37 and 2.5 kWp depending on the indicator maxi­
third experiment considers an increment of 55.4% over the original mized and compensation rate. However, differences are minimal, and
tariffs (Section 4.3), which is the average year-to-year energy price the optimal value for some indicators could be higher in case the ca­
increment of the first six months of 2022 (Sönnichsen, 2022). pacity were not capped at 2.5 kWp. When seeking maximum profit­
The input data remains the same as described for the general ability, the NPV reaches as high as 4,500€ and the IRR raises up to 41%.
experiment in Section 4, but installations of up to 25 kWp and 25 kWh Similarly to the first experiment, batteries are only included when
are now allowed. Only the current compensation rate for surplus energy
is considered, and no distinction between cloudy and sunny cities has Table 10
been made, so results are aggregated for all cities. Results for the practical case for all objectives. Values are the average of all the
Fig. 8 presents the results of the facility that maximizes the NPV. considered tariffs considering the current compensation rate for surplus
Specifically, it shows the range taken for each one of the 5 load profiles electricity.
in all tariffs and cities of: NPV (top left), the highest IRR achieved Indicator PV BAT NPV IRR SF
(bottom left), PV capacity (top right) and SF (bottom right). As the MAX [kWp] [kWh] [€] [%] [%]
sensitivity analysis results also indicated (Section 5.1.3), an increment in
NPV 2.5 0.0 4,526.3 40.9 44.6
the energy prices improves self-consumption profitability: the NPV and
IRR 2.37 0.0 4,510.7 40.9 44.1
IRR are 80% and 9% higher on average, respectively. Instead, no sig­ SF 2.5 4.5 556.7 8.2 72.4
nificant differences are observed in PV capacity, where only LP03 would

Fig. 9. Boxplot representing the IRR, PV capacity and SF, comparing original and increased prices when maximizing self-sufficiency is the objective.

12
E. Codina et al.
Table 11
Comparison between the practical application and LP02. Values are the average
of all the considered tariffs considering the current compensation rate for surplus
electricity.
Indicator Case PV BAT NPV IRR
MAX [kWp] [kWh] [€] [%]
NPV LP02 2.9 0.0 4,200.0 19.0
Practical case 2.5 0.0 4,526.3 40.9
IRR LP02 2.0 0.0 3,830.9 20.8
Practical case 2.37 0.0 4,510.7 40.9
SF LP02 3.7 2.8 258.6 5.5
Practical case 2.5 4.5 556.7 8.2
maximizing SF. Since this indicator seeks maximum independence from
the grid without economic losses, all the savings obtained by using PV
modules are used to add energy storage with a capacity of 4.5 kWh. This
battery capacity help to achieve a high SF, reaching over 72%.
The PV and battery capacities found with the current compensation
rate for surplus energy show a similar order of magnitude to those dis­
cussed in Section 5.1 for LP02, but more profitable (higher NPV and
IRR), as Table 11 shows. This difference is mainly due to the subsidies
considered in this experiment. Moreover, the solving procedure finds
that the best combination has less PV capacity than the one obtained for
LP02 when maximizing SF since the practical case considers real space
constraints. In exchange, the battery capacity increases sharply.
6. Conclusions and policy implications
This paper proposes a solving procedure that includes a simulation
model adapted to the current Spanish self-consumption regulatory
framework to study the techno-economic performance of residential PV-
battery systems using three indicators, NPV, IRR, and SF, under two
objectives: maximum profitability (economic) and self-sufficiency
without economic losses (technical). The solving procedure considers
hourly solar radiation data, load profiles, electricity tariffs, subsidies,
and various techno-economic data of the installation and evaluates
discrete combinations of PV-battery capacities to find the most suitable
one for each objective. Three experiments have been designed: the first
one considers 11 Spanish province capitals, 5 load profiles, and 2
different economic scenarios to find general guidelines. The second
analyzes the impact of the latest energy price spikes on the profitability
of self-consumption facilities. The third one considers real-life re­
strictions and uses consumption data from a smart meter.
