Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Zhao, W.; Qi, Q.; Zhou, J.;
Luo, X. Blockchain-Based
Applications for Smart Grids: An
Umbrella Review. Energies 2023,16,
6147. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en16176147
Academic Editor: Joao Ferreira
Received: 15 July 2023
Revised: 19 August 2023
Accepted: 22 August 2023
Published: 24 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
energies
Review
Blockchain-Based Applications for Smart Grids:
An Umbrella Review
Wenbing Zhao 1,* , Quan Qi 2, Jiong Zhou 3and Xiong Luo 4
1Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Cleveland State University,
Cleveland, OH 44115, USA
2College of Information Science and Technology, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832003, China; q.qi@ieee.org
3School of Public Policy and Administration, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710129, China;
zhoujiong@nwpu.edu.cn
4School of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing,
Beijing 100083, China; xluo@ustb.edu.cn
*Correspondence: wenbing@ieee.org
Abstract:
This article presents an umbrella review of blockchain-based smart grid applications. By
umbrella review, we mean that our review is based on systematic reviews of this topic. We aim to
synthesize the findings from these systematic reviews and gain deeper insights into this discipline.
After studying the systematic reviews, we find it imperative to provide a concise and authoritative
description of blockchain technology because many technical inaccuracies permeate many of these
papers. This umbrella review is guided by five research questions. The first research question
concerns the types of blockchain-based smart grid applications. Existing systematic reviews rarely
used a systematic method to classify these applications. To address this issue, we propose a taxonomy
of these applications, first by differentiating them based on whether the application is focusing on
functional or non-functional aspects of smart grid operations, and then by the specific functions
or perspectives that the application aims to implement or enhance. The second research question
concerns the roles that blockchain technology plays in smart grid applications. We synthesize the
findings by identifying the most prominent benefits that blockchain technology could bring to these
applications. We also take the opportunity to point out several common technical mistakes that
pervade the blockchain literature, such as equating all forms of blockchains to data immutability. The
third research question concerns the guidelines for deciding whether a blockchain-based solution
would be useful to address the needs of smart grids. We synthesize the findings by proposing benefit-
based guidelines. The fourth research question concerns the maturity levels of blockchain-based
smart grid applications. We differentiate between academic-led and industry-led projects. We propose
a five-level scale to evaluate the maturity levels. The ranking of the industry-led projects is performed
through our own investigation. Our investigation shows that more than half of the industry-led
projects mentioned in the systematic reviews are no longer active. Furthermore, although there are
numerous news reports and a large number of academic papers published on blockchain-based
smart grid applications, very few have been successfully embraced by the industry. The fifth research
question concerns the open research issues in the development of blockchain-based smart grid
applications. We synthesize the findings and provide our own analysis.
Keywords:
smart grid; blockchain; renewable energy; green certificate; energy trading; smart meter;
demand-side response; demand–supply balance; smart contract; decentralized consensus; data
immutability; security; privacy; trust
1. Introduction
Smart grids have been widely referenced in news stories, online posts, and academic
publications, along with many “smart-x” phrases, such as smartphones, smartwatches,
smart health, smart contracts, smart meters, smart buildings, and smart cities. The term
Energies 2023,16, 6147. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176147 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2023,16, 6147 2 of 35
“smart” in these phases generally implies the integration of digital technologies with the
subject at hand. Indeed, in the context of smart grids, digital technologies have been
playing ever more important roles in modernizing electric power grids [
1
]. According
to [
2
], a particular characteristic of smart grids is two-way communication between electric
utilities and their customers, which is facilitated through digital technologies.
The term “grid” in “smart grid” refers to the electric power grid, on which every one
of us depends in our daily lives. The grid consists of a network of components that are
essential to deliver electricity from power plants to every household and business [
1
]. These
components include transmission lines, substations, and various types of transformers.
Digital technologies have proven to drastically improve the efficiency, safety, security,
stability, and robustness of electric power grids. A smart grid would imply that it exhibits
one or more of these benefits. For example, the transmission of electricity is more efficient,
the electricity can be restored more quickly after a power disturbance, the peak demand
can be reduced by implementing more efficient energy trading for better demand-supply
matching, and consumers may also become energy suppliers (such as by installing rooftop
solar panels) by selling excess energy to the grid (hence, they become prosumers).
On the other hand, blockchain technology has been hyped as the next big technical
innovation that could transform our society [
3
]. Indeed, the possibility of replacing a
trusted third party with a decentralized platform consisting of thousands of computing
nodes, where rules are enforced by computer algorithms, is extremely attractive. In fact,
Bitcoin [
4
], the first cryptocurrency powered by blockchain technology, was created during
the 2008 great recession, which was caused by too-big-to-fail financial institutions. With the
introduction of smart contracts that comes with the second major cryptocurrency, Ethereum,
it is possible to develop decentralized applications (DApps) and decentralized autonomous
organizations (DAOs) that could execute Turing-Complete programming code.
Due to the many unique and highly desirable properties of blockchain technology,
there has been great research interest in using blockchain technology in smart grid ap-
plications. Research on smart grids and blockchains has been well-reviewed in recent
years. Even limiting the scope of blockchain-related smart grids, the number of reviews is
relatively large. Considering the maturity of blockchain technology [
5
] and smart grids,
it would be valuable to conduct an umbrella review [
6
] of these reviews to synthesize the
findings and gain deeper insights into how blockchain technology has been and can be
employed to address the challenges in developing the next generation of smart grids. We
are not aware of any umbrella reviews of this topic. This umbrella review is guided by the
following research questions:
RQ1:
What smart grid applications have been proposed?
RQ2:
What specific roles does blockchain technology play in smart grid applications?
RQ3: What guidelines have been proposed to help decide whether a blockchain-based solution
is a good fit for smart grids?
RQ4: What are the maturity levels of the proposed blockchain-based solutions for smart grids?
RQ5:
What are the open research issues in developing blockchain-based smart grid applications?
While conducting the literature view, we noticed some technically inaccurate descrip-
tions of various aspects of blockchain technology in many systematic reviews [
7
]. Such
issues are identified in a related section within our umbrella review. To help readers who are
unfamiliar with blockchain technology, a background section on blockchains is intentionally
included in this review, with the goal of providing a concise and authoritative description
of blockchain technology. This is important so that managers in the electric power grid
industry can have an accurate understanding of blockchain technology. Otherwise, they
might not be able to make the right decisions on blockchain-based smart grid applications.
This umbrella review makes the following research contributions:
• We propose a novel taxonomy for blockchain-based smart grid applications.
•
We identify a set of the most prominent roles that blockchain technology plays in
smart grid applications.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 3 of 35
•
We propose benefit-driven guidelines for deciding whether a blockchain-based ap-
proach is a good fit for smart grid applications.
•
We propose a five-level maturity scale for existing blockchain-based smart grid projects.
Furthermore, we investigate numerous industry-led projects with two purposes:
(1) to identify which ones are still active, and (2) to determine their maturity levels.
•
We synthesize the open research issues that have been identified in existing reviews
and provide our own analysis.
•
We identify common technical inaccuracies regarding blockchain technology and ex-
plain why they are incorrect, which could be essential for developing next-generation
blockchain-based smart grid applications.
The remainder of this umbrella review is organized as follows. Section 2describes our
method for literature collection. Section 3presents a concise and authoritative description
of blockchain technology. Section 4reports our findings for the first research question
regarding the classification of blockchain-based smart grid applications. Section 5elaborates
on our findings for the second research question regarding the roles played by blockchain
technology in smart grid applications. Section 6summarizes our findings for the third
research question regarding the guidelines proposed to decide whether a blockchain-based
solution is appropriate. Section 7documents our findings for the fourth research question
regarding the maturity levels of academic- and industry-led blockchain-based solutions for
smart grids. Section 8presents our findings for our fifth research question regarding the
open research issues identified in the reviews. Section 9summarizes our research findings,
identifies the limitations of our research, and provides some future prospects. Section 10
concludes this paper.
2. Method of Literature Collection
We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews [
8
]. We chose to use
the Web of Science core collection as the literature repository to find relevant review
publications because it is the most authoritative and comprehensive source for high-quality
academic publications. We used the search term “blockchain smart grid” and limited the
results to the review type. The search returned a total of 85 publications. The selection
process is illustrated in Figure 1. Then, we screened these publications by inspecting the title
and abstract of each record, which eliminated 34 records that we deemed irrelevant. The full
texts of the remaining 51 records were then retrieved for further evaluation. We removed
18 records ba
sed on the following criteria: (1) published in English; (2) focused on smart
grid applications; (3) the blockchain played a major role in the smart grid applications; and
(4) provided subst
antial technical details. This umbrella review is based on 33 publications.
The included publications were divided into three categories. The first category
consisted of comprehensive reviews (
n=
16) that examined blockchain-based solutions for
smart grids in general. The second category consisted of single-topic reviews (
n=
10) that
focused on blockchain-based solutions in a specific application for smart grids. The third
category consisted of reviews (
n=
7) that considered blockchains as only one of the
enabling technologies for smart grids. Reviews that belonged to the third category were
required to have a sufficient discussion on blockchains to be included.
To give an idea of the number of studies that are covered in this umbrella review, we
report the total number of publications in each of the 33 comprehensive reviews in Table 1.
As can be seen, these reviews included up to 4471 studies. We do not identify duplicated
studies due to the short revision window. The actual unique studies and studies that are
focused on blockchains could be a fraction of the total. Nevertheless, the number of studies
is large.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 4 of 35
Records Identified Through
Web of Science Search
(n=85)
Records Included After Title
and Abstract Screening
(n=51)
Full-Text Excluded
(n=18)
Studied Included
(n=33)
Record Removed
(n=34)
Comprehensive
Review
(n=16)
Single Topic
Review
(n=10)
Blockchain+Other
As Enabling
Technologies
(n=7)
Figure 1. Literature selection process.
Table 1. Number of studies included in each comprehensive review.
Review Studies
Al-Abri et al. [9] 121
Allladi et al. [10] 91
Appasani et al. [11] 131
Baidya et al. [12] 220
Gawusu et al. [13] 292
Hasankhani et al. [14] 225
Henninger et al. [15] 94
Junaidi et al. [16] 11
Khan et al. [17] 117
Malla et al. [18] 132
Miglani et al. [19] 179
Musleh et al. [20] 103
Nour et al. [21] 185
O’Donovan et al. [22] 20
Wang et al. [23] 81
Yapa et al. [24] 192
Asif et al. [25] 201
Bandeiras et al. [26] 130
Bielecki et al. [27] 110
Chiarini et al. [28] 116
Kapassa et al. [29] 20
Karumba et al. [30] 119
Kirli et al. [31] 269
Energies 2023,16, 6147 5 of 35
Table 1. Cont.
Review Studies
Thukral et al. [32] 95
Wu et al. [33] 119
Yan et al. [34] 28
Casquico et al. [35] 95
Ding et al. [36] 164
Hua et al. [37] 124
Mololoth et al. [38] 123
Singh et al. [39] 180
Thasnimol et al. [40] 237
Ye et al. [41] 147
Total 4471
3. Blockchain Technology
The primary goal of the original blockchain technology, as exhibited by Bitcoin, was
to ensure that it was very difficult to modify the data recorded on the blockchain. This
property is often referred to as data immutability. Unfortunately, this has led to a com-
mon misconception that any system that takes the form of a blockchain guarantees data
immutability. This is, in fact, far from the truth. How to achieve data immutability is the
most fundamental concern in blockchain design.
The purpose of this section is to provide a concise and authoritative introduction
to blockchain technology as it was intended in several parts: (1) the nuts and bolts of
blockchain technology; (2) data immutability; (3) decentralized consensus; and
(4) benefits
of permissionless (i.e., public) vs. permissioned (i.e., private and consortium) blockchains.
More in-depth and comprehensive discussions can be found in our previous publica-
tions [7,42,43].
3.1. Nuts and Bolts of Blockchains
Here, we only consider the traditional blockchain design, as seen in Bitcoin [
4
] and
Ethereum [
44
]. Newer distributed ledger designs such as IOTA, although innovative,
have not reached the same level of maturity as traditional blockchains. Despite the claims
of a decentralized design, the actual implementation usually depends on some form of
centralized control (e.g., the coordinator in IOTA). There are five technical foundations for
blockchains [
45
]: (1) an open peer-to-peer network; (2) cryptography; (3) the blockchain
data structure; (4) decentralized consensus; and (5) smart contracts.
Open peer-to-peer network. The blockchain system consists of a network of computing
nodes that are set up and owned by different individuals or organizations. The system
is open to anyone who wishes to join. The independence of the computing nodes in the
blockchain network is the basis for decentralized computing. Here, we emphasize the
“open” aspect of the network. If a node must seek permission from any individual or
organization before it can join, then the entire network is controlled by this particular
individual or organization. Hence, it is self-conflicting to claim decentralized computing
with a permissioned network.
