Advertisement

Negotiation Approaches for Sharing Systems

From Pool-Based to Peer-to-peer
  • Pierre PinsonEmail author
  • Fabio Moret
  • Thomas Baroche
  • Athanasios Papakonstantinou
Chapter
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Sharing systems require some form of organization and negotiation for optimal access to the resource and price discovery. Various forms of organizations are introduced and discussed here, from pool-based to peer-to-peer, also considering a community-based approach. These various organizations are motivated, the related negotiation mechanisms described and their properties discussed. The example of electric energy sharing is used as a basis for discussion and illustration.

Keywords

Negotiation mechanisms Distibuted optimization Electric energy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are partly supported by the Danish Innovation Fund and the ForskEL programme through the projects ‘5s’—Future Electricity Markets (12-132636/DSF), CITIES (DSF-1305-00027B) and The Energy Collective (grant no. 2016-1-12530). In addition, the authors thank Etienne Sorin, Lucien Bobo, Tiago Sousa, Roman Le Goff Latimier, Hamid Ben Ahmed and many others for inspiring discussions and input on sharing electric energy.

References

  1. 1.
    Alvaro-Hermana R, Fraile-Ardanuy J, Zufiria PJ, Knapen L, Janssens D (2016) Peer to peer energy trading with electric vehicles. IEEE Intell Transp Syst Mag 8(3):33–44.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2016.2573178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd S, Parikh N, Chu E, Peleato B, Eckstein J (2011) Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Found Trends Mach Learn 3(1):1–122.  https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000016CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Day RH (1971) Rational choice and economic behavior. Theory Decis 1(3):229–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139569CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moret F, Pinson P (2018) Energy collectives: a community and fairness based approach to future electricity markets. IEEE Trans Power Syst 99:1–1.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2808961
  5. 5.
    Morstyn T, Farrell N, Darby SJ, McCulloch MD (2018) Using peer-to-peer energy-trading platforms to incentivize prosumers to form federated power plants. Nat Energy 3(2):94–101.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0075-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morstyn T, Teytelboym A, McCulloch MD (2018) Bilateral contract networks for peer-to-peer energy trading. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 99:1–1.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2017.2786668
  7. 7.
    Parag Y, Sovacool BK (2016) Electricity market design for the prosumer era. Nat Energy 1:16,032.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.32
  8. 8.
    Peter C (2017) Electricity market design. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 33(4):589–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raworth K (2017) Doughnut economics - seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Cornerstone, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reuben E, Suetens S (2012) Revisiting strategic versus non-strategic cooperation. Exp Econ 15(1):24–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9286-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sorin E, Bobo LA, Pinson P (2017) Consensus-based approach to peer-to-peer electricity markets with product differentiation. Under reviewGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Pinson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabio Moret
    • 1
  • Thomas Baroche
    • 2
  • Athanasios Papakonstantinou
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Department of MechatronicsEcole Normales Supérieure RennesRennesFrance
  3. 3.Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations