Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Energy sovereignty in Italian inner areas: Off-grid renewable solutions

for isolated systems and rural buildings
Maria Elena Menconi a, *, Stefano dell'Anna a, Angelo Scarlato b, 1, David Grohmann a
a
University of Perugia, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences, via Borgo XX Giugno, 74 06100, Perugia, Italy
b
FdS Srl, La Fabbrica Del Sole, Italy

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

Article history: This paper deals with a compact system developed to assure energy independence to buildings located in
Received 9 July 2015 inner rural areas: the Off-Grid Box. This system features a combination of techniques that assure the use
Received in revised form of several renewable energy sources, their storage and the rationalization of consumption.
7 January 2016
This research studies the base model of the Off-Grid Box, which entails the presence of photovoltaic
Accepted 10 February 2016
Available online xxx
panels as the energy capture system.
The aim of this research is to evaluate the opportunity of realizing a system to ensure energy autonomy
of rural residential buildings. To achieve energy independence, for an isolated dwelling, this paper as-
Keywords:
Off grid energy system
sesses the optimal storage systems that may be combined with a photovoltaic system. To this end, an Off-
Photovoltaic system Grid Box has been installed in a residential unit in central Italy. Starting from the real case, two alter-
Chemical energy storage native energy storage scenarios were constructed. The results can be applied to a variety of geographical
Rural buildings settings and prove the feasibility and strategic importance of total off-grid systems for individual resi-
Scenario analysis dential units, when they are designed in integrated terms in the area to implement small-scale-smart-
Energy autonomy grids. In rural areas, these grids should also cater for small farming businesses that feature a different
consumption distribution compared to dwellings.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources pro-

The topic of energy planning and streamlining energy use has a
strategic importance at this time. The European Union has set itself
certain goals to achieve by 2020: meeting 20% of its energy re-
quirements from renewable sources and, with respect to 1990, a
20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 20% increase in
energy efciency [1]. To date, the debate is open and the political
activity at the EU level is lively and proactive [2]. The goal set at the
international level is to turn buildings from energy-consuming
systems into active systems. The passive house concept has been
replaced by that of the nearly zero-energy building, dened by the
European Union as building that has a very high energy perfor-
mance [ ]. The nearly zero or very low amount of energy required
should be covered to a very signicant extent by energy from
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mariaelena.menconi@unipg.it (M.E. Menconi), stefano.
dellanna@studenti.unipg.it (S. dell'Anna), angelo.scarlato@lafabbricadelsole.it
(A. Scarlato), david.grohmann@unipg.it (D. Grohmann).
1
www.lafabbricadelsole.it.
duced on site or nearby [3]. Jointly with these aspects it is of
extraordinary importance to activate, from the energy point of
view, buildings and production processes able to assure energy
security regardless of the social-economic setting of reference [4].
1.1. Inner areas and energy sovereignty
Inner areas are territories characterized by a not adequate offer
of/access to essential services to assure a certain level of citizenship
among population and substantially far from large and medium-
sized urban centers able to supply adequate services.
In the 2014e2020 European strategy, inner areas are the subject
of specic integrated projects aimed at development and
enhancement of local communities [5,6]. Inner areas are consid-
ered strategically relevant to foster a more sustainable and inclu-
sive national growth. From the energy point of view these areas are
characterized by low consumption, which, however, is difcult to
satisfy. In fact, even when the consumption demand is reached by
the existing networks, it involves high costs and multiple operating
issues. In these settings the concept of energy sovereignty is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.034
0960-1481/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26 15