Cryptography. In blockchains, cryptographic primitives are used for (1) account holder
or stakeholder identification and verification (i.e., via a digital signature); (2) transaction
identification (i.e., via a cryptographic hash); (3) block identification (i.e., via a cryptographic
hash); and (4) consensus (i.e., via a cryptographic hash). The cryptographic primitives
are assumed to be strong, so (1) no one can impersonate another by faking the digital
signature, i.e., only the holder of the private key may generate a correct digital signature;
Energies 2023,16, 6147 6 of 35
and
(2) given
a hash value, it is practically impossible to find a conflict, which ensures that
a transaction or blockchain can be uniquely identified by the hash, and any modification
to the transaction or blockchain would render the corresponding hash different from the
original hash, and a miner would have to honestly search for a solution that leads to a
hash meeting the proof-of-work target value. There is no doubt that cryptography is the
foundation of the security of any blockchain system. That being said, it is a mistake to
claim that data immutability is guaranteed by cryptography alone. Further explanations
are provided later.
Blockchain data structure. The term “blockchain” comes from the way the transactions
are logged in a blockchain system. First, a set of transactions are grouped into a block.
Then, one block is chained with a parent block by including the hash of the parent block in
the current block’s header. Hence, the blocks form a chain, starting with a special block
referred to as the genesis block. Miners compete to gain the right to build the next block. In
a proof-of-work system, each block naturally incorporates some amount of computation
resulting from searching for the solution to the proof-of-work puzzle. Due to the chaining
of the block, if one attempts to modify the content of a block, e.g., by removing or replacing
a transaction, the adversary must reperform the proof-of-work computation not only for
the current block but also for all descendant blocks. This implies that the deeper a block is
in the chain, the more difficult it is to change its contents.
Decentralized consensus. The use of cryptographic primitives has been a best practice in
building secure systems long before the creation of the first blockchain system. The idea of
chaining data while performing symmetric key encryption has also been a best practice for a
long time. The most significant innovation in blockchain technology is a new and first-ever
way of reaching consensus among a potentially very large set of nodes that geographically
span the Earth. This method is known as the proof-of-work consensus algorithm, which
essentially transformed the consensus-building process from collective decision making
via voting to a competitive lottery task [
5
]. The consensus is achieved probabilistically, and
there is no particular point in time when all nodes would be sure that a consensus has been
reached. The proof-of-work algorithm is the first algorithm that can achieve decentralized
consensus, where no membership is assumed and no explicit voting is involved [5].
Smart contract. Bitcoin supports some limited forms of scripting functionality, which
can be regarded as a primitive smart contact. In Bitcoin, the smart contract is intentionally
designed to be Turing Incomplete to avoid the hang problem [
5
]. Ethereum created a prac-
tical solution for supporting Turing-Complete smart contracts by using a virtual machine
and associating each instruction with some cost measured by “gas”, similar to incurring
gasoline consumption when we drive a car. Every smart contract transaction must include
some amount of gas. When the gas has been used up before the smart contract is fully
executed, the transaction is aborted, effectively solving the potential hang problem during
Turing-Complete code execution.
3.2. Data Immutability
In traditional currency, all transactions are settled by central banks. The role of the
central bank is to ensure that transactions are valid and that all transactions are recorded
so that there is no ambiguity about whether or not a transaction has taken place once
settled. Bitcoin aimed to replace the trusted central bank by (1) recording all transactions in
a blockchain; (2) ensuring that all nodes in the system see the same copy of the blockchain;
and (3) making it very difficult to modify, replace, or remove a transaction once it has been
recorded in the blockchain. In Bitcoin, these requirements are satisfied by the proof-of-work
algorithm, the blockchain data structure, and the use of secure cryptographic primitives.
In particular, these mechanisms together create a self-imposed barrier to changing the
blockchain. Ideally, this barrier is so high that it becomes insurmountable, leading to data
immutability. Assuming that all nodes have similar computing power, the more nodes the
system has, the higher the barrier is for changing the data in the blockchain.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 7 of 35
Due to the mechanisms incorporated by Bitcoin (and its derivatives), the only way to
modify the blockchain is to create a fork so that an alternative blockchain is regarded as the
main chain. To successfully create an alternative chain to be accepted as the main chain,
it requires the adversary to control more than half of the computation power (i.e., more
specifically, the total hashing power). Although it is possible for an adversary to break into
existing mining nodes and control them, it is much easier to simply set up additional nodes
as part of the blockchain network to overtake the system. According to https://bitnodes.io,
accessed on 18 June 2023, there were 16,774 reachable nodes. To overtake the existing
Bitcoin and introduce changes to the blockchain at will, the adversary would need to
set up 16,775 nodes. Assuming that each node costs USD 10,000, this would require the
adversary to invest USD 167.775 million. Although a middle-class family certainly cannot
attack Bitcoin in this way, wealthy individuals and large corporations can easily break
the data immutability guarantee of Bitcoin. Therefore, the claim of data immutability for
blockchain-based systems is not absolute, even for the largest known blockchain systems.
It is questionable to make such a claim if public blockchain systems with much fewer nodes
are used, let alone permissioned blockchains.
3.3. Decentralized Consensus
Traditional distributed consensus algorithms are not a good fit for an open peer-to-peer
system because there is no way to track the membership of the current system, which is a
prerequisite for reaching consensus in traditional distributed consensus algorithms [
5
,
46
,
47
].
The proof-of-work algorithm is the first algorithm that can be used to reach consensus prob-
abilistically in a decentralized system. As demonstrated by the proof-of-work algorithm,
decentralized algorithms have major differences from traditional distributed consensus
algorithms. The two approaches can be compared according to seven metrics: (1) decision
level, (2) knowledge of membership, (3) coordination for consensus, (4) complexity level,
(5) guarantee of timely decision,
(6) guarantee
of universal agreement, and (7) adaptivity
on decision interval. We intentionally omit the more detailed technical discussions.
3.4. Benefits of Blockchains
The set of benefits of a large public blockchain, as shown in Figure 2a, is enabled by
the fundamental building blocks of blockchain technology, i.e., blockchain, smart contract,
cryptography, and decentralized consensus. We separate consensus and decentralization
so that we can compare the benefits offered by the original permissionless (i.e., public)
blockchain versus the permissioned (i.e., private and consortium) blockchain. For the
permissionless blockchain, we identify the following set of benefits: privacy, security,
transparency, data immutability, fault tolerance, censorship resistance, data provenance,
atomic contract execution, and trust.
Data
Provenance
Atomic
Contract
Execution
Data
Immutability
Fault
Tolerance
Transparency
Censorship
Resistance
Consensus
Decentralization
Blockchain
Trust
SecurityPrivacy
Smart Contract
Crytography
(a) Permissionless Blockchain (b) Permissioned Blockchain
Data
Provenance
Atomic
Contract
Execution
Data
Immutability
Fault
Tolerance
Transparency
Censorship
Resistance
Consensus
Centralized Control
Blockchain
Trust
SecurityPrivacy
Smart Contract
Crytography
Figure 2. Benefits of blockchain technology.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 8 of 35
Privacy. In a blockchain system, the user is identified by a pair of self-generated
public–private keys. To prove ownership, the user must demonstrate the correct digital
signature corresponding to an address. This design offers some degree of privacy to users
(usually referred to as pseudo-anonymity), although it is subject to analysis-based tracking.
Security. Although many publications have claimed that blockchains enable better
security than traditional systems, how this occurs is rarely explained clearly. For cryp-
tocurrency, security means that only the owner may spend their funds and no one may
double-spend their funds. When a blockchain is used to enable other types of applications,
security usually refers to the basic security mechanisms offered by blockchain technology
and the integrity of the data placed on the blockchain.
Transparency. This property refers to the fact that all transactions are logged on the
blockchain and they are open to the public to inspect. Essentially, the blockchain system
manages a public ledger of all transactions.
Data immutability. Strictly speaking, data immutability should be a prerequisite for
the integrity of a system. However, traditional centrally controlled systems (distributed
or not) lack an effective means to protect the data from modifications. As we explained in
Section 3.2, blockchain technology introduced an effective mechanism to mitigate the attack
on data by enacting a self-imposed barrier. Because of this innovation, it is worthwhile to
single out this particular property of blockchain technology.
Censorship resistance. Censorship refers to actions that prevent free speech. Censorship
can come in the form of prohibiting some people from expressing their opinion, but can also
come in the form of removing published material from the media (such as books, journals,
etc.). Censorship implies that there is no admission control over who may write data to the
blockchain, and it also requires data immutability. Obviously, only large public blockchain
systems can offer censorship resistance.
Data provenance. Data provenance refers to establishing the full contextual records of
a data item, such as its owners, custody, or location [
48
]. A blockchain could be used for
implementing data provenance because all transactions and blocks in the blockchain are
timestamped, and all data have some degree of data immutability.
Atomic contract execution. Thanks to Ethereum smart contracts, a user can define a
piece of code as a smart contract, and the code is automatically executed when invoked.
Furthermore, due to the massive degree of redundancy in a large blockchain system,
the execution of the contract is guaranteed to be fault tolerant. It is worth noting that
fault-tolerant code execution in a blockchain (via a smart contract) is a much more scalable
and robust method compared to that of traditional approaches [5,49]
Fault tolerance. Fault tolerance is implied in atomic contract execution. Even without
code execution, the data stored in the blockchain become fault-tolerant due to the massive
degree of redundancy in a blockchain system (i.e., every full node has a complete copy
of the blockchain). Unlike traditional fault tolerance, in a blockchain, only a single node
updates the system state (i.e., the blockchain) and executes the smart contract, which avoids
the need for highly complex coordination of multiple nodes that all update the system state
or execute the code.
Trust. Similar to the term “security”, trust is often used pervasively without a clear
definition. Here, we refer to trust as a high level of assurance of a system to its users [
50
].
A trustworthy system should exhibit properties such as dependability, security, and privacy.
In a blockchain, trust is guaranteed collectively by other properties.
Largely facilitated by HyperLedger, many publications have proposed solutions based
on private or consortium blockchains. At least some of these publications explicitly or
implicitly claim that their solutions ensure data immutability. As we demonstrated in
Section 3.2, there are two issues with using a permissioned blockchain with respect to
data immutability: (1) a permissioned blockchain is controlled by a single individual or an
organization, and as such, the owner could suspend or remove any node at any time; hence,
the consensus process is not decentralized; and (2) a permissioned blockchain typically has
a very small set of nodes, which lacks the scalability needed to enact a sufficient barrier for
Energies 2023,16, 6147 9 of 35
the modification of the existing blockchain, even if we could ignore the first issue. Hence,
data immutability and all properties (i.e., data provenance, censorship resistance, and trust)
that depend on data immutability cannot be assumed to exist in a permissioned blockchain,
as shown in Figure 2b.
Furthermore, a permissioned blockchain cannot ensure privacy due to its design, i.e.,
all users need permission to join the system. While a permissioned blockchain may claim to
have transparency because the blockchain can be made publicly visible, transparency is not
guaranteed because a permissioned blockchain could easily restrict access to the blockchain.
A permissioned blockchain may ensure security at the same level as a centralized
controlled system, but not at the level of a large public blockchain due to the lack of a data
immutability guarantee.
Quite interestingly, the mechanisms for fault tolerance and atomic contract execution
in a blockchain do not depend on decentralization. These mechanisms offer a new and
more robust way of achieving fault tolerance and atomic contract execution.
4. RQ1: Proposed Smart Grid Applications
In this section, we report our findings in relation to our first research question. We first
elaborate on the types of blockchain-based smart grid applications based on our taxonomy.
Then, we discuss individual studies.
4.1. Taxonomy of Blockchain-Based Smart Grid Applications
Existing systematic reviews classify blockchain applications in smart grids in several
different ways. We synthesize these reviews and propose a taxonomy of blockchain
applications, first based on whether or not the application is targeting the functional or non-
functional requirements, then based on the specific objectives of each type of requirement,
as shown in Figure 3.
Electric Vehicle
Charging and
Integration
Metering and
Billing
Wholesale/
Local/Retail
Energy Market
Security
Management
and Trading of
Renewable
Energy
Certificates &
Carbon Credits
Demand-Supply
Balance
(Demand Side
Response)
Equipment
Maintenance
Integration of
Renewable
Energy Sources
High Availability
Privacy
Energy Trading
Grid Operation
and Management
Data Exchange
and Logging
Functional
Applications
Non-functional
Applications
Interoperability
Figure 3. Taxonomy of blockchain-based smart grid applications.
Previous studies have found that blockchains could play an important role in almost
all smart grid operations and help satisfy both functional and non-functional requirements.
We divide functional blockchain applications in smart grids into four types: (1) grid
operation and management; (2) energy market at the retail, local, and wholesale levels;
(3) metering
and billing; and (4) management and trading of renewable energy certificates
and carbon credits. Blockchain technology is also a natural fit for improving the non-
Energies 2023,16, 6147 10 of 35
functional properties of the grid operation, including security, privacy, high availability,
and interoperability.
The four types of functional applications encompass the entire spectrum of smart
grid functions. Grid operation and management is the core function of both traditional
electric power grids and smart grids. In smart grids, there are two additional challenges:
(1) the integration of renewable energy sources into the power grid; and (2) electric vehicle
charging and integration. Furthermore, data exchange and logging become more urgent in
smart grids compared to traditional grids. By integrating with information and computer
technologies, the demand–supply balance could be more effectively accomplished, and the
efficiency and reliability of equipment maintenance could also be improved.
