## 5 Simulation Results
Additionally, the simulation results, shown in Figures 7 and 8, reveal a clear trend: the more energy-efficient a prosumer is, the larger the disparity in total yearly gains between P2P energy trading and traditional mechanisms like NEM and FiT (by comparing the yearly gains of prosumer A and A\({}^{\prime}\)). Specifically, as prosumers reduce their energy consumption and maximize the use of their own generated energy, the financial benefits of participating in P2P energy trading become significantly more pronounced. This is because P2P trading allows energy-efficient prosumers to sell their surplus energy at more competitive rates, directly to other consumers, rather than relying on the fixed rates offered via NEM or FiT. Consequently, the yearly monetary gains for these prosumers are substantially higher in the P2P model, underscoring the economic advantage of this decentralized trading mechanism for those who have optimized their energy usage. Furthermore, the larger the size of the rooftop solar PV, the more significant this gap becomes, highlighting the financial advantages of P2P energy trading for prosumers with greater energy efficiency and larger renewable energy installations. In the case of scenario 1, the gap in yearly gains between P2P and NEM for Prosumer A\({}^{\prime}\) is USD 1,065 and between P2P and FiT is USD 280. Additionally, by looking at the gains of Prosumer B, it shows that this gap in yearly gains is maximum when the household is only occasionally occupied. In such scenarios, the energy generated via the rooftop solar PV system is often surplus to the household's needs, allowing more energy to be sold through P2P energy trading. This results in significantly higher returns compared to NEM or FiT, where excess energy may not be as effectively monetized. The occasional occupancy, combined with the ability to capitalize on surplus energy, underscores the financial benefits of P2P energy trading in these particular circumstances. The results of the simulations conducted under scenarios 1 and 2 are highly dependent on the synchronization between the prosumer's excess energy and the consumer's demand. If those two factors are not synchronized, the P2P energy trade would not be executed which can yield higher economic losses for the prosumer. Thus, it is important to add a BESS that allows storing excess energy in periods of low or no demand and trading it at a later time when there is consumer demand for that energy. For scenario 3, a 4.22 kWh BESS system was added to the 12.8 kWp rooftop mounted solar PV system. The simulations  
Figure 8: Total yearly gains—scenario 2.  
under scenario 3 aim to provide the economic feasibility of adding a BESS in the case of a P2P energy trading mechanism. The BESS was only used to store the excess energy whenever the power provided via the solar PV system was greater than the prosumer's demand and there were no requests to buy energy by other consumers. The additional gains resulting from adding a BESS are illustrated in Figure 9. A comparison of the gains generated in the case of a P2P energy trading mechanism, for the three scenarios, is shown in Figure 10.  
The highest gains are achieved when using a BESS since all the energy produced is being sold, while in scenarios 1 and 2, part of the energy that the solar PV could have generated was wasted due to the desynchronization of the solar PV potential and the consumers' demand. Nevertheless, even though the results of scenario 3 prove that a BESS can generate additional gains for the prosumers, its economic feasibility will be analyzed in the next section and its worthiness will be assessed. However, two parties are involved in this microgrid: the prosumers and the consumers. Therefore, it is worth assessing the impact of the blockchain-based P2P energy trading model on the consumers' bills in terms of increase or savings.