especially signicant, linked to the establishment of development storage systems that can guarantee useful energy supplies in space
models, accepted and embraced by the local communities, based on and time, nding solutions that meet the high variability of pro-
the sustainable and long-lasting use of natural resources [7,8]. duction proles at hourly, daily and seasonal times and adapting to
The concept of energy sovereignty is a part of the interesting the various energy demand proles.
alternative vision of the green economy. This concept recognises In Italy, PV is the non-programmable renewable energy pro-
energy as a human right. It also seek to return the control of energy duction system that has been most extensively developed over the
users, rather than remote corporations that seek to prot from last few years thanks to the government's incentive policy. There is
regardless of its impact on consumers or how it is generated [9,10]. an open debate in Italy on regulating the use of energy storage
The establishment of energy sovereignty is strongly connected systems in new plants and in introducing them to existing plants
to the development of renewable energies, which, by their own [19].
nature, are spread throughout the region. Table 1 shows the sig- At the planning scale, research is focusing on analysing the
nicant development of renewable energies at the EU level since technical and economic feasibility of smart grids, in order to assess
2000. This development is connected to a widespread increase in their optimal organization and effectiveness within a framework of
energy consumption that has also involved growing energy pro- energy sovereignty [20e23].
duction from coal and gas (25 and 23% respectively). Despite the At the individual plant level, research has focused on identifying
positive performance of renewable energies recorded globally in the best energy carriers and on the integration of renewable energy
the last few years, we can state that the average energy produced is sources. The electricity storage systems are classied according to
still denable as dirty, as it was twenty years ago. According to the technology used in electrical (super-capacitor, superconductive
the International Energy Agency the Energy Sector Carbon Intensity magnetic coil), mechanical (pumped hydropower, compressed air
Index (carbon intensity indicator per unit of energy produced) has energy storage system, ywheels), thermal (thermoelectric stor-
decreased by less than 1% since 1990. The cause of all this lies in the age) and chemical (lithium-ion battery, lead-acid battery, high
fact that coal continues to be the dominant energy source, within a temperature batteries, ow batteries, hydrogen storage, natural gas
picture of continuously and signicantly increasing energy con- storage system) [20,24].
sumption (Table 1) [11]. This presentation draws a comparison between Valve-Regulated
In the case of Italy, the increase in the use of renewable energies Lead-Acid batteries, gel cell type and Lithium-Ion batteries, because
reects the European trend. This increase has entailed local over- they represent chemical storage systems widely present on the
loads to the existing energy distribution grids, which should be market and they are potentially suitable for applications in small
redesigned and upgraded, also in view of the energy storage pos- residential and production units. Moreover, these type of batteries
sibilities afforded by net metering [12]. can be considered low cost compared to potentially more efcient
That observation reinforces the importance of reasoning in energy carriers, such as fuel cells.
terms of energy sovereignty, imagining a widespread energy sys- The main advantage of lead-acid batteries is their low cost: a
tem, unfettered by the presence of traditional distribution grids. large battery (e.g. 70 Ah) is relatively cheap, when compared with
Research is focusing on the integration of various energy sources to others with the same chemical operation principle. Other positive
design off-grid systems suited to the regions where they are located aspects concern their long life and reliability at low temperatures.
[13e17]. The negative aspects include the lower energy intensity compared
to other known chemical batteries, losses connected to mechanical
stresses, the sulfation phenomenon resulting in their deterioration
1.2. Energy storage systems
when subject to prolonged discharges, the heaviness and toxicity of
lead and the high weight and volume that hardly favor compact
In Italy, renewable energy sources are divided into program-
applications [24,25].
mable and non-programmable sources. The rst category includes
Lithium-Ion batteries offer very high energy density (7 g of
reservoir and basin hydroelectric production units, municipal solid
metal produce up to one mole of electrons) and do not feature the
waste, biomass, assimilated production units using fossil fuels,
memory effect. The negative aspects include high costs, amma-
process fuels or residues; while the second includes owing hy-
bility of the solvent (there is an explosion hazard in non optimal
droelectric production units, wind, geothermal, photovoltaic (PV)
conditions) and marked unsustainability of the lithium production
and solar in general and biogas [18].
chain [24,26]. Further, scaling up the lithium battery technology for
For the non-programmable renewable energy sources, the
different micro-applications is still problematic [27].
challenge of energy independence is identifying the optimal
Fig. 1 shows various storage technologies and their development
perspectives with a 2030 horizon [28e30].
Table 1 The main challenge consists of assessing the scalability and
EU 27: available power from 2000 to 2012. Source International Energy Agency. integrability of the various non-programmable renewable sources
2000 2012 and the various storage systems.
With regards to studies related to integrating several energy
GW % GW %
sources, Sen et al. [31] simulate the combination of various sources
coal 159.48 28 227.88 25 (small-scale hydropower, PV, wind turbines and bio-diesel gener-
nuclear 126.47 22 120.26 13
gas 89.90 16 214.99 23
ators) with the aim of assuring a community's energy security
fuel oil 66.52 12 50.55 6 summing its various requirements (residential, institutional, retail
hydroelectric 110.07 19 126.35 14 and agricultural sectors); Thompson et al. [32] prove the greater
photovoltaics 0.13 n.d. 68.99 7 economic and environmental efciency of solar and wind energy
wind 12.89 2 106.04 11
compared to the energy produced with fossil fuels in a total off-grid
biomass 2.79 1 7.31 1
concentrating solar 0.0 0 1.89 0 situation. Shaahid et al. [33] prove the positive integration between
renewable municipal waste 0.0 0 3.85 0 a PV system and a diesel plant in an inner area through a technical-
waves and tides 0.0 0 0.26 0 economic assessment. Another interesting study is that by Kanase-
total EU-27 568.25 100 928.37 100 Patil et al. [34], which shows the possibility of meeting the energy
of which renewable energy 125.87 22 314.69 34
requirements of an isolated area by implementing four different
16 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26
Fig. 1. Current status of the different storage technologies and development prospects with horizon 2030 (Data source [28e30]).
renewable sources (micro hydropower, biomass, biogas and solar
energy). Bhandari et al. [35] analyse the response of a hybrid sys-
tem using solar, wind and hydraulic as energy sources for the en-
ergy self-sufciency of an isolated area. A number of studies focus
on solar systems: Qoaider et al. [36] use them to power an irrigation