The energy market is another key function of power grids, which pertains to the
economic aspect of power grids. Typically, there are three levels of the energy market:
(1) retail;
(2) local
; and (3) wholesale. Metering and billing are related to the measurement
of consumption and charging of the customers, respectively, which are essential functions
of both traditional power grids and smart grids. Renewable certificates and carbon credits
mostly pertain to smart grids. The management and trading of these certificates and credits
could lead to wider adoption of renewable energy sources in electric power generation
and consumption.
4.1.1. Applications for Grid Operation and Management (GO)
Most blockchain-based applications are related to electric grid operation and manage-
ment. One particular characteristic of a smart grid is the presence of numerous renewable
energy sources (also referred to as resources) such as electricity generation based on wind
and solar energy. These sources typically generate a small amount of electricity sporad-
ically, and some of them are operated by individuals who are mostly consumers of the
electric power grid (often referred to as prosumers). Hence, it is a big challenge to integrate
these sources into a traditional electric power grid. A blockchain offers a practical way
of integrating these renewable energy sources into a traditional electric power grid via
energy trading.
Closely related to the integration of renewable energy sources, as well as the preva-
lence of electric vehicles, how to dynamically balance the demand and supply is another
huge challenge. One type of effort is referred to as demand-side management, which
aims to regulate electricity demand by altering consumer electricity usage patterns. De-
mand response is usually considered an energy flexibility program under demand-side
management. However, demand-side management and demand response are often used
interchangeably. More specifically, demand response may use pricing regulations and
incentives to induce changes in the electricity usage patterns of consumers so that the
peak demand is lowered. Again, this issue could be effectively addressed by blockchain-
mediated energy trading. To encourage consumers to participate in demand response,
non-fungible tokens could be used as a reward [29].
Electric power grids are mission-critical systems; hence, any issues with grid equip-
ment (such as substations and smart meters) must be quickly detected, diagnosed, and re-
solved. Traditionally, maintenance logistics are complex and labor-intensive and are often
limited by regional restrictions [
10
]. Blockchains can be used to streamline the mainte-
nance process.
The utility sector is typically heavily regulated by the government. To satisfy various
regulations, it may be necessary to keep all important operating data available for auditing
and reporting purposes. Blockchains are a natural fit for logging important data regarding
grid operations [24].
4.1.2. Applications for Energy Markets (EM)
Traditional wholesale, local, and retail electricity markets consist of many intermedi-
aries, such as regulators, banks, brokers, and trading agents, due to the complexity of the
market processes. Hence, it is very difficult for distributed renewable energy sources to join
Energies 2023,16, 6147 11 of 35
the market [
21
]. A blockchain offers a low-cost and more efficient platform for conducting
energy trading in energy markets without intermediaries.
4.1.3. Applications for Metering and Billing (MB)
Traditional metering and billing processes contain manual steps and also have low
transparency [
21
]. Blockchain technology could streamline processes, lower costs, and in-
crease transparency levels. In [
27
], a blockchain-based framework was proposed, as illus-
trated in Figure 4. The metering operator is in charge of measuring electricity usage (using
smart meters, for example). The metering operator works closely with the distribution
system operator, which is in charge of billing and issuing payments to electricity generators
and prosumers. A generator injects electricity into the grid. A consumer consumes elec-
tricity from the grid. A prosumer consumes electricity from the grid and also may inject
electricity into the grid. Typically, the proposed solutions for blockchain-based metering
and billing introduce custom tokens as the virtual currency for payment. A token-fiat cur-
rency exchange would need to be made available for consumers, prosumers, and generators
to make exchanges.
Generator
Metering
Operator
Distribution
System Operator
Electric Grid
Prosumer Consumer
Energy Flow
Cryptocurrency (Token) Flow Electricity Usage Measurement
Figure 4. Cryptocurrency-based electricity usage settlement.
4.1.4. Applications for Management and Trading of Renewable Energy Certificates and
Carbon Credits (RECCC)
A blockchain offers a platform for trading carbon credits and also for connecting
renewable energy sources with consumers who prefer to consume green energy. Smart
meters could be used to generate green (or renewable energy) certificates as proof that the
energy was generated from renewable sources.
4.1.5. Applications for Enhancing Non-Functional Properties of Grid Operations (NF)
Non-functional properties are desirable for all systems. Because a smart grid in-
corporates information and data communication technologies, it is more vulnerable to
cyberattacks. By using a blockchain, the data exchanged and logged can be made more
secure. Another need for smart grids is standardization and interoperability among the nu-
merous components. By using a major blockchain platform, such as Ethereum, it effectively
imposes a single standard for interaction, which is conducive to interoperability. Many
reviews mentioned the benefit of enhancing privacy using a blockchain. However, we have
strong reservations regarding the need for privacy in smart grids. Due to the financial
stakes, particularly for prosumers (i.e., those who invest in and operate renewable energy
sources), they must be vetted, and their reputation should be known to other partners.
Although high availability was rarely mentioned in the systematic reviews, we believe
this would be a highly desirable property that can be achieved by using a blockchain-based
solution. The way a blockchain achieves high availability (via decentralized consensus) is
drastically different from traditional fault tolerance, which makes the system much more
robust and elegant [5,49].
4.2. Systematic Reviews of Blockchain Applications for Smart Grids
We first discuss the group of articles that span all applications in smart grids. Then,
we outline those that focus on a single aspect of smart grid operations (such as energy
Energies 2023,16, 6147 12 of 35
trading) or a single aspect of blockchain applications (such as the use of smart contracts).
Finally, we discuss the articles that consider blockchains as one of the building blocks in
smart grid applications.
4.2.1. Comprehensive Reviews
The comprehensive reviews of blockchain applications for smart grids are summarized
in Table 2. These reviews grouped blockchain applications in different ways. Some studies
took a systematic approach, such as [
23
], in which the authors examined the applications
according to several different dimensions. However, most did not. Nevertheless, we were
able to match the applications with categories according to our taxonomy. The terminologies
used were sometimes also different. For example, renewable energy sources were also
referred to as renewable energy resources, and renewable energy was also referred to as
green energy.
Table 2.
Comprehensive reviews of blockchain-based smart grid applications. GO refers to grid
operation and management; EM refers to energy markets; MB refers to metering and billing; RECCC
refers to the management and trading of renewable energy certificates and carbon credits; and NF
refers to non-functional properties.
Review GO EM MB RECCC NF
Al-Abri et al. [9]
Allladi et al. [10]
Appasani et al. [11]
Baidya et al. [12]
Gawusu et al. [13]
Hasankhani et al. [14]
Henninger et al. [15]
Junaidi et al. [16]
Khan et al. [17]
Malla et al. [18]
Miglani et al. [19]
Musleh et al. [20]
Nour et al. [21]
O’Donovan et al. [22]
Wang et al. [23]
Yapa et al. [24]
In [
9
], blockchain applications were divided based on the target components: (1) mi-
crogrids and smart grids, which include blockchain-based applications for the energy
market, peer-to-peer trading, energy management, and carbon emission trading; (2) electric
vehicles, which concerns how to integrate electric vehicles into the grid with energy trading;
and (3) privacy protection of the users.
In [
10
], the blockchain applications included peer-to-peer energy trading, energy
trading in electric vehicles, secure equipment maintenance for smart grids, and security
and privacy in power generation and distribution.
In [
11
], blockchain-based applications were divided into energy management systems
via energy trading; applications for microgrids, which refers to distributed renewable
energy sources; applications for electric vehicles; and applications for advanced metering
infrastructure. Although this review also covered home automation, we do not consider it
an essential part of smart grids.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 13 of 35
In [
12
], smart contract-based energy trading was used for secure energy management
and the integration of distributed renewable energy sources into the grid, where energy
trading is used to help balance supply and demand. Furthermore, this paper also mentioned
secure micropayments for grid usage, grid data exchange, and provenance, as well as secure
equipment maintenance.
In [
13
], the reviewed blockchain applications were centered around integrating re-
newable energy sources into the grid with energy trading. This spans wholesale and local
energy markets, grid operation, incentivizing renewable energy sources, and balancing the
demand and supply.
In [
14
], blockchain applications were divided into those used for balancing demand
and supply, those used for integrating electric vehicles into the grid, those used for inte-
grating distributed renewable energy sources, those used for energy trading, those used for
carbon credit trading, and non-functional issues such as security, privacy, and interoper-
ability.
In [
15
], a blockchain-based architecture was proposed as the foundation to integrate
distributed renewable energy. Quite interestingly, the authors proposed to introduce
decentralized identity and verifiable credentials, both exploiting the data immutability
feature of blockchain technology to establish the trustworthiness of the participants while
protecting their privacy. The architecture covers peer-to-peer energy trading; energy
markets; the registration of grid assets, carbon credits, and green certificates; and billing,
grid management, and non-functional issues such as privacy and interoperability.
In [
16
], blockchain applications were grouped into eight categories. Some of these
categories are based on grid components, such as micrograms, smart grids, and electrical
vehicles, and others are based on the primary purpose of the application, such as demand
response (demand-side management), energy trading, energy management, integration
with distributed renewable energy, and energy trading.
In [
17
], four types of blockchain applications for smart grids were reviewed: (1) trans-
active energy, which is another term for blockchain-based energy trading; (2) integration
of electric vehicles into the grid, which is also achieved via energy trading; (3) demand
response, which is about balancing demand and supply in response to renewable energy
sources; and (4) non-functional issues such as privacy and security.
In [18], blockchain-based applications for smart grids were divided into six domains:
(1) energy trading; (2) power flow, which is about integrating distributed renewable energy
resources into the grid; (3) the integration of electric vehicles; (4) demand-side management,
which is about balancing demand and supply; (5) grid automation, which encompasses
various operations such as grid control and automation in the presence of renewable energy
sources, energy trading, and the management of green certifications; and (6) non-functional
issues such as security.
In [
19
], the reviewed blockchains applications included energy trading, demand-
response management (i.e., balancing demand and supply, which is part of grid operation),
billing and secure payments, the management of green certificates, and security.
In [
20
], blockchain applications were categorized as follows: (1) energy trading; (2) mi-
crogram operations (mostly about balancing demand and supply in the presence of renew-
able energy sources); and (3) security.
In [
21
], blockchain applications were divided into the following categories: (1) peer-
to-peer energy trading;
(2) wholesale markets
; (3) metering, billing, and retail markets;
(4) trading of renewable (i.e., green) energy certificates and carbon credits; (5) electric
vehicle charging; (6) grid operation and management; (7) investment in renewable energy
sources; and (8) security.
In [
22
], several types of blockchain applications for smart grids were mentioned with-
out any details, which included energy trading, electric e-mobility (i.e., electric vehicles),
metering and billing, grid management, green certification, and carbon trading. The au-
thors also mentioned investment, asset management, and home automation, which we do
not believe are essential components of smart grids.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 14 of 35
In [
23
], the role blockchain technology could play was examined in multiple dimen-
sions: (1) technical (using blockchain technology to reduce costs and improve efficiency),
economic (using blockchain technology for fair and secure energy trading), engineering
(using blockchain technology for safe and reliable grid data management), the environ-
ment (using blockchain technology to manage environmental pollution), and social (using
blockchain technology to implement a unified energy market). Although the classifications
are different, the discussed applications span all the categories that we proposed.
In [
24
], blockchain applications were divided into peer-to-peer energy trading, integra-
tion of distributed renewable energy resources, demand-side integration, grid automation,
distribution network management (mostly concerning equipment health monitoring, fault
detection and isolation, and periodic maintenance), and energy data management.
As can be seen in Table 2, all 16 reviews considered blockchain applications in grid
operation and management. Out of the 16 reviews, 14 reported blockchain applications
in some forms of energy markets; 8 reported blockchain applications in metering and
billing; 9 considered blockchain applications in the management and trading of green
certificates and carbon credits; and 12 reported blockchain applications in enhancing the
non-functional properties of smart grids.
4.2.2. Single-Subject Reviews
The single-subject reviews are summarized in Table 3regarding the types of applica-
tions that have been covered. One advantage of single-subject reviews is that the reviews
may be more in-depth compared to comprehensive reviews of a particular issue.
Table 3.
Single-subject reviews of blockchain-based smart grid applications. GO refers to grid
operation and management; EM refers to energy markets; MB refers to metering and billing; RECCC
refers to the management and trading of renewable energy certificates and carbon credits; and NF
refers to non-functional properties.
Review GO EM MB RECCC NF
Asif et al. [25]
Bandeiras et al. [26]
Bielecki et al. [27]
Chiarini et al. [28]
Kapassa et al. [29]
Karumba et al. [30]
Kirli et al. [31]
Thukral et al. [32]
Wu et al. [33]
Yan et al. [34]
In [
25
], blockchains, in conjunction with physical unclonable functions (PUFs), were
proposed to enhance the security of smart grids (referred to as the Internet of Energy),
where all devices are protected by a PUF.
In [
26
], energy trading at the local, retain, and wholesale levels was discussed. Blockchain-
based decentralized energy trading, as well as other approaches (centralized and distributed
trading), were reviewed.
