## 4 Case Example
### Step 5. Cost-Benefit Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scenario** & \(P_{LIMIT}\) & **BESS Config.** & **Fixed Access Fee** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **BESS** \\ **Project** \\ **[c/Year]** \\ \end{tabular} & **Total Cost** \\ - & **[kW]** & **-** & **[\(\xi\)/Year]** & **[\(\xi\)/Year]** \\ \hline SB & 90 & - & 7492.2 & - & 7492.2 \\ \hline S6 & 60 & 13s1p & 6421.9 & 940.3 & 7622 \\  & & +1p & 989.8 & 7411.7 \\  & & +2p & 1039.7 & 7461.6 \\  & & +3p & 1089.6 & 7511.5 \\ \hline S5 & 50 & 13s1p & 5351.6 & 2074 & 7425.6 \\  & & +1p & 2118.3 & 7469.9 \\  & & +2p & 2167.5 & 7519.1 \\  & & +3p & 2217.1 & 7568.7 \\ \hline S4 & 40 & 13s1p & 4281.3 & 3291 & 7572.3 \\  & & +1p & 3265.5 & 7546.8 \\  & & +2p & 3305.5 & 7586.8 \\  & & +3p & 3351.6 & 7632.9 \\ \hline S3 & 30 & 13s14p & 3211 & 6098.5 & 9309.5 \\  & & +1p & 6141.6 & 9352.6 \\  & & +2p & 6185.9 & 9396.9 \\  & & +3p & 6231.1 & 9442.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Costs for the summer scenarios. As it can be seen in Tables 7 and 8, results indicate that introducing a BESS into an industrial consumption for diminishing the fixed term of the electricity fee, can reduce the overall yearly cost. Moreover, this reduction can enhance an intelligent use of the energy in industrial buildings, as well as the improvement of the energy efficiency along the electric power grid, since consumption peaks are eliminated. Tables 7 and 8 show that the minimum reduction in the fixed power limit is the best solution for this particular case example, both for summer and winter, from the point of view of the industrial consumer. Every configuration in scenario S6, and two of them in Scenario S5, reduce the yearly price of having a higher contracted power in summer. A similar behaviour is obtained in Table 8 for Scenarios W8, W7 and W6. The rest of the scenarios do not improve the yearly cost for this case example, although some interesting conclusions can be drawn. Scenario S4 shows that the minimum configuration might not be the optimal solution, since configuration 13s2p provides a higher cost reduction than the minimum BESS configuration. A higher number of branches in parallel allows for a reduced C-rate, DoD, and temperature in each scenario. Hence, the BESS lifespan is extended and a higher cost reduction is achieved. A similar result would be expected for Scenario W6, given the ageing behaviour shown in Figure 12. However, in this case, the ageing is sufficiently low with the minimum BESS configuration, so the extra benefit of the further reduction in ageing does not improve that much the yearly cost. Costs are not reduced in scenarios S4, S3, W5, W4, and W3 with respect to the base case scenario, since the BESS is dedicated not only to reducing the peak consumption, but to dealing with an important part of the load demand. This forces an over-dimensioning in the BESS's number of cells in parallel (given that the number of cells in series is fixed), and indicates that those BESS configurations may not be the best option for feeding an industrial infrastructure by themselves since, even though technically viable, it is costly. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scenario** & \(P_{LIMIT}\) & **BESS Config. ** & **Fixed Access Fee** & **BESS Project** & **Total** \\ - & [**kW**] & **-** & **[**f/Year**]** & **[**f/Year**]** & **[**f/Year**]** \\ \hline WB & 90 & - & 9632.9 & - & 9632.9 \\ \hline W8 & 80 & 13s