system in dry areas, while Chaurey et al. [37] use them to imple-
ment microgrids connected to a variety of uses.
With regards to storage systems, the batteries considered in this
paper are compared by a number of studies. Brinkhaus et al. [13]
compare Lead-acid batteries with the energy storage performance
provided by a fuel cell. As a renewable source they use two different
PV systems. The comparison is drawn on a daily basis for two
typical days (summer-winter). Suha et al. [14] also compare Lead-
acid batteries with a fuel cell, using both PV and a micro wind
turbine as energy sources. Bielmann et al. [15] compare the fuel cell
with Lithium-Ion batteries, again in this case the energy source is
PV. Gray et al. [16] suggest interesting comparison parameters for
these storage systems: self-discharge, safety, reliability, deep
discharge, longevity, footprint.
1.3. Off-grid box
The Fabbrica del Sole (FdS - www.lafabbricadelsole.it), is an
Italian group of organizations carrying out research and develop-
ment activities, project planning and execution in the eld of
renewable energy and environmental sustainability. The Fabbrica
del Sole has developed a compact system to assure energy inde-
pendence of isolated residential units located in inner rural areas:
the Off-Grid Box (OGB). The model initially developed includes a
rainwater storage and treatment system, a solar thermal system, a
PV based system for electricity production and a Plug & Play grid
connection system (Fig. 2). This integrated technical device is
enclosed in a modular sized container (Fig. 2). The detailed OGB is
shown in Appendix A.
1.4. Case of study and aim of the paper
One of the rst installations of an OGB concerned a residential
unit located in central Italy (Tuscany region -Municipality of Pieve
San Giovanni). In this paper, this real case will be called as case A of
the developed methodology. The OGB was installed partly under-
ground in May 2012, and the PV panels were sited on and inte-
grated in the building's roof (Fig. 3).
This paper only considers the solar component of the OGB sys-
tem. The installed PV system covers a surface of 19,502 m2 and
delivers 2.88 kW of power. It consists of 12 polycrystalline panels
arranged in series, featuring 230 W nominal power, with di-
mensions 992  1640 mm.
Since the building was already connected to the grid and, during
2012, there were good national incentives (V 0.274 per kWh fed
into the grid), net metering was set up as the energy management
method in order to maximize the resident's nancial investment.
The case study system is thus not isolated, but was used to obtain
real data of production and consumption on a daily basis. These
data were useful for designing self-sufcient isolated systems, such
as those mentioned in the scenarios B and C. Observing this case
study it was possible to monitor, throughout 2013, the hourly en-
ergy consumption of the building and the hourly energy production
of the PV system. Specically, the amount of self-consumed energy
was monitored (energy produced and consumed directly on site)
and that fed into the grid/taken from the grid (through net
metering).
The goals of the paper are (i) compare an on grid with alterna-
tive off grid systems with the same nominal power, but with
different positioning and with different storage systems, (ii) to
assess the best storage system to be combined with a PV system in
order to fulll the energy requirements of residential buildings and
small isolated production units and to (iii) evaluate the optimal
design of an off grid system with photovoltaic and chemical storage.
We use the term off-grid meaning a system not connected to the
main or national electrical grid. According to this denition, an off-
grid system can be a stand-alone power system or a small grid to
provide a small community.
In the present work, it was made only a technical evaluation of
the studied solutions; economic evaluations will be the subject of
further investigation.
2. Material and methods
Fig. 4 shows the methodology owchart. Starting from the real
on-grid case briey described in paragraph 1.4 (case A), two alter-
native energy storage scenarios were constructed (case B and C),
changing the position of the PV system (tilt and azimuth), its sur-
face and thus its nominal power.
The type of panels used was kept unchanged in the three cases;
the model implemented is Renesola 156 Series Polycrystalline Solar
Module. The logic with which the two cases were simulated is no
longer that of maximizing the energy produced by the PV system
(case A), but to reduce the time shift, i.e. to balance energy pro-
duction and use over time to assure the building's energy
 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26
Fig. 2. OGB scheme: technologies mix and dimensions just delivered and after complete installation.
independence.
With regards to energy storage for scenario B, the use of Valve-
Regulated Lead-Acid batteries, gel cell type was assumed, and
Lithium-ion batteries for scenario C, since they constitute mature
and accessible technologies at relatively low cost, as highlighted in
paragraph 1.2.
To simulate the energy produced by the PV system in cases B
and C the open source tool Simulare_11 was used, available at
http://www.intellienergia.com/. Simulare is a technical simulator
to design PV solar systems developed by the Italian Spin-off rm
Intellienergia. This tool was chosen for its versatility and its wide-
spread and frequent use by consultants and Italian researchers. This
tool is freely downloadable. Furthermore Simulare was used to
design the installed system (case A) and the deviations between the
simulated data in the design stage and the real data monitored
throughout 2013 turned out to be negligible (Table 2). In addition,
this tool allows to use data collected hourly (PV production,
instantaneous consumption and total consumption) to make as-
sessments on a monthly and annual basis. To estimate solar radi-
ation, Simulare uses by default the values recommended by the
Italian regulation UNI 10349, as required by the national legislation
in this regard. For this work, the solar radiation values were cor-
rected using the data included in the Italian Atlas of Solar Radiation
17
developed by the Italian National Agency for New Technologies,
Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, for the considered
location (www.solaritaly.enea.it).
Simulare was combined with an optimization algorithm to
identify the best panel position (combinations of azimuth and tilt),
setting as an objective function the minimum deviation between
production and consumption trends.
Battery sizing for the two simulated cases (B and C) is based on
the outcome of the real case monitoring (A) (load diagram for the
worst sunlight day of the year and trend of instantaneous con-
sumption). These storage systems were designed for short term
energy storage able to assure energy self-sufciency on a monthly
basis.
The parameters used in the comparison between on-grid and
off-grid PV solutions (goal i) are the annual energy production, the
energy self-consumption and the percentage of energy autonomy.
The comparison parameters selected for the two storage sys-
tems (goal ii) are Depth of discharge, Energy and Power Density,
Energy Efciency and Life Cycle. These criteria are widely used in
literature to assess different batteries [13e16,38], usually to
compare innovative storage systems. As discussed in paragraph 1.2,
most of the innovative storage systems are not suitable for appli-
cations in small residential and production units, for this reason in
18 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26