In [
27
], studies on using cryptocurrency as a settlement method for energy trading
and electricity usage were reviewed. A common approach in these studies was to issue
a custom token as a form of payment. This review identified a number of benefits of
using cryptocurrency for settlement. Some benefits, such as enforcing self-balancing
and promoting pro-efficiency behaviors, can also be accomplished using traditional fiat
Energies 2023,16, 6147 15 of 35
currency. Other benefits are clearly unique to the blockchain-based solution, such as faster
settlement and lower transaction costs.
In [
28
], blockchain-based energy trading was thoroughly examined. Decentralized
energy trading is instrumental in facilitating the integration of renewable energy sources,
the balance of demand and supply, and the transformation of the energy market, as illus-
trated in Figure 3. The authors pointed out that decentralized energy trading is conducive
to the decentralization of energy production and energy distribution. However, the authors
also recognized that at the current stage, decentralized trading still depends on a centralized
energy infrastructure because of the volatility of renewable energy sources.
In [
29
], studies on demand response in the context of electric vehicles were reviewed.
There are two strategies in demand response: (1) time-based, and (2) incentive-based.
In time-based demand response, the demand is regulated via changing prices of electric-
ity. In incentive-based demand response, desirable consumer behavior is accomplished
via varying payments. A blockchain is used to help schedule electric vehicle charging
and facilitate energy trading between electric vehicles and network operators.
In [
30
], the barriers to adopting blockchain-based decentralized energy trading were
reviewed. The authors provided a concise summary of the activities of demand-side
management, which include improving the transparency and security of energy-efficient
markets and using electric vehicles as spinning energy reserves, in addition to demand-
response activities. The authors also outlined and envisaged a decentralized energy trading
system, where energy trading is used to enable renewable energy integration through-
out the entire grid operation (generation, transmission, distribution, and prosumption)
and improve various aspects of the grid operation.
In [
31
], the review focused on smart contract-based applications in smart grids. The au-
thors grouped the applications into two categories: (1) energy and flexibility trading; and
(2) distributed control. Energy and flexibility trading spans application areas including
peer-to-peer trading, peer-to-grid, automatic demand-side management, the electricity
market, and market design. Distributed control spans application areas including electric
vehicle management, battery management, grid management, energy management sys-
tems, smart homes, auditing and certification of the supply chain, virtual power plants,
and integration with the Internet of Things. These applications roughly correspond to grid
operation and management and energy markets according to our taxonomy.
In [
32
], blockchain-based energy trading was reviewed. Energy trading has been
used in microgrids, for demand response, for implementing optimal power flow, and for
integrating electric vehicles into the power distribution network.
In [
33
], the review of blockchain-based energy trading was approached from a unique
angle. The authors recognized blockchain technology as the enabling technology for the
development of both a peer-to-peer energy society and interoperative marketplaces. At the
technical level, a blockchain can be used for transaction control and for achieving energy
flexibility with multi-scale services. Furthermore, this review examined blockchain-based
energy trading from the perspective of the players that engage in energy trading and the
trading mechanisms, as shown in Figure 5. Four types of trading were identified based
on the players who participate in energy trading, which include energy trading between
prosumers, energy trading between community operators, energy trading between a
prosumer and multi-class energy players, and energy trading between federated prosumers
(forming a power plant) for trading with the traditional grid. Furthermore, decentralized
energy trading requires a pricing mechanism, a digital transaction loop, and an energy
delivery loop.
In [
34
], a blockchain-based demand-response framework was proposed. In the pro-
posed framework, demand response is implemented using an auction-based energy trading
scheme. A blockchain is used to address the concerns in centralized demand response by
(1) improving
the trustworthiness of the data; (2) increasing the privacy protection of the
bids submitted; (3) simplifying the demand-response settlement; (4) reducing demand-
response management costs; and (5) improving the supervision of demand-response pro-
Energies 2023,16, 6147 16 of 35
grams. Essential to the project’s goal is data immutability and trust. Unfortunately, a con-
sortium blockchain was proposed, which does not ensure data immutability and trust.
As can be seen in Table 3, out of the ten studies in this category, seven discussed the
adoption of blockchain technology to facilitate grid operation and management, seven
reported the application of blockchain technology in facilitating energy markets, one
reported on a blockchain application for metering and billing, and one reported on the
enhancement of the non-functional properties of smart grids.
Prosumer
Pricing
Mechanism
Digital Transaction
Loop
Energy Delivery
Loop
Energy Trading
Prosumer
Community
Operator
Community
Operator
Prosumer Multi-Class
Energy
Players
Power Grid
Prosumer
Prosumer
Prosumer
Federated Power
Plant Formation
Figure 5.
Four types of energy trading are identified based on the players who participate in
energy trading. Furthermore, decentralized energy trading requires a pricing mechanism, a digital
transaction loop, and an energy delivery loop.
4.2.3. Reviews of Blockchains and Other Technologies
In [
35
], the Internet of Things (IoT) and blockchain technology were identified as two
key pillars for the decentralization of smart grids. IoT technology is needed, as it enables
the components in a smart grid to collect the status of energy consumption, distribution,
and production and make immediate decisions when necessary. Blockchain technology
was proposed as the enabling technology for decentralized energy trading.
In [
36
], the security issues in smart grids were reviewed. Blockchain technology
was identified as a way to mitigate cyberattacks on smart grids, together with machine
learning and deep learning (and other techniques). A blockchain was proposed to enhance
identification and authentication (to prevent identity-based attacks), improve privacy
protection, and incentivize honest behavior.
In [
37
], blockchain and artificial intelligence were identified as two important technolo-
gies to facilitate the integration of prosumers into smart grids. A blockchain was proposed
as the enabling technology for decentralized energy trading, whereas artificial intelligence
was proposed to support power system operations. Within the field of artificial intelligence,
game theory and machine learning play important roles in smart grid applications.
In [
38
], blockchains and machine learning were regarded as two fundamental technolo-
gies for smart grids. A blockchain was used to provide a decentralized, trusted platform
for energy trading and providing various services. Machine learning was used to enable
intelligent smart grid operations. The authors mentioned several industry-led blockchain
projects, which we examine regarding their maturity levels in Section 7.
In [
39
], blockchain technology was identified as the technology of choice to enable
energy trading for next-generation energy systems (termed Energy System 4.0). Be-
sides blockchains, the Internet of Things, edge computing, big data, and artificial in-
telligence were identified as the other pillars of smart grids.
In [
40
], blockchain technology was listed in conjunction with a long list of other
technologies (such as fog computing, edge computing, cloud computing, and database
management platforms for large data) as the enabling technology for smart distribution
networks. The authors used blockchain technology to facilitate energy trading for vari-
ous purposes.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 17 of 35
In [
41
], blockchains and machine learning were used as the enabling technologies for
securing solar energy generation systems (i.e., photovoltaic systems). Machine learning
was used for data-driven cyberattack detection and mitigation. The authors provided a
concise but insightful summary of how blockchains can be used to secure solar energy
generation systems in different layers. More details are provided in Section 5.4.
To summarize, in addition to blockchain technology, the IoT, machine learning, ar-
tificial intelligence, edge computing, and big data have been identified as instrumental
technologies in advanced smart grids.
5. RQ2: Specific Roles that Blockchain Technology Plays in Smart Grid Applications
The reviews identified a variety of benefits that blockchain technology brings to smart
grid applications. We outline the most common and important ones in this section.
5.1. Data Immutability
Data immutability is the most prominent feature of blockchain technology. Hence,
it is the most often-cited benefit of using blockchain technology. Data immutability is
the foundation for the registration, management, and trading of green certificates [
21
].
A green certificate, by definition, is proof that the electricity is generated from renewable
sources, which requires both data provenance (i.e., a stronger form of data immutability)
and transparency.
Smart grid physical equipment security is also achieved via the data immutability
feature of blockchain technology. In [
25
], a blockchain was used to store information related
to the PUFs of the equipment and devices for authentication.
All applications based on smart contracts also depend on the immutability of the smart
contracts. If a smart contract can be altered, then no one would trust the smart contract
anymore.
Although it might not be obvious at first, all forms of energy trading depend on the
immutability of transaction records placed on the blockchain or stored via smart contracts.
Similarly, records regarding equipment maintenance, all forms of data exchange, and
logging depend on the immutability feature of the blockchain. Metering and billing also
involve the recording of important data that should be made immutable and the transaction
records cannot be tampered with either.
5.2. Transparency
Transparency means that all the logged data can be inspected by the public. One could
argue that transparency is the only way for the public to verify that the data placed on
the blockchain are immutable. Hence, without transparency, the data immutability claim
cannot be verified. Data immutability and transparency are the foundations for achieving a
degree of trust that is not achievable in traditional centralized systems. The applications that
depend on the data immutability feature, in fact, also depend on the transparency feature.
5.3. Smart Contracts
Smart contracts have been pervasively used in blockchain-based smart grid appli-
cations. Energy trading, which is the most often-cited blockchain-based smart grid ap-
plication, depends on smart contracts. Smart contracts depend on the data immutability
property of blockchain technology because if the smart contract can be modified, then the
trust in the contract will be severely compromised.
According to [
21
], smart contracts have been used for all the main steps in energy
trading, including (1) user and smart grid asset registration and authentication; (2) manage-
ment of bids and offers; (3) smart grid status monitoring (such as smart meter readings);
(4) matching of bids and offers
(i.e., market clearing); (5) payment transactions; (6) generat-
ing new contracts; (7) data logging; and (8) synchronization and coordination of activities.
It is worth noting that although a smart contract may execute arbitrary computations, it is
Energies 2023,16, 6147 18 of 35
common to include only a minimum amount of simple calculations in a smart contract due
to financial costs and security concerns [21,51].
In [
31
], a six-layer architecture for smart contracts in smart grids was proposed. How-
ever, the bottom three layers are blockchain internal operations. Hence, we only outline
the top three layers, which we believe offer the greatest insight into the smart contract
structure. The lowest layer consists of the native contracting functions, including financial
transactions and user registrations. The middle layer consists of the implementation of
energy management algorithms such as matching and control decisions. The highest layer
consists of bids, offers, device status, and grid signals. These two methods are roughly con-
sistent with each other. As illustrated in Figure 6, the eight steps in energy trading outlined
in [21] can fit into the three-layer architecture for smart contracts in the energy domain.
User and Asset
Registration and
Authentication
Management of
Bids and Offers
Smart Grid
Status
Monitoring
Matching Bids
and Offers
Payment
Transactions
Generating New
Contracts
Data Logging
Synchronization
and
Coordination
Implementation of Energy Management Algorithms
Native Contracting Functions
Bids, Offers, Device Status, & Grid Signals
Figure 6.
Main steps in energy trading can be roughly organized according to a 3-layer architecture.
5.4. Security
Traditional secure communication solutions inevitably require public key certificates
for server-side authentication. This is necessary because the clients want to verify that the
public key indeed belongs to the particular service provider, which requires a trusted third
party to verify the authenticity of the certificate. This, in turn, requires the existence of a
public key infrastructure. On the contrary, blockchain technology adopted a drastically
different design philosophy, where a user is identified by an address derived from the
user’s public key, and as long as the user can prove that it has the corresponding private
key, then the user is authenticated. It is worth noting that the user itself generates the
public–private key pairs, and the blockchain does not store any secret that belongs to any
user. This design is essential to achieving truly decentralized peer-to-peer computing
without relying on any trusted entity.
In a typical use case, a blockchain expects a user to generate a digital signature
corresponding to an address for authentication. Because the only one who possesses the
right private key can generate a valid digital signature corresponding to a given address,
this is a simple yet elegant way of performing authentication. The downside of this design
is that the users are burdened with keeping the private key secure in two respects: (1) the
user must prevent others from accessing the private key, and (2) the user must have a copy
of the private key to generate a digital signature when required. The theft of the private
key by anyone else would be equivalent to having lost all the funds associated with that
address. The loss of the private key would also mean that the user can no longer access the
funds (i.e., actually no one can).
Some reviews, such as [
25
], proposed to enhance blockchain security by incorporating
the physical unclonable functions (PUFs) of physical devices. The proposals for integrating
blockchains with PUFs require the use of a trusted node to keep a safe copy of the set of
inputs and expected outputs. We would like to point out that this goes directly against the
design principle of blockchain technology. If a particular node is so trustworthy that it can
be used to store the secrets of the users, then why not use that node to coordinate consensus
and other essential tasks? This is clearly unacceptable for decentralized computing.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 19 of 35
In [
41
], the authors elaborated on how blockchains can be used to secure solar energy
generation systems in different layers, as shown in Figure 7. At the hardware level, the data
immutability property of the blockchain can be used to ensure that only authorized hard-
ware components are used in the system, where the information regarding the authorized
hardware components and all related supply chains are stored in a blockchain. At the on-
board interface level, a lightweight blockchain can be used to secure the onboard network,
according to [
41
]. However, we are concerned with their approach, even if a lightweight
blockchain is developed because such a system can hardly ensure data immutability, which
is the foundation for ensuring security. Data storage security can be ensured by placing
important data in the blockchain due to the data immutability of the blockchain. Firmware
security can be facilitated by storing the hash of the correct version of the firmware in the
blockchain. Then, the actual firmware can be validated using the stored hash. Network
security can be achieved by blockchain-style device identification and smart contract-based
access control. In our prior work on securing sensing data processing and logging, we
implemented both methods [51,52].
