| Literature DB >> 36236363 |
Tehreem Ashfaq1, Muhammad Irfan Khalid2, Gauhar Ali3, Mohammad El Affendi3, Jawaid Iqbal4, Saddam Hussain5, Syed Sajid Ullah6,7, Adamu Sani Yahaya1, Rabiya Khalid1, Abdul Mateen8.
Abstract
In this paper, a secure energy trading mechanism based on blockchain technology is proposed. The proposed model deals with energy trading problems such as insecure energy trading and inefficient charging mechanisms for electric vehicles (EVs) in a vehicular energy network (VEN). EVs face two major problems: finding an optimal charging station and calculating the exact amount of energy required to reach the selected charging station. Moreover, in traditional trading approaches, centralized parties are involved in energy trading, which leads to various issues such as increased computational cost, increased computational delay, data tempering and a single point of failure. Furthermore, EVs face various energy challenges, such as imbalanced load supply and fluctuations in voltage level. Therefore, a demand-response (DR) pricing strategy enables EV users to flatten load curves and efficiently adjust electricity usage. In this work, communication between EVs and aggregators is efficiently performed through blockchain. Moreover, a branching concept is involved in the proposed system, which divides EV data into two different branches: a Fraud Chain (F-chain) and an Integrity Chain (I-chain). The proposed branching mechanism helps solve the storage problem and reduces computational time. Moreover, an attacker model is designed to check the robustness of the proposed system against double-spending and replay attacks. Security analysis of the proposed smart contract is also given in this paper. Simulation results show that the proposed work efficiently reduces the charging cost and time in a VEN.Entities:
Keywords: KNN; branching; charging station; consortium blockchain; demand response; double spending; electric vehicles; energy trading; machine learning; vehicular energy network
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236363 PMCID: PMC9571319 DOI: 10.3390/s22197263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Related work.
| Reference | Year of Publication | Addressed Limitations | Proposed Solutions | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 2019 | Power supply | A dynamic complex energy network | Did not consider centralized energy storage points |
| [ | 2018 | Inefficient energy management | A blockchain-based scheme for management of charging piles | Maintenance of the system is expensive |
| [ | 2017 | Inefficient charging strategies and trust issues | A consortium blockchain system | Requires high mining cost |
| [ | 2020 | Discussed different charging infrastructures and strategies in smart cities | Analysis of different charging strategies | None |
| [ | 2019 | Insecure energy trading | Used a dynamic pricing strategy and a reverse-auction mechanism | Centralized grids |
| [ | 2019 | Trust issues among EVs | A decentralized trust management system based on blockchain | Lacked both trust management and privacy preservation |
| [ | 2019 | Security issues in energy trading | An incentive scheme based on blockchain | Malicious entities are not considered |
| [ | 2019 | Secure and efficient data trading using consortium blockchain | A consensus mechanism based on pre-selected nodes | Increased energy consumption because a large number of iterations is involved during the process |
| [ | 2017 | Inefficient charging of PHEVs and communication issue | Energy trading mechanism for (PHEVs) | Balancing of energy is not considered |
| [ | 2018 | Introduced a new concept related to EVs in energy markets: G2V and V2G | Proves that an energy grid is an advantageous entity | Leads to environmental pollution. |
| [ | 2018, 2020 | Security analysis of the Brooklyn microgrid network | An encryption scheme is used for the security of transactions | Malicious operators and selfish mining are not considered |
| [ | 2018 | VN insecure energy management | A decentralized security model | Privacy of EVs is not considered |
| [ | 2020 | Energy management problems | Used a deep CNN model with blockchain for energy management | Complexity is an issue |
| [ | 2019 | High delay in service response and lack of trust | A blockchain-based intelligent, secure autonomous transportation system | Did not consider storage issues |
| [ | 2018 | Security issues in SDN | A novel hybrid architecture network | Did not consider the efficient deployment of edge nodes |
| [ | 2022 | Addressed the controller selection problem | Analytical Network Decision-making Process (ANDP) | Did not consider scalability issues |
| [ | 2018 | Security threats and trust issues | An intelligent vehicular network based on blockchain | The comfort of vehicle operators in a hassle-free network is not considered |
| [ | 2019 | Storage and security issues | A blockchain-based decentralized, distributed and secure storage management scheme | Channels are unreliable during vehicle communication |
| [ | 2019 | Trust issues | A decentralized trust-management system based on blockchain | Message validation delay is increased |
| [ | 2018 | Uncertainty and randomness of the charging and discharging of EVs | A decentralized power-trading model | High implementation cost |
| [ | 2018 | Integrated blockchain with EVs for security purposes | Designed a multi-blockchain architecture | Multi-blockchains become expensive |
| [ | 2017 | Security and privacy problems of energy trading networks | A consortium blockchain-based secure energy trading system | Requires high cost to maintain an energy blockchain with IIoT nodes |
| [ | 2019 | Blockchain technology is integrated with edge computing in a VN | A contract theory-based incentive mechanism | The given approach requires further discussion |
| [ | 2019 | Insecure energy trading and malicious activities | Smart-contract-based secure energy blockchain system | Privacy issue is not resolved |
| [ | 2019 | Deficiencies in dealing with the profits made by charging stations | Proposed an optimal pricing scheme for charging EVs | Coordination issues |
Figure 1Proposed EV charging scenario.
Figure 2A scenario to detect malicious EVs.
Figure 3Charging payment.
Mapping of problems with proposed solutions and validation results.
| Addressed Limitations | Proposed Solutions | Results and Validations |
|---|---|---|
Figure 4Gas consumption of smart contract.
Figure 5Time taken for data storage.
Figure 6Expenses incurred while traveling.
Figure 7Time taken for the conversion of bits.
Figure 8Time taken to travel a certain distance.
Figure 9Time versus the number of generated messages.
Figure 10Time versus energy required.
Figure 11Present SoC of the EV and time required for charging.
Figure 12Present SoC of EV.
Figure 13Expenses incurred with DR.
Figure 14Security analysis of the proposed smart contracts.
Figure 15Probability of double-spending attack vs. block advantage.
Figure 16Probability of double-spending attack vs. time advantage.
Figure 17Probability of double-spending attack vs. computing power when q = 60%.
Figure 18Number of transactions versus transaction age.