Fig. 3. OGB Sardini: installation site with view of the house and the garden family.

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the methodology.

 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26 19

Table 2
Comparison between real Energy produced by the PV system and productivity simulated with Simulare_11. Losses of the system, to calculate its overall efciency, are set
according to the following values: temperature 5%, reection 3%, fouling 2%, level of radiation 2.5%, mismatching 3%, ohmic 2.25%, inverter 4.25%.

real energy produced (kWh/month) 128.00 186.00 209.00 353.00 352.00 378.00 441.00 475.00 340.00 224.00 135.00 134.00
productivity simulated 128.00 185.86 209.05 353.06 352.08 378.12 441.20 474.97 340.16 223.82 135.05 134.09

this paper the selected parameters were used to compare two observation certainly proves how the daily time shifts signicantly
different alternatives of chemical storage. affect efciency in terms of energy independence (Table 4).

3. Results 3.2. Scenarios B and C: simulations

3.1. Case A: real case
For case A, production and consumption monitoring was carried
out hourly by automatic reading the meter the system is equipped
with. The hourly monitoring was used to elaborate a daily load
diagram and daily production diagram for a typical day of every
month. Table 3 shows the distribution of kilowatt-hours con-
sumption for a typical day of every month, Figs. 5 and 6 show,
respectively, the daily load diagram in a typical day of the year and
the daily average production. While using daily monitoring, since
were available data for a whole year, in this paper was chosen to
present them aggregated on a monthly basis, in order to assess the
actual energy independence achieved annually.
Fig. 7 shows the trend of the average monthly radiation on the
modules for the area under study. Fig. 8 shows the energy con-
sumption of case A monitored for the year 2013 (data series: total
consumption). Consumption was then compared with the energy
produced by the system (Fig. 8, data series: Total PV production).
This comparison highlights 3 months of decit and 9 months of
energy over-production. Another important observation stems
from the fact that each month is characterized by much lower self-
consumption than the energy produced, from a maximum self-
consumption of about 60% of the consumable energy produced
(in August) to a minimum of about 30% (in November). Although
due to a number of factors (such as meteorological), this
Starting from case study A, one may easily observe how the
months when energy requirement is greater are characterized by
lower PV system production (Fig. 8). In order to reduce this devi-
ation to the minimum, the rst step in the construction of the two
scenarios B and C concerned optimizing the positioning parameters
of the PV system panels. The Simulare_11 tool was used, coupled
with an optimization algorithm, to simulate the monthly produc-
tion of PV systems with different orientation. The algorithm iden-
tied an orientation featuring 0 azimuth and 90 tilt as the optimal
panel positioning, corresponding to panel positioning on a vertical
surface (south-facing wall of the building).
The data series PV energy production, case A and simulation
case without energy storage of Fig. 9 show the different pro-
ductions obtained. With regards to losses (listed in the caption of
Table 2), a 1% loss reduction for fouling was assumed.
Still from Fig. 9, one may observe how the trends of the curves
related to the energy produced (data series: simulation case without
energy storage) and that consumed (data series: energy demand)
draw very close respect the real case (A). The months of energy
production decit are January, June and December and total energy
production is 2400,38 kWh compared to 3355,00 kWh of case A.
Since the currently most commercially signicant chemical
storage systems consider the energy independence assured by the
batteries at around 4 days on average, the power of the installed
system must be increased in order to assure that the weekly system

Table 3
Distribution of kilowatt-hours consumption for a typical day of every month.

hour of the day (h) January February March April May June July August September October November December

0.00 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.39
1.00 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.26
2.00 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.26
3.00 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.26
4.00 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.26
5.00 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.39
6.00 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.52
7.00 0.35 0.36 0.25 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.21 0.34 0.37
8.00 0.34 0.30 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.27 0.25 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.30
9.00 0.51 0.45 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.40 0.37 0.23 0.26 0.32 0.45
10.00 0.23 0.20 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.20
11.00 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15
12.00 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15
13.00 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15
14.00 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15
15.00 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15
16.00 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15
17.00 0.23 0.20 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.20
18.00 0.34 0.30 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.27 0.25 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.30
19.00 0.51 0.45 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.40 0.37 0.23 0.26 0.32 0.45
20.00 0.64 0.64 0.45 0.35 0.39 0.40 0.51 0.52 0.25 0.38 0.61 0.67
21.00 0.35 0.36 0.25 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.21 0.34 0.37
22.00 0.28 0.29 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.17 0.27 0.30
23.00 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.13 0.20 0.22
energy consumption (kWh)
daily 6.81 6.25 4.48 4.00 3.90 4.53 5.55 5.45 3.10 3.90 5.00 7.03
monthly 211.00 175.00 139.00 120.00 121.00 136.00 172.00 169.00 93.00 121.00 150.00 218.00
20 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26

Fig. 5. Daily load diagram for a typical day of the year (percentage distribution of a typical daily kilowatt-hour consumed).

Fig. 6. Daily average production (kWh/day).

Fig. 7. Monthly Average Irradiance (kWh/month/m2), Municipality of Pieve San Giovanni (Tuscany), year 2013.

production is always greater than consumption. The power of the The required nominal power turned out to be equal to 3.5 kW,
hypothesized system was therefore increased in steps until the with estimated total production of 2917,13 kWh.
overall power of the system reached was able to meet the above To size the batteries required to meet the needs of scenarios B
condition. and C, the calculation was based on the average daily consumption
 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26 21

Fig. 8. Energy consumption (instantaneous and from the grid) and production of the real case -year 2013 - case study A.

Table 4
Comparison between energy production and energy consumption. Also highlighted the percentage of energy consumable on site when exist overow (from February to
October) or decit of energy (November, December and January).

J F M A M J J A S O N D Total

real energy produced 128.00 186.00 209.00 353.00 352.00 378.00 441.00 475.00 340.00 224.00 135.00 134.00 3355.00
energy to the grid 62.00 119.00 152.00 292.00 283.00 308.00 348.00 374.00 294.00 174.00 95.00 69.00 2570.00
% energy consumable on site 51.56% 38.29% 41.01% 50.83% 57.02% 51.47% 54.07% 59.76% 49.46% 41.32% 29.63% 48.51%
istantaneous consumption 66.00 67.00 57.00 61.00 69.00 70.00 93.00 101.00 46.00 50.00 40.00 65.00 785.00
consumption from the grid 145.00 108.00 82.00 59.00 52.00 66.00 79.00 68.00 47.00 71.00 110.00 153.00 1040.00
total consumption 211.00 175.00 139.00 120.00 121.00 136.00 172.00 169.00 93.00 121.00 150.00 218.00 1825.00

from the grid for the day with the worst sunlight in December (13
December) and only the percentage of consumption currently ful-
lled by the grid was considered, equal to 70.18% of the total
(Table 5).
Starting from the nominal power of the hypothesized system
and taking into account the storage performance of the two bat-
teries in question, one arrives at the sizing of the two PV systems in
terms of nominal power and surface taken by the panels based on
the following equation (equ.1):
SPV Ps n Pp=Psil Ssil (1)
Where SPV is the surface occupied by the PV system in the i-th
case, with i B and C, Ps is the power to be stored (equal t o 70.18%
of the system's power), n is the performance of the battery used in
the i-th case, Pp is the identied nominal power, Psil is the nominal
power of the individual panels used, Ssil is the surface occupied by
one module.
Scenarios B and C considered storage performance of Lead-acid
batteries equal to 20% and Lithium-Ion batteries equal to 5%. The
other features of the batteries analyzed are summarized in Table 6.
With regards to the panels, it was decided to use panels similar
to case A with nominal power of 230 W and individual panel size
equal to 992  1640 mm.
Using equ.1 for scenario B results in the need for a PV system of
29,28 m2 with nominal power equal to 3.99 kW, whereas for sce-
nario C the result is a 26,03 m2 PV system with nominal power
equal to 3.62 kW.
To achieve the amperage related to the two types of batteries
(Ah4d of Table 6) the following equation was adopted (equ 2):
Ah4d DGC=V NdaysA (2)
where DGC is the average daily consumption related to December, V
is the characteristic voltage of the batteries used and NdaysA is the
expected number of days of maximum independence.
Equation (3) was used to calculate the required batteries
(NbatteriesU):
NbatteriesU Ah4d=DOD EE=Ah (3)
where DOD is the maximum characteristic discharge capacity of the
batteries, EE is the batteries' energy efciency and Ah is the capacity
of the batteries in question (parameters shown in Table 6). The
results of the equation (3) in scenario B require 24 batteries, each
with a capacity of 134 Ah and in scenario C require 9 batteries with
a capacity of 120 Ah.
3.3. Comparison between case study A and scenarios B and C (goal i)
The comparison between the three cases studied was set, in a rst
stage, by xing the same nominal power of the PV system for all the
alternatives, equal to 3.62 kWh. This value corresponds to the
minimum nominal power found capable of achieving energy au-
tonomy in at least one solution (case C). The cases A and B reported to
22 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26