Blockchain-Style
Device Identiification
Smart Contract-Based
Access Control
Network
Security
Hash-Based Firmware
Validation with
Blockchain
Firmware
Security
Storing Data in
Blockchain
Data Storage
Security
Onboard
Interface
Security
Onboard Network
Security with
Lightweight
Blockchain
PUF-Based Verification
with Blockchain
Component-Level
Authorization and
Supply-Chain
Management with
Blockchain
Hardware
Security
Figure 7. Blockchains could help improve all levels of security in smart grids.
5.5. Technical Inaccuracies in the Literature
Although some reviews presented blockchain technology accurately, many contained
various technical inaccuracies regarding blockchain technology. Virtually all the technical
inaccuracies are due to the pervasive use of permissioned blockchains in blockchain-based
smart grid applications.
A common mistake was equating blockchains to data immutability or considering
them tamper-proof. As we argued in Section 3.2, this is far from the case. Only large
public blockchains can ensure data immutability to a certain degree. A permissioned
blockchain, such as a private or consortium blockchain, cannot offer data immutability any
better than a traditional centralized system because the owner of such a blockchain may
arbitrarily exclude nodes and include new nodes during the consensus process, and as
such, the blockchain can be easily forked from one chain to another chain, thereby changing
the records on the ledger.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 20 of 35
Furthermore, a permissioned blockchain cannot be regarded as a decentralized system,
again, because such a system is controlled by the owner who can decide who may join
the system. Unfortunately, many papers claimed to provide decentralized platforms for
energy-related operations using a permissioned blockchain.
Privacy is often a cited reason for using a permissioned blockchain for smart grid
applications. While this approach may prevent the public from knowing the data stored in
the permissioned blockchain, the identities of the participants are known to the owner of
the permissioned blockchain, unlike a public blockchain, which offers pseudo-anonymity
to its users. If the owner is compromised, the privacy violation could be much worse
than when using a public blockchain because all public blockchains allow users to store
encrypted data in their transactions.
Another significant technical issue is the use of traditional distributed consensus algo-
rithms, particularly the practical fault-tolerance protocol (PBFT), for blockchain consensus.
As we discussed in Section 3.3, this is a big mistake.
6. RQ3: Guidelines to Help Decide Whether to Adopt a Blockchain-Based Solution
In this section, we first report the guidelines proposed in the literature and analyze
the issues in these guidelines. Then, we propose our own benefit-based guidelines.
6.1. Existing Guidelines
Two of the reviews [
18
,
21
] provided guidelines to help decide whether a blockchain-
based solution is appropriate for smart grid applications. While there are merits in both
guidelines, we identify several issues, which are discussed below.
In [
18
], four criteria were used to determine whether blockchain technology is a
good fit:
1. If multiple parties submit data, blockchain technology might be useful.
2. If a centralized trusted entity is required, blockchain technology is not a good fit.
3. If transparency is required, blockchain technology would be useful.
4.
If the data should be made immutable (i.e., tamper-proof), blockchain technology
would be useful.
It is unclear to us why the first criterion exists because a traditional database-based
system can certainly support multiple users that inject data into the system. The second
criterion is also unnecessary. The blockchain system could still be useful in some cases, even
if the application depends on a centralized trusted entity. The third criterion is relevant.
Transparency is typically considered a benefit of using blockchain technology because the
data on the blockchain are visible to the public (because anyone could join the system and
receive a copy of the blockchain in a public blockchain system). Although transparency may
be considered a criterion, it is not the most important one. The last criterion listed, i.e., data
immutability, is the most prominent feature of (public) blockchain technology, and, there-
fore, should be used as the number one criterion for deciding whether a blockchain is a
good fit.
Several other factors were identified to help decide the type of blockchain (i.e., blockchain
bridge, layer-2 blockchain, permissioned or permissionless blockchain) to be used. We list
these factors and comment on them below:
•
If interoperability is required, then a blockchain bridge should be used. We sup-
pose that interoperability means the use of multiple different blockchain systems.
Although it is indeed desirable to not be tied to a specific blockchain platform, we
caution against the use of a third-party bridge because the bridge implementation
must be decentralized on its own. Otherwise, the bridge could become a single point
of failure, and it may also become the most vulnerable component of the system.
Furthermore, despite the fact that there are thousands of cryptocurrency systems, only
Bitcoin and Ethereum are large enough to offer strong data immutability protection.
If Turing-Complete smart contracts are needed, then the only choice is Ethereum.
Hence, the choices are very limited.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 21 of 35
•
If high scalability is required, then a layer-2 blockchain solution such as Polygon
should be considered. Polygon runs an internal consensus based on the PBFT protocol
and relies on Ethereum for data immutability. Essentially, Polygon integrates a private
blockchain and a public blockchain. Most data are stored in the private blockchain.
This approach is sound. However, we do have concerns about the reliability and
robustness of the PBFT implementation because traditional distributed consensus has
its intrinsic issues due to its reliance on membership and multiple-round voting [43].
•
If the data placed on the blockchain should be kept confidential, then a permissioned
blockchain should be used. In our opinion, this recommendation is not sound. First,
if one needs data immutability, then a permissioned blockchain alone is not appropri-
ate because the permissioned blockchain cannot offer data immutability protection.
Second, data confidentiality can be easily satisfied by encrypting data using a per-
missionless blockchain system. A hybrid layer-2 blockchain solution may also be
appropriate.
The guidelines provided by [
21
] also offer a set of criteria to decide whether blockchain
technology would be a good fit, as well as some other factors related to the type of
blockchain to be used. We list the criteria and comment on them below:
•
If using a central operator would create a problem, blockchain technology could
be a good fit. Using a central operator has inherent problems because the operator
could constitute a single point of failure (hardware faults, software bugs, and operator
errors). Hence, decentralization is desirable. That being said, one should not use
decentralization for the sake of decentralization. One must consider whether other
benefits of the blockchain are desirable for the application.
•
If the transparency of the data is required, blockchain technology would be a good fit.
That being said, the factors outlined for determining the type of blockchain to be used
conflict with this criterion because a permissioned blockchain may not be available for
the public to inspect.
•
The last criterion concerns whether transactions are validated by many players. Al-
though this is a very interesting viewpoint related to whether blockchain technology
would be a good fit, we strongly disagree with using this criterion. The benefits
offered by blockchain technology are not simply due to the existence of many players
validating the transactions. The benefits result from several innovative mechanisms
combined. The most important of all is the decentralized consensus algorithm—proof
of work. These innovative mechanisms together create a barrier to changing the data
placed on the blockchain, which is the foundation for achieving data immutability.
The first additional factor to consider when deciding the type of blockchain to be
used is whether all players (that validate transactions) are known. We suppose that
this criterion means that all miners (or validators) are pseudo-anonymous, like those in
Bitcoin and Ethereum. If not all players are known, then it is recommended to use a
permissionless blockchain.
The second additional factor is whether all players (that validate transactions) are
trusted. If so, blockchain technology is not recommended. In our opinion, the question
should have been whether any of the players are trusted. The design principle of blockchain
technology is decentralization, that is, it does not use any trusted entity.
The third additional factor is a follow-up question about whether or not public verifi-
ability is required (only if the answer to the second question is no). If public verifiability
is required, then a public permissioned blockchain is recommended; otherwise, a private
permissioned blockchain is recommended. We have a serious issue with the differenti-
ation of permissioned blockchains into public or private. By definition, a permissioned
blockchain is controlled by an individual or by an institution, or a group of them. As such,
the owner(s) would decide what information to disclose, if at all. To achieve truly public
verifiability, a permissionless blockchain must be used.
As we argued previously, although the idea of looking at who is validating the trans-
actions sounds interesting, it completely misses the main goal of blockchain technology.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 22 of 35
Other than the issues we have pointed out, in both guidelines, the identified criteria
are chained together, and a blockchain is recommended if all the criteria are satisfied. In fact,
blockchain technology could be useful even if any of the criteria are met.
6.2. Proposed Guidelines
In this section, we propose guidelines for deciding whether blockchain technology
should be adopted. Instead of criteria-based guidelines, our guidelines are based on
the desirable blockchain features we outlined in Section 3.4. We intentionally omit two
composite blockchain features, namely security and trust, because they are based on other
specific features. The guidelines are illustrated in Figure 8.
Permissionless Blockchain
Data
Provenance
Data
Immutability
Transparency
Censorship
Resistance
Privacy
Desirable
Desirable Desirable Desirable
Desirable
Atomic Contract
Execution
Fault Tolerane
Permissioned Blockchain
Desirable
Desirable
Desirable
Desirable
Figure 8. Feature-based guidelines for blockchain adoption.
If any of the following features are desirable, a permissionless blockchain may be
used: (1) data immutability; (2) data provenance; (3) censorship resistance; (4) transparency;
and (5) privacy. Regardless of whether one finds the above list of features desirable (or
essential), if one is looking for a robust solution for fault tolerance (i.e., high availability)
and atomic contract execution, either a permissionless or permissioned blockchain may
be used.
7. RQ4: Maturity Levels of the Proposed Blockchain-Based Solutions
We propose a scale for evaluating the maturity levels of blockchain applications using
the following five stages: (1) conceptual (L1); (2) testing with simulation (L2);
(3) testing
with experiments in a lab setting (L3); (4) pilot testing in the field (L4); and (5) practical usage
(L5), as shown in Figure 9. For the conceptual stage, the requirements of the application
and the potential benefits have been analyzed without any validation. For the simulation
stage, the feasibility and benefits of the proposed application have been validated using
simulation. Because there could be a large gap between the simulation and the actual
environment, the simulation results should be taken with caution. For the lab experiment
stage, the proposed solution has been validated using a private node or a small set of
nodes to emulate an actual blockchain and grid environment. For the pilot testing stage,
actual users and/or the components of the electrical grid (such as a microgrid) have been
involved. For the practical use stage, the proposed solution has been used in some regions
in an actual grid.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 23 of 35
L1: Conceptual
L2: Simulation Validation
L3: Lab Experimental Testing
L4: Pilot Testing
L5: Practical Use
Maturity
Scale
Figure 9. The proposed five-level maturity scale.
7.1. Maturity Levels Reported in the Literature
The systematic reviews rarely indicated the maturity levels of the included studies.
We use the maturity levels indicated in [
16
] as a reference to gauge the overall maturity
levels of the research on using blockchains to develop smart grid solutions. The authors’
classification of the maturity levels is slightly different from ours. We regard conceptual,
case study, and theoretical as L1; simulation as L2; experimental as L3; and real-world case
studies as L4. No practical use cases were reported. For some studies, no maturity level
was determined, which was excluded from our calculation. Table 4shows the maturity
levels of the projects in each application category.
Table 4. Maturity levels of blockchain applications.
Application Category LI L2 L3 L4 L5
Demand Response (12) 3 9 0 0 0
Energy Trading (49) 4 40 4 1 0
Electric Vehicles (22) 0 22 0 0 0
Microgrid (18) 3 14 1 0 0
Smart Grid (11) 2 9 0 0 0
Renewable Energy (3) 0 1 2 0 0
Energy Management (3) 0 3 0 0 0
Total (118) 12 (10.2%) 98 (83.1%) 7 (5.9%) 1 (0.8%) 0
To provide a visual of the current maturity levels of academic-led projects, we show
the distribution of the maturity levels of these projects in Figure 10. As can be seen, most of
the projects are in the early development stages.
Figure 10. The distribution of maturity levels of academic-led blockchain projects for smart grids.
7.2. Maturity Levels of Industry-Led Projects
Several systematic reviews [
13
,
21
,
31
,
38
] included a list of industry-led projects. We
investigated the current status of these projects and report the findings here. We separate
Energies 2023,16, 6147 24 of 35
the projects into two categories: (1) active as of the writing of this paper; and (2) inactive
as of the writing of this paper. We identified 10 active projects and 12 inactive projects.
Although there were several more inactive projects mentioned in the literature, we chose
to omit them due to a lack of specific technical information and supporting websites in
English for the projects.
As can be seen in this section, only a single project was ranked at the highest matu-
rity level, L5. This project takes a very different approach from most other projects by
encouraging businesses to invest in more energy-efficient operations and offering them
Ethereum-based custom tokens as a form of incentive. In this project, a blockchain is
not used to directly help solve problems in smart grid operations, and it uses the biggest
blockchain system that supports smart contracts. This is the main reason why it is successful
and sustainable.
7.2.1. Active Projects
The active projects are summarized in Table 5. The determination of the activeness
and maturity level of each project was mostly based on the projects’ websites.
Table 5. Maturity levels of active industry-led blockchain projects.