The first experiment results indicate that PV facilities are profitable
without the need for subsidies with the current technology prices and
regulations, with installed capacities between 1 and 6 kWp allowing for
up to 58% self-sufficiency, and an NPV and IRR of up to 9,300€ and 40%,
respectively. Meanwhile, the high initial battery cost makes them un­
attractive when seeking maximum profitability. Instead, prosumers who
prefer obtaining maximum independence from the grid without eco­
nomic losses would install a battery of up to 9 kWh and modules of 12.2
kWp, raising the maximum self-sufficiency to 88%, but are only viable
with the current compensation rate for surplus electricity. These
installed capacities vary between load profiles, while the location and
compensation rate for surplus electricity changes the economic feasi­
bility of these systems with low impact on the installed capacity. Simi­
larly, the sensitivity analysis shows that a − 20%–20% variation in the
considered technology prices and tariffs would repercuss on the profit­
ability of these systems, keeping them solvent in all the scenarios except
when prosumers are not compensated for surplus electricity.
The second experiment has proved that self-consumption facilities
are important in times of unprecedented energy price surges and help
citizens be more resilient and depend less on grid price fluctuations. The
designed facilities include a maximum power peak of 15 kWp and up to
14 kWh battery without incurring economic losses, and an NPV of over
Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834
20,000€ for the largest facilities, which represents an improvement of
80% over the initial scenario discussed in the general experiment.
The third experiment results show that the proposed solving pro­
cedure can work well under real-life restrictions and be a valuable asset
SF for families and investors when choosing a self-consumption facility.
[%] The prosumer can pick a PV-battery system according to their needs and
make it a safer investment. Moreover, it can set real expectations about
36.5
44.6
the savings they will obtain and estimate their independence from the
31.7 grid.
44.1 The results of this paper indicate that the current Spanish self-
59.0 consumption regulation is attractive to promoting these facilities and
72.4
is advantageous for prosumers. However, the economic indicators ach­
ieve low values considering a 20-year horizon for most of the considered
prosumers, while remaining positive. As observed in the results, the
compensation rate improves the economic feasibility of these systems
and should remain as it is to sustain the current demand for self-
consumption facilities and help transition to an electrical grid with a
higher percentage of renewable sources. Future research could consider
more economic scenarios and compare the results of this paper to several
real load profiles to validate the findings further.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Eloi Codina: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft.
Bruno Domenech: Resources, Conceptualization, Methodology. Marc
Juanpera: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – original draft.
Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda: Resources, Investigation, Writing – re­
view & editing. Rafael Pastor: Validation, Supervision, Writing – re­
view & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The author Eloi Codina would like to thank the company Meteosim
for their support to carry out his doctoral studies. The author Bruno
Domenech would like to thank the Serra Hunter fellowship program of
the Generalitat de Catalunya. The author Marc Juanpera is grateful to
the Margarita Salas grant, funded by European Union-
NextGenerationEU, through the Recovery, Transformation and Resil­
ience Plan of the Spanish Ministry of Universities.
References
Al Khafaf, N., Rezaei, Ahmad Asgharian, Amani, Moradi Ali, Jalili, Mahdi, Ali, Brendan,
Mahdi, McGrath, Brendan, Meegahapola, Lasantha, Vahidnia, Arash, 2022. Impact
of battery storage on residential energy consumption: an Australian case study based
on smart meter data. Renew. Energy 182, 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2021.10.005.
Aldahmashi, N., Khan, Y., Alamoud, A., 2021. Techno-economic analysis of grid-
connected rooftop solar PV systems in Saudi Arabia. In: 2021 IEEE 48th Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference (PVSC). IEEE, pp. 2217–2221. https://doi.org/10.1109/
PVSC43889.2021.9518688.
13
E. Codina et al.
Ballesteros, Gallardo, Juan, Antonio, Arcos, Vargas, Angel, Núñez, Fernando, 2021.
Optimal design model for a residential PV storage system an application to the
Spanish case. Sustainability 13, 575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020575.
Barbón, A., Bayón-Cueli, C., Bayón, L., Rodríguez-Suanzes, C., 2022. Analysis of the tilt
and azimuth angles of photovoltaic systems in non-ideal positions for urban
applications. Appl. Energy 305, 117802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2021.117802.
Barbour, Edward, González, Marta C., 2018. Projecting battery adoption in the prosumer
era. Appl. Energy 215, 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.056.
Bertsch, V., Geldermann, J., Lühn, T., 2017. What drives the profitability of household
PV investments, self-consumption and self-sufficiency? Appl. Energy 204, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.055.