Fig. 9. Energy productions of the real case (A) and of the simulations (B and C).

the same nominal power of C were renamed by adding an asterisk to one, i.e. in the months of greater consumption for the residential unit.
the reference letter (A * and B *). The Table 7 shows the results in
terms of energy produced in one year, the percentage of energy self- 3.4. Comparison between scenarios B and C (goal ii)
consumed and the percentage of energy self-sufciency achieved. As
may be seen from the table, the only event able to achieve energy As is possible see from the precedent paragraphs' results, a
self-sufciency is the case C, because the lead-acid batteries are less storage system based on Lithium-ion batteries required a smaller
performing. In the two isolated cases (B * and C) all the energy PV systems and less batteries than a storage system based on Lead-
produced is used for own consumption to satisfying the demand acid batteries.
during the period of energy independence assured by the batteries, To best assess the efciency of the various storage systems, the
the rest is lost, while all the A * overow goes to the network. analysis of production levels was paired with an analysis of certain
The alternatives B and C presented in Section 3.2 were built to technical features of Lead-acid and Lithium-ion Batteries. Table 9
reach in both cases the energy self-sufciency, so they presented
different PV systems, designed to answer to different performance of
the chemical storage systems. The results are summarized in Table 8 Table 6
Batteries sizing on the basis of daily consumption from the grid and with 4 days of
and shown in Fig. 9 (data series: case B and C). By reasoning on the
energy autonomy.
different cases one may note how scenarios B and C assure energy
independence, generating a lower energy overow than the real case LEAD-ACID (B) LI-ION (C)
(A), summer production is reduced to the advantage of the winter daily consumption from the grid DGC (Wh/day) 4935.48
battery voltage (V) 12 24
daily ampere-hours consumption (Ah) 411.29 205.65
Table 5 maximum autonomy. NdaysA (days) 4 4
Distribution of consumption in kWh for the month and the day most disadvantaged ampere-hours consumption for 4 days. Ah4d (Ah) 1645.16 822.58
(December 2013). depth of discharge (%) 55 75
ampere-hours consumption with DOD (Ah) 2991.20 1096.77
(kWh) %
energy efciency EE (%) 10 2.5
Consumption from the grid (GC) - December 153 70.18 ampere-hours consumption with losses (Ah) 3290.32 1124.19
Instantaneous consumption (IC) - December 65 29.82 capacity of a battery (Ah) 134 120
Total consumption (TC) - December 218 100.00 number of batteries calculated (n.) 24.55 9.37
Daily consumption from the grid (DGC) e 13 December 4.94 number of batteries used (n.) 24 9
 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26 23

Table 7
Comparison between A*, B* and C solutions on the basis of annual energy produced, percentage of self-consumed energy and percentage of energy autonomy. A* and B* are
solutions with the same characteristic of cases A and B, apart from the xed nominal power (3.62 kW).

Case A* Case B* Case C

PV - nominal power (kW) 3.62 3.62 3.62

azimuth ( ) 54 0 0
tilt ( ) 18 90 90
destination of the energy not instantaneously consumed national grid Lead acid batteries Li-ion batteries

annual energy production (kWh) 4217 3017.15 3017.15

% of energy self-consumption (%) 48 59 63
% of energy autonomy (%) 48 91 100
energy overow (kWh) 2392.00 1192.15 1192.15

describes the parameters chosen for the comparison and Fig. 10
shows the results.
To draw up the graphs shown in Fig. 10 a number of sources
were referenced for Depth of Discharge [24,39e41] and for Energy
and Power Density [41e43], for Energy Efciency [24,44] and for
typical Life Cycle [44,45].
Table 9 and Fig. 10 lead to the following observations:
- In terms of optimal maximum discharge capacity Lithium-ion
accumulators feature advantages compared to Lead-acid, for
instance for Life Cycle equal to 1000 the Depth of discharge of Li-
ion batteries equals 65%, whereas that of lead-acid batteries is
only 30% (Fig. 10, top left) [39,40].
- Fig. 10, top right, shows typical P/E ratios of the two batteries
analyzed and highlights the Ragone plot area identied in a
previous paper as the optimal one for a standard domestic user
[43]. It is clear how both batteries fall within the range indicated
for areas with lower power intensity and greater energy. In
general, Lithium-ion batteries are better performing.
- In terms of energy efciency Lithium-ion batteries are prefer-
able, as they have a better charge/discharge performance. This
involves that, the discharged energy being equal, they dissipate
a lower quantity to bring the storage system back to the initial
charge condition.
- Also in terms of life duration Lithium-ion batteries have better
performance, in fact they feature a life cycle about 5 times
longer than Lead-acid batteries.
4. Discussion of results
4.1. Comparison between on grid and off grid systems (i)
Being equal the installed nominal power (paragraph 3.3), the off
grid system with Lithium-ion (C) produces less overall energy than
the on grid system (case A *), but manages to reach the energy
independence of a rural dwelling (Table 7).
In isolated locations, where grid connection is difcult or for
those where there is an existing connection, but subject to constant
uctuations, off grid systems are needed for energy independence.
For the Italian case, the network already serves many inner areas
and some of them do not present problems of clogging. For these
cases, we must evaluate from time to time whether it is convenient
or not to tie to the network. In fact, with the same investment for
the PV system, off grid systems also require an investment linked to
the purchase of the batteries. From time to time, we must evaluate
the advantages based on government incentives. It must be said in
this respect that the Italian incentives related to renewables are
very uid, therefore a valid result at the time, may not be true in a
few months. For example, the incentive that made the investment
convenient for the case study A (with PV systems installed in 2012),
is no longer available from 2014.
4.2. Comparison between chemical storage systems (ii)
In view of the technical parameters presented in paragraph 3.4,
the use of Lithium-ion batteries is recommended, but Lithium-ion
batteries are also more expensive than the Lead-acid ones. As
regards the Italian case, one must consider that the market of the
accumulators for the photovoltaic market is still relatively young
and for this reason is quite expensive and with little competition.
Costs are rapidly evolving and it is not easy to make an economic
assessment, but if one wishes to put forth these solutions to mar-
ginal rural settings, traditionally poor, one must either nd suitable
funding channels to select the most efcient choices from the
technical point of view (e.g. RDP measures) or devise nancially
sustainable solutions. As long as the cost of the batteries becomes
more accessible, it should be designed a scheme of incentives and
support for storage batteries for domestic use.
With regards to identifying the best energy storage system, in
order to achieve results to fully assess the sustainability of the
choice, the technical parameters used in this paper must be
compared with economic and environmental parameters, such as
the costs of the different systems as done previously by Thompson
et al. [21] and by Chaurey et al. [22].
4.3. Optimal design of an off grid system with photovoltaic and
chemical storage (iii)
For the case study analyzed, the optimal solution identied for
the energy self-sufciency of the dwelling is a PV system with a