Project Purpose Website Maturity Level
EFFORCE Incentivize energy
efficiency
https://efforce.io, accessed
on 1 August 2023 L5
Greeneum Green certificate trading
https:
//www.greeneum.net/,
accessed on 1 August 2023
L4
Powerledger Energy trading
https:
//www.powerledger.io,
accessed on 1 August 2023
L3+
Energy Web Blockchain-based smart
grid
https:
//www.energyweb.org,
accessed on 1 August 2023
L3
Block-Z Renewable energy
matching
https://www.blok-z.com,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L3
GridSingularity Energy exchange https://gridsingularity.com,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L3
SolarCoin Incentivize solar energy https://solarcoin.org/,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L3
NRGcoin Incentivize green energy https://nrgcoin.org,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L3
Presume Energy data management https://prosume.io,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L1
The EFFORCE project has a dedicated website [
53
]. The goal of the project is to create
a blockchain-based platform for improving energy efficiency. The project’s white paper [
54
]
claims that the company was co-founded by Steve Wozniak, and in its 8 years of operation,
it has saved 2000 clients over USD 700 million. The project awards its clients tokens if they
improve energy efficiency in their operations (enforced by a smart contract). The EFFORCE
tokens are ERC-20-compliant tokens running on an Ethereum blockchain. Based on the
reputation of Ethereum and the savings stated in the white paper, we rank this project at L5.
The approach taken by the project is sound both from a technical and business perspective.
Unlike many other projects, this project avoids recreating the wheel and uses the largest
public blockchain that supports smart contracts.
The Greeneum project has a dedicated website [
55
]. The goal of the project is to enable
carbon credits and green certificate trading using blockchain technology. Unfortunately,
Energies 2023,16, 6147 25 of 35
no technical details are disclosed. One would have to complete a form to request a white
paper. From the blogs posted on the website, the project is clearly active. Also, according
to the website, it has conducted a successful pilot program in Israel. Hence, we rank this
project at maturity level L4.
The Powerledger project aims to create a blockchain-based peer-to-peer energy trading
platform in Vietnam. The project has a dedicated website [
56
] and offers a white paper
(last updated in 2019) to explain the project’s goal and technical design [
57
]. No GitHub
repository could be found for the source code of the project. Hence, the technical content
of the project cannot be examined directly. According to the white paper, this project uses
a hybrid approach, where both Ethereum and a consortium blockchain are used together.
Ethereum is used to support the management of the project’s custom tokens, and the
consortium blockchain is used to support the smart contract and transaction operations
via state channels. In theory, this combination offers extremely high throughput while
preserving trust at the Ethereum level. The project goal, as stated in the white paper, is to
transition to a public proof-of-state blockchain. Due to the lack of access to the project’s
source code, it is difficult to assess its maturity level. It is safe to speculate that the maturity
level would be at least at L3, but it could be at a higher maturity level.
The Energy Web Project has an active website [
58
] and a GitHub repository [
59
].
The goal of the Energy Web project is to accelerate energy transition using blockchain
technology. Example applications include managing user assets; facilitating data exchange;
and registering, tracking, and trading low-carbon products. The project started in early
2017 and the application-side development appears to be active. The design is reasonably
well-documented in a white paper [
60
]. Instead of using a large public blockchain such as
Bitcoin or Ethereum, the project plans to develop a permissioned chain using a validator-
based consensus algorithm for faster consensus. Unfortunately, this design has two serious
issues: (1) it is a centralized control system rather than a decentralized system; and (2) the
claim about the immutability of its smart contracts is unfounded because the proposed
design does not have any mechanism to prevent the owner of the project from making
changes to the smart contract and the blockchain. According to the project’s Telegram
channel announcement, the development of the proposed energy web chain is still in the
alpha testing phase. Nevertheless, it is an active project at the L3 level.
Block-Z is a startup company specializing in renewable energy matching based on
blockchain technology. The company’s website [
61
] does not disclose any technical details
regarding the underlying blockchain technology. One of the advertised products is a
managed blockchain, which is concerning because a managed blockchain is, by definition,
a permissioned blockchain. The usefulness of a permissioned blockchain is very limited
because it does not offer data immutability or a higher level of trust compared to traditional
centralized control systems. From the company’s GitHub repository [
62
], it appears that it
is associated with the Energy Web project. The project appears to be active. Although the
website does not contain sufficient information regarding its maturity level, we speculate
that it is at L3 due to its association with the Energy Web project.
The GridSingularity project [
63
] uses Energy Web’s chain as the underlying blockchain
layer for energy exchange. The technical details are provided on a separate website [
64
].
The GridSingularity project announced that it has recently received a new European Union
research and development fund to further its mission. Hence, this is an active project and we
rank it at the L3 level.
The SolarCoin project aims to incentivize the use of solar energy, where solar users
can register and claim tokens offered by a custom-made blockchain called SolarCoin.
The project has a dedicated website [
65
] and SolarCoin’s legacy source code is available on
GitHub (https://github.com/solarcoin, accessed on 1 August 2023). In 2021, the project
decided to switch to Energy Web’s chain according to an online article [66] and SolarCoin
ceased operation. Hence, we would rank the maturity level of the SolarCoin project the
same as that of the Energy Web Foundation project at L3.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 26 of 35
The NRGcoin is a project that aims to promote the consumption of green energy
(the user would be awarded 1 NRGcoin per kWh consumed) and reward prosumers
for generating green energy. The project has a dedicated website [
67
]. According to
the documents posted on the website, NRGcoin uses custom tokens based on Ethereum
smart contracts. The project grew out of the AI lab of the Vrije Universities, Brussels [
68
].
Although the idea is compelling, it does not appear that the project has been embraced by
the energy industry. Hence, we rank the project at the L3 level.
The Prosume project aims to offer a blockchain-based energy data management plat-
form. The project has a dedicated website [
69
], which provides a presentation deck [
70
].
According to the deck, the project will provide decentralized governance and ensure data
immutability. Unfortunately, no further technical details are provided, let alone the project
source code. Hence, we can only speculate that the project is still in the conceptual stage
(i.e., L1).
To show the overall distribution of the maturity levels of active industry-led blockchain
projects for smart grids, we plot the distribution of their maturity levels in Figure 11. As can
be seen, industry-led blockchain projects have attained higher levels of maturity compared to
academic-led projects. That being said, there are still very few projects (in fact, only one) that
have been deployed for practical use.
Figure 11. The distribution of maturity levels in industry-led blockchain projects for smart grids.
7.2.2. Inactive Projects
The inactive projects are summarized in Table 6. The websites for some of these projects
are still available. However, the websites for other inactive projects are no longer accessible.
As a result, we could find little information regarding the latter projects. Hence, the maturity
levels of some inactive projects cannot be determined due to a lack of information.
Table 6. Maturity levels of inactive industry-led blockchain projects.
Project Purpose Website Maturity Level
Brooklyn
microgrid
Solar energy
marketplace
https://www.brooklyn.energy,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L4
Electron Digital energy
marketplace
https://electron.net, accessed on
1 August 2023 L4
Electrify Energy trading https://electrify.asia/, accessed
on 1 August 2023 L4
PylonCoin Blockchain for the
energy industry
https://pylon.network/,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L3
Energies 2023,16, 6147 27 of 35
Table 6. Cont.
Project Purpose Website Maturity Level
Enerchain Energy trading
https://enerchain.ponton.de/
index.php, accessed on 1 August
2023
L3
WePower Energy trading https://wepower.network/,
accessed on 1 August 2023 L1
Nimray
Incentivize solar energy
https:
//nimray.com/index.html,
accessed on 1 August 2023
L1
Innogy Energy market http://www.innogy.com/,
accessed on 1 August 2023 n.a.
GridPlus Energy trading n.a. n.a.
Share and
Charge
Electric vehicle
charging n.a. n.a.
Bankymoon Electric vehicle
charging n.a. n.a.
Energy Labs
Decentralized
autonomous energy
communities
n.a. n.a.
The aim of the Brooklyn Microgrid project was to create a locally-generated solar
energy marketplace. The project has a dedicated website [
71
]. The website discloses
less information compared to the Powerledger project. Based on the fact that neither the
provided link for the parent company who sponsored this project, LO3 Energy [
72
], nor
the website that is supposed to contain more technical information are accessible or active,
we can conclude that the project is no longer active. According to [
73
], which reported the
Brooklyn Microgrid and TransActive Grid projects as case studies (the Brooklyn Microgrid
project was running on top of the TransActive Grid platform), we rank the project at L4
when it was active.
The goal of the Electron project was to create a digital energy marketplace. The project
has a dedicated website [
74
]. The current website does not reveal any technical details.
According to [
13
], Electron used Ethereum and had been used to support energy trading
for a demand-side response to manage energy data assets and improve smart meter data
privacy. According to the timeline provided in [
74
], the Electron project started in 2015 and
concluded in 2020. It appears that the project is no longer active. Nevertheless, the website
listed several pilot projects that have been completed. Therefore, we rank the maturity
level of this project at L4.
The Electrify project has a dedicated website [
75
]. The website claims that peer-
to-peer energy trading is powered by blockchain technology. According to the website,
the company conducted a successful initial coin offering in 2018. Furthermore, the website
reports that a pilot for peer-to-peer energy trading with 15 participants was successfully
conducted in the first quarter of 2019. Unfortunately, no technical details about blockchain
technology are disclosed. The most recent news posted on the website was on 18 May 2021.
There is no indication that the blockchain-based project is active as of 2023. Nevertheless,
we rank the maturity level of the project at L4 (when it was active).
The Pylon Network Blockchain (i.e., PylonCoin) was positioned to be the first open-
source blockchain designed for the energy sector. The project has a dedicated website [
76
],
and its source code is available on GitHub [
77
]. The project has a white paper [
78
] that
elaborates on the project’s goal and its high-level design specification. From the block
explorer of PylonCoin [
79
], it is clear that the blockchain has ceased operation because
the latest block was created on 13 December 2021, and the last few blocks each contain a
Energies 2023,16, 6147 28 of 35
single transaction. Hence, we conclude that this project is at the L3 level, and it is no longer
in operation.
The Enerchain project has a dedicated website [
80
]. The project’s goal was to enable
and promote decentralized energy trading. The website claims that Enerchain 1.0 went live
in May 2019. The website contains strong evidence that the project was once very active,
with a proof-of-concept demonstration and sponsorship of hackathons. However, few
technical details have been disclosed. The project claimed to use the WRMHL blockchain
framework, which appears to be a permissioned blockchain. There is no strong evidence
that the project is still active. We rank this project at L3.
The WePower Network project intended to create a blockchain platform for decentral-
ized energy trading. However, the project’s website is no longer active [
81
]. The GitHub
source-code repository [
82
] only contains a collection of smart contracts. The CoinMarket-
Cap website is still tracking WePower, but its total market cap is less than USD 170,000, far
less than what the project received in its initial coin offerings, as reported in [
83
]. Hence,
it is clear that this project is no longer active, and we rank this project at the conceptual
level (L1).
The Nimray project aimed to promote solar energy with a blockchain-based platform.
It has a dedicated website [
84
]. According to the website, the company conducted an initial
coin offering during the last two months of 2019. It is unclear if the initial coin offering
was successful. From the posts on the website, it appears that all activities occurred before
the initial coin offering. There is no evidence that the project conducted any pilots. Hence,
we suspect that the project is no longer active, and the maturity level is most likely at the
L1 stage.
According to [
13
], Innogy once announced plans to develop a blockchain-based energy
market. A search for “Innogy blockchain” returned several news reports published in 2018.
Innogy was acquired by another German company, E.ON, in 2018–2019. The company
website for Innogy [
85
] is automatically directed to E.ON. Since the latter is in German, no
relevant information can be extracted. Due to the lack of concrete evidence for any real
outcomes, we conclude that the project is no longer active.
The GridPlus project was mentioned in [
38
] as a platform for decentralized energy
trading. Unfortunately, our check of the referred website [
86
] showed that the project is no
longer active. The website is now about hardware wallets for cryptocurrencies, and it has
nothing to do with energy trading. We do not have any information about whether this
project was once active.
The Share and Charge project was mentioned in [
31
,
38
]. The project was supposed
to develop a platform for electric vehicle charging. The referenced website is no longer
available. Apparently, the project is no longer active. It is unclear whether the project was
once active.
The goal of the Bankymoon project was to allow electricity consumers to pay for elec-
tricity using Bitcoin. Unfortunately, the project’s website [
87
] is not accessible. Apparently,
the project is no longer active.
The Energy Labs project was listed in [
13
] as one of the many projects that would
incorporate blockchain technology. The stated goal of the project was to create decentralized,
autonomous energy communities. Unfortunately, the project’s website [
88
] is no longer
available. Hence, we conclude that the project is no longer active.
8. RQ5: Open Research Issues
Most reviews included a section on open research issues or the limitations of blockchain-
based solutions for smart grids. While the open research issues were identified from differ-
ent perspectives, they were more or less consistent with each other. The limited throughput
of large public blockchains (such as Bitcoin) and the delay in confirming a transaction
were the most well-identified issues. Some studies also singled out privacy and security
issues, whereas others pointed out the financial costs of running smart contracts. One of
the studies [
30
] was dedicated to discussing the potential issues of adopting blockchain-
Energies 2023,16, 6147 29 of 35
based solutions in smart grids, and the authors essentially provided a superset of the
open research issues. Hence, in this section, we focus on analyzing the issues identified
in [
30
]. In [
30
], the issues were referred to as the barriers to adopting blockchain-based
decentralized energy trading. The barriers (i.e., open research issues) were divided into
technical, administrative, standardization, and economic barriers.