Caswell, T., Lee, A., Sales de Andrade, E., Droettboom, M., Hoffmann, T., Klymak, J.,
Hunter, J., Firing, E., Stansby, D., Varoquaux, N., Hedegaard Nielsen, J., Root, B.,
May, R., Elson, P., Seppänen, J.K., Lee, J., Dale, D., Gustafsson, O., Sunden, K., 2023.
In: Matplotlib/Matplotlib: REL: v3.7.0 (v3.7.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.7637593.
Chazarra Bernabé, A., Flórez García, E., Peraza Sánchez, B., Tohá Rebull, T., Lorenzo
Mariño, B., Criado Pinto, E., Moreno García, J.V., Romero Fresneda, R., Botey
Fullat, R., 2018. Mapas climáticos de España (1981-2010) y ETo (1996-2016).
Agencia Estatal de Meteorología. https://doi.org/10.31978/014-18-004-2.
Domenech, Bruno, Calleja, Gema, Olivella, Jordi, 2021. Residential photovoltaic
profitability with storage under the new Spanish regulation: a multi-scenario
analysis. Energies 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071987, 1987.
D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., Morone, P., 2022. The impact of a subsidized tax deduction on
residential solar photovoltaic-battery energy storage systems. Util. Pol. 75, 101358
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2022.101358.
Europe - Solar Store, 2022. Victron BlueSolar MPPT 150/60-MC4 [WWW document].
URL. https://www.europe-solarstore.com/off-grid/solar-charge-controllers/victron
/victron-bluesolar-mppt-150-60-mc4-solar-charge-controller.html.
Fernández, Roldán, Juan, Manuel, Burgos Payán, Manuel, Riquelme, Santos,
Manuel, Jesús, 2021. Profitability of household photovoltaic self-consumption in
Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 279, 123439 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123439.
Han, X., Garrison, J., Hug, G., 2022. Techno-economic analysis of PV-battery systems in
Switzerland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 158, 112028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2021.112028.
Hassan, M.U., Saha, S., Haque, M.E., 2021. PVAnalytX: a MATLAB toolkit for techno-
economic analysis and performance evaluation of rooftop PV systems. Energy 223,
120074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120074.
Huld, T., Müller, R., Gambardella, A., 2012. A new solar radiation database for
estimating PV performance in Europe and Africa. Sol. Energy 86, 1803–1815.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2012.03.006.
IEA, 2022. Electricity Market Report - January 2022 [WWW Document]. URL. https
://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-market-report-january-2022, 12.18.22.
Khan, K., Su, C.-W., Zhu, M.N., 2022. Examining the behaviour of energy prices to
COVID-19 uncertainty: a quantile on quantile approach. Energy 239, 122430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122430.
López Prol, Javier, Steininger, Karl, W., 2020. Photovoltaic self-consumption is now
profitable in Spain: effects of the new regulation on prosumers’ internal rate of
return. Energy Pol. 146, 111793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111793.
López Talavera, D., Muñoz-Rodriguez, F.J., Jimenez-Castillo, G., Rus-Casas, C., 2019.
A new approach to sizing the photovoltaic generator in self-consumption systems
based on cost–competitiveness, maximizing direct self-consumption. Renew. Energy
130, 1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.06.088.
Manso-Burgos, Á., Ribó-Pérez, D., Gómez-Navarro, T., Alcázar-Ortega, M., 2022. Local
energy communities modelling and optimisation considering storage, demand
configuration and sharing strategies: a case study in Valencia (Spain). Energy Rep. 8,
10395–10408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.181.
Markets, Competition, N.C., 2020. Circular 3/2020, de 15 de enero, de la Comisión
Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, por la que se establece la metodología
para el cálculo de los peajes de transporte y distribución de electricidad, vol. 21.
BOE.
Nhau, N., Li, J., Wang, W., Yu, W., Zhao, C., Liu, Y., 2021. Simulation and analysis of
economic benefits of different types of PV systems in shanghai. In: 2021 Power
System and Green Energy Conference (PSGEC). IEEE, pp. 291–295. https://doi.org/
10.1109/PSGEC51302.2021.9542679.
14
Energy Policy 183 (2023) 113834
Nyholm, E., Goop, J., Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., 2016. Solar photovoltaic-battery
systems in Swedish households – self-consumption and self-sufficiency. Appl. Energy
183, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.172.