Table 8
Level of production, consumption and % Energy overow in kWh for cases A,B,C on a monthly basis.

J F M A M J J A S O N D Total Productivity per unit area (kWh/m2)

Consumption 211.00 175.00 139.00 120.00 121.00 136.00 172.00 169.00 93.00 121.00 150.00 218.00 1825.00
Production A 128.00 186.00 209.00 353.00 352.00 378.00 441.00 475.00 340.00 224.00 135.00 134.00 3355.00 171.85
Energy overow A 83.00 11.00 70.00 233.00 231.00 242.00 269.00 306.00 247.00 103.00 15.00 84.00 1712.00
Production B 249.44 285.00 227.96 309.05 189.18 186.67 260.42 410.29 370.23 326.61 255.87 254.81 3325.53 113.56
Energy overow B 38.44 110.00 88.96 189.05 68.18 50.67 88.42 241.29 277.23 205.61 105.87 36.81 1500.53
Production C 226.31 258.57 206.82 280.39 171.63 169.36 236.27 372.25 335.90 296.32 232.15 231.18 3017.15 115.91
Energy overow C 15.31 83.57 67.82 160.39 50.63 33.36 64.27 203.25 242.90 175.32 82.15 13.18 1192.15
24 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26

Table 9
Comparison among several characteristic parameters of Li-ion and Lead Acid storage system.

Parameter Description Measurement mode Range Lead acid Li-ion

Depth of discharge (DOD)
Power Density (P)
Energy Density (E)
Energy Efciency (EE)
Cycle Life (CL)
Is an alternate method to indicate a While the SOC unit is percent points 0- >100 DOD/Discharge cycles
battery's state of charge (SOC). The DOD (0% empty; 100% full), the units for 100%/150e200 100%/300e500
is the complement of SOC: as one DOD is Ah (e.g.: 0 full, 50 Ah empty) 50%/400e500 50%/1200e1500
increases, the other decreases. or percent points (100% empty; 30%/>1000 25%/2000e2500
0% full). As a battery may actually 10%/3750e4700
have higher capacity than its nominal
rating, it is possible for the DOD value to
exceed the full value (e.g.: 52 Ah or
110%), something that is not possible
when using SOC.
Power density is the level of power that A Ragone chart (also called Ragone plot) 0e range (W/kg)
a storage system can provide per unit is a chart used for performance 60e150 250e1800
volume or mass occupied by the comparison of various energy-storing
system. devices. On such a chart the values of
Energy density is the amount of Energy energy density (in W h/kg) are plotted range (Wh/kg)
that the storage system can store per versus power density (in W/kg). Both 25e45 130e180
unit volume or mass occupied by the axes are logarithmic, which allows
system. comparing performance of very
different devices (for example,
extremely high and extremely low
power).
EE is divided into different categories: The energy efciency unit is percentage 0e100 %
EE under charge, EE under discharge points 75 95
and EE under charge-discharge. In this
paper we use EE under charge-
discharge.
The cycle of life means the number of Number (%) of complete charge/ 0e N cycle/80% DOD
charge/recharge cycles before a battery discharge cycles that the battery is able 600 2500
starts to reduce visibly its performance. to support before that its capacity falls
under 80% of it's original capacity

nominal power of 3.62 kW, oriented with tilt 90 and azimuth
0 and with a storage system composed of 9 Lithium battery of
120 Ah capacity each (case C). The system OGB presented in section
1.3 for the energy requirements related to a dwelling can be
thought only distributing the PV system on the available roofs of
the building and by placing the batteries in specic compartments.
From Table 7 it can be seen that such a solution (C) implies an
energy overow of 39.5% of the total energy production. Therefore
is essential to identify systems able to use the energy excess. In the
case analyzed, one should identify a unit that mainly consumes in