Four technical barriers were identified, including scalability, privacy, security, and in-
teroperability. It is well known that the throughput in terms of transactions settled per
second is very limited in blockchain systems compared to traditional centralized systems.
The limited throughput is typically referred to as the scalability problem of blockchain tech-
nology. Many so-called lightweight blockchain systems have been proposed. Unfortunately,
the limited throughput is intrinsic to blockchain design because a decentralized system
must incorporate self-enacted protection mechanisms. The security and trust of blockchains
primarily rely on two closely related innovations: (1) decentralized consensus, where all
nodes maintain an identical copy of the transaction history (referred to as the ledger);
and (2) a self-enacted barrier to prevent changing the data on the ledger. Achieving these
goals would require the participation of a large number of independent nodes and sufficient
time for reaching a consensus. It turns out that the cost of reaching a consensus constitutes
a barrier to modifying the data on the ledger, which is the foundation of the security of a
blockchain system. If a consensus can be reached very easily with very little effort and time
(which means high throughput of the system), then what would prevent some adversary
from changing the data on the ledger? Without security and trust, the proposed lightweight
system would be useless because the strongest incentive to use a blockchain-based solution
is to render the data placed on the ledger immutable (i.e., tamper-proof).
Nevertheless, the limited system throughput indeed imposes a barrier to adopting
blockchain technology if one wishes to store all data on the blockchain. Fortunately, many
effective solutions have been proposed to work around the issue of limited throughput.
A common theme in these solutions is to store the raw data generated and exchanged in the
smart grid outside the blockchain, for example, in the Inter-Planetary File System (IPFS),
which is a decentralized replicated file system, and to only record the fingerprint of a batch
of data on the blockchain [
51
]. This way, the throughput demand on the blockchain is
significantly reduced, as shown in Figure 12. Another solution is to use what is referred to
as a layer-2 blockchain, such as Polygon.
Smart Grid IPFS Blockchain
Data
IPFSHash
Throughput Demand
Would Fit Blockchain
Capacity
Throughput Demand
Would Exceed
Blockchain Capacity
Figure 12.
The throughput demand can be drastically reduced by storing the fingerprint of each batch
of raw data (such as the IPFS hash) on the blockchain while saving the original raw data off-chain,
such as in an IPFS.
We do not think privacy would constitute a barrier to adopting blockchain technology
in smart grids because compared to the traditional (centralized) approach, blockchain
technology is equipped to provide much better privacy protection for its users. It is unclear
why it is desirable to offer a privacy level beyond the pseudo-anonymity provided by
blockchain technology.
It is always a challenge to develop a secure system, regardless of whether a blockchain
is used. However, a blockchain (actually, only a large public blockchain system) offers a
unique property—data immutability (i.e., the data are tamper-proof)—that is not possible
in traditional centralized approaches. This property can be used to store critical information
about the security of a system, such as authentication data. Previously, we demonstrated
Energies 2023,16, 6147 30 of 35
that by using a blockchain-based sensor identification and authentication scheme for
fossil fuel power plants, a large array of identity-based cyberattacks can be mitigated [52].
Hence, we do not regard security as a technical barrier to adopting a blockchain. In fact, a
blockchain would offer developers a suite of primitives to build a more secure application
compared to traditional approaches.
Interoperability could be an issue if one does not wish to be tied to a particular
blockchain platform. That being said, if smart contracts must be used, then Ethereum is
the only large public blockchain that offers this feature. As a side note, we have strong
concerns about the use of private or consortium blockchains (such as Hyperledger) if data
immutability is desired by the application.
The administrative barrier refers to the uncertainties of governmental regulations,
particularly in different countries. There is also a lack of standards regarding blockchain
applications in smart grids. However, many efforts are currently taking place toward stan-
dardization. For example, the IEEE standards association has formed an IEEE blockchain
conformity assessment program that aims to develop blockchain and distributed ledger
standards. That being said, we caution against developing standards prematurely without
first gaining sufficient experience, considering that the maturity levels of blockchain-based
solutions for smart grids are rather low.
The economic barrier mentioned in [
30
] is related to concerns about the block reward
model in Bitcoin. In our opinion, this concern is misplaced because large public blockchains
such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have proven to grow in terms of the number of mining nodes
(i.e., the built-in incentive mechanism is working), and as such, smart grid applications do
not need to worry about not being able to attract miners. That being said, the increase in
the value of ETH makes the transaction fee in Ethereum more costly, which could constitute
an economic barrier to the adoption of blockchain technology due to the high cost.
9. Discussion
In this section, we summarize our findings, acknowledge the limitations of the current
study, and provide some future prospects.
9.1. Findings
This umbrella review was guided by five research questions. The first research question
concerned the types of blockchain-based smart grid applications. The existing systematic
reviews rarely used a systematic method to classify these applications. To address this
issue, we proposed a taxonomy for these applications, first, by differentiating them based
on whether the application’s focus was on functional or non-functional aspects, and then by
the specific functions or perspectives that the application aimed to implement or enhance.
Blockchain-based applications have been developed to address functional needs in all
aspects of smart grid operations, including grid operation and management, energy markets
(wholesale, local, and retail), metering and billing, and the management and trading
of green certificates and carbon credits. Blockchain-enabled decentralized peer-to-peer
energy trading has been pervasively used to support energy markets and grid operations.
In particular, energy trading has been found to be a practical method for integrating
renewable energy sources into the traditional grid, and it has also been found to be essential
for demand-side response management to help balance demand and supply. Additionally,
energy trading has been found to be critical for addressing the issues in electric vehicle
charging and the integration of electric vehicles as an energy source.
The second research question concerned the roles that the blockchain plays in smart
grid applications. We synthesized the findings by identifying the most prominent benefits
that blockchain technology could bring to these applications, namely data immutability,
transparency, smart contracts, and security. We also took the opportunity to highlight
several common technical inaccuracies that were pervasive in the blockchain literature.
The most common inaccuracy was equating blockchains to data immutability. It is impor-
tant to understand data immutability is not solely achieved via the use of cryptography.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 31 of 35
Although a transaction protected by a digital signature cannot be changed without being
detected, an adversary could create a new fork off the main chain and exclude one or
more particular transactions in the new fork. A public blockchain has a built-in mecha-
nism to enact a barrier to prevent such an attack (typically referred to as the 51% attack
or the double-spending attack). The larger the number of nodes that participate in the
mining competition, the higher the barrier. The proof-of-work decentralized consensus
algorithm, in conjunction with a network consisting of a large number of independent min-
ing nodes, is what it takes to ensure data immutability. Hence, the use of any permissioned
blockchain would mean that data immutability cannot be guaranteed because the owner
could arbitrarily include or exclude nodes from the system.
The third research question concerned the guidelines used to decide whether a
blockchain-based solution could be used to address the needs of smart grids. Two
systematic reviews included a section on guidelines. While each set of guidelines had
merits, we noticed some technical inaccuracies in these guidelines. For example, one of
the criteria was data immutability; if data immutability is desirable, then a blockchain
is recommended. Unfortunately, subsequent criteria were provided to help decide
whether a permissioned or permissioned blockchain should be used. As we pointed out
several times in this article, data immutability cannot be guaranteed by a permissioned
blockchain. Hence, we proposed a set of benefit-based guidelines to address the issues
found in the existing guidelines.
The fourth research question concerned the maturity levels of blockchain-based appli-
cations. Our findings revealed that most blockchain-based projects were in the preliminary
stages. Despite the large number of blockchain-based projects reported in the literature,
they did not prove to be practical or sustainable. To classify the blockchain-based projects
for smart grids, we introduced a five-stage maturity-level scale: conceptual (L1); simulation
(L2); experiments in a lab setting (L3); pilot testing in the field (L4); and practical usage (L5).
We were able to identify only a single project at an L5 maturity level. Furthermore, more
than half of the industry-led projects reported in the literature are no longer active. This
demonstrated that the proposed projects were not adequately self-sustainable, i.e., once the
grant had been spent, the project ended.
The fifth research question concerned the open research issues in developing blockchain-
based smart grid applications. Several common issues with blockchain technology have
been identified, including the limited throughput, the energy cost of reaching a decentralized
consensus, and the financial cost of running smart contracts. One of the systematic reviews we
included in our study was dedicated to identifying barriers to adopting blockchain technology
in smart grid applications. The barriers were essentially another way of expressing open
research issues. We analyzed the barriers identified in the aforementioned paper and provided
our opinions.
9.2. Limitations of Our Study
The depth of each topic covered in this umbrella review could have been deeper.
For each research question, the review could have been strengthened by conducting a
separate comprehensive literature search and identifying recent studies that had not yet
been included or adequately discussed in the comprehensive reviews we considered.
Furthermore, this review could have been enhanced by conducting a thorough search of
industry-led blockchain projects for smart grids. Although we included some industry-led
projects, it is likely that we omitted some recent efforts. Yet another task that could have
been carried out was a compilation and analysis of smart contracts used for blockchain
applications in smart grids, as smart contracts play a predominant role in blockchain-based
smart grid applications. Such a task could be instrumental in the future development of
blockchain applications in smart grids.
Energies 2023,16, 6147 32 of 35
9.3. Future Prospects
Layer-2 blockchains, such as Polygon and Energy Web, are becoming an industry
trend. These blockchains rely on Ethereum smart contracts as the foundation for a higher-
layer blockchain operation, such as determining the set of validators and a particular
application-specific blockchain. In layer-2 blockchains, transactions can be performed
faster and with fewer costs compared to Ethereum or Bitcoin, which addresses a major
concern of blockchain technology, i.e., its low efficiency as reflected by the small number of
transactions per section. That being said, the security, trustworthiness, and reliability of
layer-2 blockchains should be further analyzed.
Furthermore, the integration of other digital technologies, such as the Internet of
Things and machine learning, could also lead to more practical and sustainable smart
grid applications.
10. Conclusions
In this article, we presented an umbrella review of blockchain-based smart grid
applications. Although umbrella reviews are reasonably popular in the field of medicine
and healthcare, they are rarely seen in other fields. In this article, we demonstrated that
performing an umbrella review could help us gain deeper insights into how to develop
successful blockchain-based smart grid applications, considering that there are already
numerous systematic reviews on this topic. These systematic reviews were performed from
the authors’ own perspectives. By synthesizing the findings of these reviews, we were able
to present a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of this field.
Prior to reporting our findings, we provided a concise and authoritative descrip-
tion of blockchain technology in a separate section because many technical inaccuracies
permeated much of the literature. The most problematic mistake was the claim that data im-
mutability can be achieved by all forms of blockchains, i.e., public, private, and consortium
blockchains. In fact, this is far from the truth. Even a small public blockchain could easily
be compromised by a double-spending attack, let alone private or consortium blockchains.
We hope this umbrella review will guide future research in blockchain-based applications.
One particular finding in this study was that layer-2 blockchains, such as Polygon and
Energy Web, appear to address the limited throughput problem of traditional blockchains
while preserving the highly desirable properties of data immutability. Layer-2 blockchains
are becoming the platform of choice for decentralized application development.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, W.Z., J.Z. and X.L.; methodology, W.Z., J.Z. and X.L.;
literature selection, W.Z., Q.Q., J.Z. and X.L.; investigation, W.Z., Q.Q., J.Z. and X.L.; writing—original
draft preparation, W.Z.; writing—review and editing, W.Z., Q.Q., J.Z. and X.L.; visualization, W.Z.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This work was supported in part by the United States National Science Foundation,
grant no. 2215388, in part by Beijing Natural Science Foundation under Grant M21032.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
DApps Decentralized Applications
DAO Decentralized Autonomous Organization
IPFS Inter-Planetary File System
PBFT Practical Fault-Tolerance Protocol
PUF Physical Unclonable Function
Energies 2023,16, 6147 33 of 35
References
1.
Fang, X.; Misra, S.; Xue, G.; Yang, D. Smart grid—The new and improved power grid: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials
2011,14, 944–980. [CrossRef]
2. The Smart Grid. Available online: https://www.smartgrid.gov/the_smart_grid/smart_grid.html (accessed on 1 August 2023).
3. Swan, M. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA , 2015.
4.
Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2008. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed
on 1 August 2023)
5. Zhao, W. From Traditional Fault Tolerance to Blockchain; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021.
6.
Aromataris, E.; Fernandez, R.; Godfrey, C.M.; Holly, C.; Khalil, H.; Tungpunkom, P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Method-
ological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evid. Implement.
2015
,13, 132–140. [CrossRef]
7.
Zhao, W. On blockchain: Design principle, building blocks, core innovations, and misconceptions. IEEE Syst. Man, Cybern. Mag.
2022,8, 6–14. [CrossRef]
8. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:
the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009,151, 264–269. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Al-Abri, T.; Onen, A.; Al-Abri, R.; Hossen, A.; Al-Hinai, A.; Jung, J.; Ustun, T.S. Review on Energy Application Using Blockchain
Technology With an Introductions in the Pricing Infrastructure. IEEE Access 2022,10, 80119–80137. [CrossRef]
10.
Alladi, T.; Chamola, V.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C.; Kozlov, S.A. Blockchain in Smart Grids: A Review on Different Use Cases. Sensors
2019,19, 4862 . [CrossRef]
11.