Ogbomo, O.O., Amalu, E.H., Ekere, N.N., Olagbegi, P.O., 2017. A review of photovoltaic
module technologies for increased performance in tropical climate. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 75, 1225–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.11.109.
Osička, J., Černoch, F., 2022. European energy politics after Ukraine: the road ahead.
Energy Res. Social Sci. 91, 102757 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102757.
Ouyang, D., Chen, M., Liu, J., Wei, R., Weng, J., Wang, J., 2018. Investigation of a
commercial lithium-ion battery under overcharge/over-discharge failure conditions.
RSC Adv. 8, 33414–33424. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RA05564E.
Pflugradt, N., Teuscher, J., Platzer, B., Schufft, W., 2013. Analysing low-voltage grids
using a behaviour based load profile generator. Renew. Energy Power Qual. J.
361–365. https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj11.308.
Research Service, E.P., 2021. Responding to the global emergency [WWW Document].
In: European Parliament Think Tank. URL, 689378. https://www.europarl.europa.
eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU, 10.12.21.
Reza Reisi, A., Hassan Moradi, M., Jamasb, S., 2013. Classification and comparison of
maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic system: a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2012.11.052.
Sönnichsen, N., 2022. In: Spain: Energy Inflation Rate by Commodity 2022 [WWW
Document]. URL. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1329221/spain-energy-inflat
ion-rate-by-commodity/, 12.14.22.
Spain, 2013. Ley 24/2013, de 26 de diciembre, del Sector Eléctrico. Boletín Oficial del
Estado, núm. 310 de 27 de diciembre de 2013. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2013/
12/26/24/con.
Spain, 2014. Real Decreto 216/2014, de 28 de marzo, por el que se establece la
metodología de cálculo de los precios voluntarios para el pequeño consumidor de
energía eléctrica y su régimen jurídico de contratación. de 29 de marzo de 2014
Boletín Oficial del Estado 77, 27397. a 27482. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2014/
03/28/216.
Spain, 2019. Real Decreto 244/2019, de 5 de abril, por el que se regulan las condiciones
administrativas, técnicas y económicas del autoconsumo de energía eléctrica. Boletín
Oficial del Estado 86, 35674–35719 de 6 de abril de 2019. https://www.boe.es/eli/e
s/rd/2019/04/05/244.
Stephan, A., Battke, B., Beuse, M.D., Clausdeinken, J.H., Schmidt, T.S., 2016. Limiting
the public cost of stationary battery deployment by combining applications. Nat.
Energy 1, 16079. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.79.
The pandas development team, 2023. Pandas-Dev/pandas: Pandas (v1.5.3). https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.7549438. Zenodo.
Tjaden, T., Bergner, J., Quaschning, V., Schnorr, F., Weniger, J., 2014. Impact of the PV
Generator’s Orientation on the Energetic Assessment of PV Self-Consumption
Systems Considering Individual Residential Load Profiles. https://doi.org/
10.13140/2.1.1650.0168.
Tongsopit, S., Junlakarn, S., Wibulpolprasert, W., Chaianong, A., Kokchang, P.,
Hoang, N.V., 2019. The economics of solar PV self-consumption in Thailand. Renew.
Energy 138, 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.087.
Vargas-Salgado, C., Aparisi-Cerdá, I., Alfonso-Solar, D., Gómez-Navarro, T., 2022. Can
photovoltaic systems be profitable in urban areas? Analysis of regulation scenarios
for four cases in Valencia city (Spain). Sol. Energy 233, 461–477. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2022.01.057.
Vega-Garita, V., Hanif, A., Narayan, N., Ramirez-Elizondo, L., Bauer, P., 2019. Selecting a
suitable battery technology for the photovoltaic battery integrated module. J. Power
Sources 438, 227011. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPOWSOUR.2019.227011.
Vieira, F.M., Moura, P.S., de Almeida, A.T., 2017. Energy storage system for self-
consumption of photovoltaic energy in residential zero energy buildings. Renew.
Energy 103, 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.048.
Yoomak, S., Patcharoen, T., Ngaopitakkul, A., 2019. Performance and economic
evaluation of solar rooftop systems in different regions of Thailand. Sustainability
11, 6647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236647.
Zhang, Y., Campana, P.E., Lundblad, A., Yan, J., 2017. Comparative study of hydrogen
storage and battery storage in grid connected photovoltaic system: storage sizing and
rule-based operation. Appl. Energy 201, 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.03.123.