Fig. 10. Characteristic parameters for the different storage systems: DOD in relation with Life Cycle, Power Density and Energy Density, Energy Efciency, Life Cycle at 80% of DOD.
 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26
the autumn months, characterized by greater overproduction
(Table 8). Another study path is to identify machines that can be
operated only when there is availability of energy. In this regard,
the subject of future investigations will be the operation of the
water treatment system featured in the OGB (schematically shown
in Fig. 2).
From these considerations, it follows that the feasibility and
strategic relevance of total off-grid systems consist of designing in
integrated terms within the region in order to implement small-
scale-smart-grids consisting of individual units with different
consumption distribution curves and several renewable energy
sources. In this perspective, small farming businesses become
especially interesting players in marginal rural areas. In fact, due to
their small size as well as to the extensive and low energy
requirement production methods they often employ, these differ
from larger farms, whose consumption is unlikely to be fullled by
renewable sources.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Off-grid renewable solutions for residential buildings
To realize a stand alone off grid system for a residential unit
using only solar energy and chemical storage systems, we need of a
bigger PV system than the alternative on grid, who produces yearly
less energy than on grid solution.
To make the logic of energy self-sufciency interesting, the
paths can be identifying systems able to use energy excess, inte-
grating the PV system with other renewable energy sources char-
acterized by complementary production distribution (which might
be, by way of example, owing hydroelectric production units
which are often richer in the winter months or micro-wind tur-
bines in windy areas), or designing small scale smart grid with units
with different consumption distribution.
It is certainly necessary to review and amend the current net
metering system, which does not fully exploit the productivity of
the systems, dispersing energy and productive efciency. Man-
agement of excess energy with the current net metering system
leads to grid overload issues and hence increases the risks of pro-
duction cuts. Peak shaving phenomena are more likely (there are
peaks in demand in the hours where request is higher) and shut-
down/start-up (feed-in of large amounts of energy that would
lead to shut-down and restart of the systems with high risks and
costs).
5.2. The OGB
The OGB is a compact, small-sized system, with affordable costs,
suited to fullling low energy requirements. At the same time, the
individual components of the OGB can be sited on pre-existent
surfaces (as in the case study, where the PV system is integrated
in the roof of the building) in order to fulll varying energy
requirements.
The technologies used in the base model (Fig. 2) are simple and
mature and other elements may be added since the whole system
has been designed in a modular set-up. The presented work sug-
gests equipping the OGB with Lithium-ion batteries. The challenge
is that of producing different OGB versions, aimed at fullling the
energy requirements connected to production and transformation
processes of small, family-run farming businesses, in order to
create total off-grid systems such as the large scale one hypothe-
sized by Qoaider et al. [36]. The strength of this system is in its
compactness, portability and ease of integration with other existing
elements. For this reason, it is interesting for users with very low
energy proles and a low time shift between supply and demand,
25
since the weight and bulk of batteries should be well considered.
Future applications will cover its integration within a mobile sheep
slaughter.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.034.
References
[1] European Commission, EUROPE2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and
Inclusive Growth, COM, Brussel, 2010, p. 2020, 3.3.2010.
[2] European Commission, Taking Stock of the Europe 2020 Strategy for Smart,
Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM, Brussels, 2014, p. 130, 5.3.2014.
[3] European Union, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the
counciL of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, Off. J. Eur.
Union 153 (2010) 1e23.
[4] Janelle Knox-Hayes, Marilyn A. Brown, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Yu Wang, Un-
derstanding attitudes toward energy security: results of a cross-national
survey, Glob. Environ. Change 23 (2013) 609e622.
[5] European Commission, Summary of the Partnership Agreement for Italy,
2014-2020, June 2015 available at: http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/pa/
partnership-agreement-italy-summary_en.pdf.
[6] European Commission, Decision about Partnership Agreement with Italy
COM, 2014, p. 8021. Brussel, 29.10.2014.
[7] United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS), Policy Brief #2
Recommendations on Energy for the UN General Assembly Open Working
Group on Sustainable Development Goals, June 2015 available at: http://
www.un-ngls.org/IMG/pdf/UN-NGLS_Brief_for_OWG_on_SDGs-Energy-Nov_
2013.pdf.
[8] International Commission on Sustainable Peasant Agriculture, From Maputo
to Jakarta. 5 Years of Agroecology in La Va Campesina, La via Campesina,
Jakarta, 2013.
[9] World Development Movement, Energy Sovereignty (Climate-friendly
Development, through Local Control of Energy), March 2015 available at:
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/energy-innovation-and-traditional-knowledge.
[10] R. Menges, Supporting renewable energy on liberalised markets: green elec-
tricity between additionality and consumer sovereignty, Energy Policy 31
(2003) 583e596.
[11] International Energy Agency, Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2014, OECD/IEA,
France, June 2015 available at: http://www.iea.org/publications/
freepublications/publication/Tracking_clean_energy_progress_2014.pdf.
[12] M. Delfanti, V. Olivieri, Possibili modalita innovative di approvvigionamento
delle risorse per il servizio di dispacciamento da fonti rinnovabili non pro-
grammabili e generazione distribuita ((Possible innovative ways of procuring
resources for dispatching services from non programmable renewable sources
and distributed generation)), June 2015 available at: http://www.autorita.
energia.it/allegati/docs/13/354-13all.pdf ([in Italian]).
[13] M. Brinkhaus, D. Jarosch, J. Kapischke, All year power supply with off-grid
photovoltaic system and clean seasonal power storage, Sol. Energy 85
(2011) 2488e2496.
[14] M. Suha Yazici, H. Ayhan Yavasoglu, M. Eroglu, A mobile off-grid platform