Appasani, B.; Mishra, S.K.; Jha, V.A.; Mishra, S.K.; Enescu, F.M.; Sorlei, I.S.; Birleanu, F.G.; Takorabet, N.; Thounthong, P.; Bizon, N.
Blockchain-Enabled Smart Grid Applications: Architecture, Challenges, and Solutions. Sustainability 2022,14, 8801 . [CrossRef]
12.
Baidya, S.; Potdar, V.; Ray, P.P.; Nandi, C. Reviewing the opportunities, challenges, and future directions for the digitalization of
energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021,81, 102243 . [CrossRef]
13.
Gawusu, S.; Zhang, X.; Ahmed, A.; Jamatutu, S.A.; Miensah, E.D.; Amadu, A.A.; Junior Osei, F.A. Renewable energy sources from
the perspective of blockchain integration: From theory to application. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
2022
,52, 102108 . [CrossRef]
14.
Hasankhani, A.; Hakimi, S.M.; Bisheh-Niasar, M.; Shafie-khah, M.; Asadolahi, H. Blockchain technology in the future smart grids:
A comprehensive review and frameworks. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021,129, 106811 . [CrossRef]
15.
Henninger, A.; Mashatan, A. Distributed Renewable Energy Management: A Gap Analysis and Proposed Blockchain-Based
Architecture. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022,15, 191 . [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Junaidi, N.; Abdullah, M.P.; Alharbi, B.; Shaaban, M. Blockchain-based management of demand response in electric energy grids:
A systematic review. Energy Rep. 2023,9, 5075–5100. [CrossRef]
17. Khan, H.; Masood, T. Impact of Blockchain Technology on Smart Grids. Energies 2022,15, 7189 . [CrossRef]
18.
Malla, T.B.; Bhattarai, A.; Parajuli, A.; Shrestha, A.; Chhetri, B.B.; Chapagain, K. Status, Challenges and Future Directions of
Blockchain Technology in Power System: A State of Art Review. Energies 2022,15, 8571. [CrossRef]
19.
Miglani, A.; Kumar, N.; Chamola, V.; Zeadally, S. Blockchain for Internet of Energy management: Review, solutions, and
challenges. Comput. Commun. 2020,151, 395–418. [CrossRef]
20.
Musleh, A.S.; Yao, G.; Muyeen, S.M. Blockchain Applications in Smart Grid-Review and Frameworks. IEEE Access
2019
,
7, 86746–86757. [CrossRef]
21.
Nour, M.; Chaves-Avila, J.P.; Sanchez-Miralles, A. Review of Blockchain Potential Applications in the Electricity Sector and
Challenges for Large Scale Adoption. IEEE Access 2022,10, 47384–47418. [CrossRef]
22.
O’Donovan, P.; O’Sullivan, D.T.J. A Systematic Analysis of Real-World Energy Blockchain Initiatives. Future Internet
2019
,
11, 174. [CrossRef]
23.
Wang, G.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, Y. A review of energy internet research considering interactive energy: The blockchain
perspective. Front. Energy Res. 2022,10 . [CrossRef]
24.
Yapa, C.; de Alwis, C.; Liyanage, M.; Ekanayake, J. Survey on blockchain for future smart grids: Technical aspects, applications,
integration challenges and future research. Energy Rep. 2021,7, 6530–6564. [CrossRef]
25.
Asif, R.; Ghanem, K.; Irvine, J. Proof-of-PUF Enabled Blockchain: Concurrent Data and Device Security for Internet-of-Energy.
Sensors 2021,21, 28 . [CrossRef]
26.
Bandeiras, F.; Gomes, A.; Gomes, M.; Coelho, P. Exploring Energy Trading Markets in Smart Grid and Microgrid Systems and
Their Implications for Sustainability in Smart Cities. Energies 2023,16, 801. [CrossRef]
27.
Bielecki, S.; Skoczkowski, T.; Sobczak, L.; Wolowicz, M. Electricity Usage Settlement System Based on a Cryptocurrency
Instrument. Energies 2022,15, 7003. [CrossRef]
28.
Chiarini, A.; Compagnucci, L. Blockchain, Data Protection and P2P Energy Trading: A Review on Legal and Economic Challenges.
Sustainability 2022,14, 16305. [CrossRef]
29.
Kapassa, E.; Themistocleous, M. Blockchain Technology Applied in IoV Demand Response Management: A Systematic Literature
Review. Future Internet 2022,14, 136. [CrossRef]
30.
Karumba, S.; Sethuvenkatraman, S.; Dedeoglu, V.; Jurdak, R.; Kanhere, S.S. Barriers to blockchain-based decentralised energy
trading: A systematic review. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2023,42, 41–71. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023,16, 6147 34 of 35
31.
Kirli, D.; Couraud, B.; Robu, V.; Salgado-Bravo, M.; Norbu, S.; Andoni, M.; Antonopoulos, I.; Negrete-Pincetic, M.; Flynn, D.;
Kiprakis, A. Smart contracts in energy systems: A systematic review of fundamental approaches and implementations. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022,158, 112013. [CrossRef]
32.
Thukral, M.K. Emergence of blockchain-technology application in peer-to-peer electrical-energy trading: A review. Clean Energy
2021,5, 104–123. [CrossRef]
33.
Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Cimen, H.; Vasquez, J.C.; Guerrero, J.M. P2P energy trading: Blockchain-enabled P2P energy society with
multi-scale flexibility services. Energy Rep. 2022,8, 3614–3628. [CrossRef]
34.
Yan, Y.; Huang, J.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, T.; Lin, Z. Blockchain-based framework of power demand response in China. IET
Renew. Power Gener. 2022,16, 781–791. [CrossRef]
35.
Casquico, M.; Mataloto, B.; Ferreira, J.C.; Monteiro, V.; Afonso, J.L.; Afonso, J.A. Blockchain and Internet of Things for Electrical
Energy Decentralization: A Review and System Architecture. Energies 2021,14, 8043 . [CrossRef]
36.
Ding, J.; Qammar, A.; Zhang, Z.; Karim, A.; Ning, H. Cyber Threats to Smart Grids: Review, Taxonomy, Potential Solutions, and
Future Directions. Energies 2022,15, 6799 . [CrossRef]
37.
Hua, W.; Chen, Y.; Qadrdan, M.; Jiang, J.; Sun, H.; Wu, J. Applications of blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies for
enabling prosumers in smart grids: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022,161, 112308 . [CrossRef]
38.
Mololoth, V.K.; Saguna, S.; ahlund, C. Blockchain and Machine Learning for Future Smart Grids: A Review. Energies
2023
,
16, 528. [CrossRef]
39. Singh, R.; Akram, S.V.; Gehlot, A.; Buddhi, D.; Priyadarshi, N.; Twala, B. Energy System 4.0: Digitalization of the Energy Sector
with Inclination towards Sustainability. Sensors 2022,22, 6619. [CrossRef]
40.
Thasnimol, C.M.; Rajathy, R. The Paradigm Revolution in the Distribution Grid: The Cutting-Edge and Enabling Technologies.
Open Comput. Sci. 2020,10, 369–395. [CrossRef]
41.
Ye, J.; Giani, A.; Elasser, A.; Mazumder, S.K.; Farnell, C.; Mantooth, H.A.; Kim, T.; Liu, J.; Chen, B.; Seo, G.S.; et al. A Review of
Cyber-Physical Security for Photovoltaic Systems. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2022,10, 4879–4901. [CrossRef]
42.
Zhao, W.; Jiang, C.; Gao, H.; Yang, S.; Luo, X. Blockchain-Enabled Cyber–Physical Systems: A Review. IEEE Internet Things J.
2020,8, 4023–4034. [CrossRef]
43.
Zhao, W.; Yang, S.; Luo, X.; Zhou, J. Dos and Don’ts in Blockchain Research and Development. In Proceedings of the 2022 4th
International Conference on Blockchain Technology, Shanghai, China, 25–27 March 2022, pp. 37–43.
44. Wood, G. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Proj. Yellow Pap. 2014,151, 1–32.
45. Antonopoulos, A.M. Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2017.
46.
Castro, M.; Liskov, B. Practical Byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. (TOCS)
2002
,
20, 398–461. [CrossRef]
47. Lamport, L. Paxos made simple. ACM Sigact News 2001,32, 18–25.
48. Simmhan, Y.L.; Plale, B.; Gannon, D. A survey of data provenance in e-science. ACM Sigmod Rec. 2005,34, 31–36. [CrossRef]
49.
Zhao, W. Performance optimization for state machine replication based on application semantics: A review. J. Syst. Softw.
2016
,
112, 96–109. [CrossRef]
50.
Zhang, H.; Chai, H.; Zhao, W.; Melliar-Smith, P.M.; Moser, L.E. Trustworthy coordination of Web services atomic transactions.
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2011,23, 1551–1565. [CrossRef]
51.
Aldyaflah, I.M.; Zhao, W.; Upadhyay, H.; Lagos, L. The Design and Implementation of a Secure Datastore Based on Ethereum
Smart Contract. Appl. Sci. 2023,13, 5282. [CrossRef]
52.
Zhao, W.; Aldyaflah, I.M.; Gangwani, P.; Joshi, S.; Upadhyay, H.; Lagos, L. A Blockchain-Facilitated Secure Sensing Data
Processing and Logging System. IEEE Access 2023,11, 21712–21728. [CrossRef]
53. Efforce Project. Available online: https://efforce.io (accessed on 1 August 2023).
54. Efforce White Paper. Available online: https://efforce.io/WP_ENG_V1.pdf?v=3 (accessed on 1 August 2023).
55. Greeneum Project. Available online: https://www.greeneum.net/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
56. Powerledger Project. Available online: https://www.powerledger.io (accessed on 1 August 2023).
57.
Powerledger White Paper. Available online: https://www.powerledger.io/company/power-ledger-whitepaper (accessed on
1 August 2023).
58. Energy Web Project. Available online: https://www.energyweb.org (accessed on 1 August 2023).
59. Energy Web GitHub. Available online: https://github.com/energywebfoundation (accessed on 1 August 2023).
60. Energy Web White Paper. Available online: https://github.com/energywebfoundation/paper (accessed on 1 August 2023).
61. Block-Z Project. Available online: https://www.blok-z.com (accessed on 1 August 2023).
62. Block-Z GibHub. Available online: https://github.com/blok-z (accessed on 1 August 2023).
63. GridSinguilarity Project. Available online: https://gridsingularity.com (accessed on 1 August 2023).
64.
GridSingualrity Project Techncial Website. Available online: https://gridsingularity.github.io/gsy-e/technical-approach/
(accessed on 1 August 2023).
65. SolarCoin Project. Available online: https://solarcoin.org/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
66.
SolarCoin. Migrating to Ethereum-based SolarCoin: The Overview. Available online: https://solarcoin.medium.com/migrating-
to-ethereum-based-solarcoin-the-overview-740bc92d0737 (accessed on 1 August 2023).
67. NRGcoin Project. Available online: https://nrgcoin.org (accessed on 1 August 2023).
Energies 2023,16, 6147 35 of 35
68.
Mihaylov, M.; Razo-Zapata, I.; Nowe, A. NRGcoin—A blockchain-based reward mechanism for both production and consumption
of renewable energy. In Transforming Climate Finance and Green Investment with Blockchains; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2018; pp. 111–131.
69. Prosume Project. Available online: https://prosume.io (accessed on 1 August 2023).
70.
Prosume Project Deck. Available online: https://prosume.io/wp-content/uploads/PROSUME-_-PresentationCompanyProfile_
2-1.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
71. Brooklyn Microgrid. Available online: https://www.brooklyn.energy (accessed on 1 August 2023).
72. LO3. Available online: https://lo3energy.com (accessed on 1 August 2023).
73.
Orsini, L.; Kessler, S.; Wei, J.; Field, H. How the Brooklyn Microgrid and TransActive Grid are paving the way to next-gen energy
markets. In The Energy Internet; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 223–239.
74. Electron Project. Available online: https://electron.net (accessed on 1 August 2023).
75. Electrify Project. Available online: https://electrify.asia/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
76. Pylon Network Blockchain. Available online: https://pylon.network/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
77. Pylon Coin Source Code. Available online: https://github.com/pylondata/pyloncoin (accessed on 1 August 2023).
78.
Pylon Coin White Paper. Available online: https://pylon-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/WhitePaper_PYLON_v2
_ENGLISH-1.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
79. Pylon Coin Explorer. Available online: https://chain.pylon-network.org/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
80. Enerchain Project. Available online: https://enerchain.ponton.de/index.php (accessed on 1 August 2023).
81. WePower Project. Available online: https://wepower.network/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
82. WePower Source Code Repository. Available online: https://github.com/WePowerNetwork (accessed on 1 August 2023).
83. WePower Initial Coin Offering. Available online: https://blokt.com/guides/what-is- wepower (accessed on 1 August 2023).
84. Nimray Project. Available online: https://nimray.com/index.html (accessed on 1 August 2023).
85. Innogy Blockchain. Available online: http://www.innogy.com/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
86. Grid PLus. Available online: https://gridplus.io (accessed on 1 August 2023).
87. Bankymoon Project. Available online: http://bankymoon.com/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
88. Energy Labs. Available online: http://www.energolabs.com/ (accessed on 1 August 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