powered with photovoltaic/wind/battery/fuel cell hybrid power systems, Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (2013) 11639e11645.
[15] M. Bielmann, U.F. Vogta, M. Zimmermannb, A. Zttela, Seasonal energy stor-
age system based on hydrogen for self sufcient living, J. Power Sources 196
(2011) 4054e4060.
[16] E.M. Gray, C.J. Webb, J. Andrews, B. Shabani, P.J. Tsai, S.L.I. Chan, Hydrogen
storage for off-grid power supply, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36 (2011) 654e663.
[17] P. Garca, J.P. Torreglosa, L.M. Fern andez, F. Jurado, Improving long-term
operation of power sources in off-grid hybrid systems based on renewable
energy, hydrogen and battery, J. Power Sources 265 (2014) 149e159.
[18] Authority for Electricity Gas and Water, Documento di consultazione dco 25/
09 orientamenti per il dispacciamento dell'energia elettrica prodotta da fonti
rinnovabili non programmabili ((Document of consultation dco25/09.
Guidelines for the dispatch of electricity produced from renewable non-
programmable sources)), June 2015 available at: http://www.autorita.
energia.it/allegati/docs/dc/09/DCO25-09.pdf ([in Italian]).
[19] Authority for Electricity Gas and Water, Documento di consultazione 613/
2013/R/EEL Prime disposizioni relative ai sistemi di accumulo e Orientamenti.
(First provisions on the storage systems - Guidelines), June 2015 available at:
http://www.autorita.energia.it/allegati/docs/13/613-13.pdf ([in Italian]).
[20] P.T. Moseley, J. Garche, Electrochemical Energy Storage for Renewable Sources
and Grid Balancing, Elsevier, 2014.
[21] S. Thompson, B. Duggirala, The feasibility of renewable energies at an off-grid
community in Canada, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 2740e2745.
[22] A. Chaurey, T.C. Kandpal, A techno-economic comparison of rural electrica-
tion based on solar home systems and PV microgrids, Energy Policy 38 (2010)
3118e3129.
[23] A.B. Kanase-Patil, R.P. Saini, M.P. Sharma, Integrated renewable energy
26 M.E. Menconi et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 14e26
systems for off grid rural electrication of remote area, Renew. Energy 35
(2010) 1342e1349.
[24] D. Linden, T.B. Reddy, Handbook of Batteries, third ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2002.
[25] A.J. Salkind, A.G. Cannone, F.A. Trumbure, Lead-acid batteries, in: P.T. Moseley,
J. Garche (Eds.), Electrochemical Energy Storage for Renewable Sources and
Grid Balancing, Elsevier, 2014, pp. 587e673.
[26] G.M. Ehrlich, Lithium-ion batteries, in: P.T. Moseley, J. Garche (Eds.), Elec-
trochemical Energy Storage for Renewable Sources and Grid Balancing,
Elsevier, 2014, pp. 1074e1167.
[27] B. Scrosati, J. Garche, Lithium batteries: Status, prospects and future (Review),
J. Power Sources 195 (9) (2010) 2419e2430.
[28] D. Rastler, Electricity Energy Storage Technology Options, a White Paper
Primer on Applications, Costs and Benets, 2010, EPRI Final Report 1020676,
June 2015. available at: http://energystorage.org/system/les/resources/
000000000001020676.pdf.
[29] Research on Energy System e RSE, Laccumulo di energia elettrica (The
storage of electrical Energy), June 2015 available at: http://www.rse-web.it/
applications/webwork/site_rse/local/doc-rse/RSE%20Monograa%
20Accumulo/index.html ([in Italian]).
[30] D. Rastler, Energy Storage Program P94 (2011), EPRI, June 2015 available at:
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/Portfolio/PDF/2011_P094.pdf.
[31] R. Sen, S.C. Bhattacharyya, Off-grid electricity generation with renewable
energy technologies in India: an application of HOMER, Renew. Energy 62
(2014) 388e398.
[32] S. Thompson, B. Duggirala, The feasibility of renewable energies at an off-grid
community in Canada, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 2740e2745.
[33] S.M. Shaahid, I. El-Amin, Techno-economic evaluation of off-grid hybrid
photovoltaicedieselebattery power systems for rural electrication in Saudi
Arabiada way forward for sustainable development, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13 (2009) 625e633.
[34] A.B. Kanase-Patil, R.P. Saini, M.P. Sharma, Integrated renewable energy sys-
tems for off grid rural electrication of remote area, Renew. Energy 35 (2010)
1342e1349.
[35] B. Bhandari, K. Tae Lee, C. Sunyong Lee, C. Ki Song, R.K. Maskey, S. Hoon Ahn,
A novel off-grid hybrid power system comprised of solar photovoltaic, wind,
and hydro energy sources, Appl. Energy 133 (2014) 236e242.
[36] L. Qoaider, D. Steinbrecht, Photovoltaic systems: a cost competitive option to
supply energy to off-grid agricultural communities in arid regions, Appl. En-
ergy 87 (2010) 427e435.
[37] A. Chaurey, T.C. Kandpal, A techno-economic comparison of rural electrica-
tion based on solar home systems and PV microgrids, Energy Policy 38 (2010)
3118e3129.
[38] E. Ferg, C. Rossouw, P. Loyson, The testing of batteries linked to super-
capacitors with electrochemical impedance spectroscopy: a comparison be-
tween Li-ion and valve regulated lead acid batteries, J. Power Sources 226
(2013) 299e305.
[39] Battery University, BU-201: Lead-based Batteries, June 2015 available at:
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lead_based_batteries.
[40] Battery University, BU-808: How to Prolong Lithium-based Batteries, June
2015 available at: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_
prolong_lithium_based_batteries.
[41] Electropaedia, Battery Performance Characteristics: Information on Self-
discharge Characteristics of Battery Types, June 2015 available at: http://
www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm.
[42] M. Winter, R.J. Brodd, What are batteries, fuel cells, and supercapacitors?
Chem. Rev. 104 (2004) 4245e4269.
[43] S. Barsali, P. Di Marco, S. Filippeschi, A. Franco, R. Giglioli, D. Poli, Report RdS/
2011/307 Dimostratore di casa attiva (Demonstrator of active house), June
2015 available at: http://www.enea.it/it/Ricerca_sviluppo/documenti/ricerca-
di-sistema-elettrico/tecnologie-elettriche/rds-307-122-dimostratore-casa-
attiva-univ-pisa.pdf ([in Italian]).
[44] M. Conte, G. Graditi, M.G. Ippolito, E. Riva Sanseverino, E. Telaretti, G. Zizzo,
RdS/2011/303 Analisi e denizione di strategie di gestione e controllo di
sistemi di accumulo elettrico per applicazioni in reti di distribuzione attive
automatizzate ((Analysis and denition of strategies for the management and
control of electric storage systems for applications in distribution networks
active automated)), June 2015 available at: http://www.enea.it/it/Ricerca_
sviluppo/documenti/ricerca-di-sistema-elettrico/tecnologie-elettriche/rds-
303-122-d-strategie-di-gestione-e-controllo.pdf ([in Italian]).
[45] J. Kang, F. Yan, P. Zhang, C. Du, A novel way to calculate energy efciency for
rechargeable batteries, J. Power Sources 206 (2012) 310e314.