Domestic PV-battery systems are rarely operated in a way which specifically maximizes environmental benefit. Consequently the studies that seriously examine such systems often find that the greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions savings of rooftop PV, though still positive, are lessened by adding a domestic battery. This study shows thatby simulating a PV-battery system with a range of sizes that this need not be inevitable. A novel algorithm was designed specifically to perform 'emissions arbitrage': to charge the battery when the grid emissions intensity is low and to discharge when it is high. It was found that the CO 2 saved relative to the same system with PV only can more than pay back the CO 2 debt of manufacturing the battery. This is true as long as the UK moves away from the present-day situation where natural gas-fired generators are nearly always the marginal generator. This work underlines the importance of both the operating strategy and the interactions between the system and the entire grid, in order to maximize the environmental benefit achievable with domestic PV-battery systems.In contrast, Faria et al. (2014) [18] showed that a second-life electric vehicle battery could reduce global warming, abiotic depletion, acidification and eutrophication factors by 2% when used in a peak-shaving application in France, and 4-5% in a load-shifting application (both without PV). This is because the French grid emissions intensities change throughout the day in such a way that electricity is imported from the grid when emissions are low and exported to the grid when they are high. This 'emissions arbitrage' effect was not accounted for in the other papers mentioned, which assumed a constant grid emissions intensity.A flaw in the work of Faria et al. (2014) [18] is that they used average rather than marginal emissions intensities. If some grid-generated electricity is displaced by the injection of PV power, or indeed any other intervention, not all the generator types (nuclear, coal, biomass, etc.) would have their output reduced in the same proportion as their total generation. The reduction would occur mostly for the generator type with the highest running cost. This gives rise to the concept of marginal emissions factor (MEF, as opposed to average emissions factor, AEF). Studies have shown that using AEF rather than MEF can cause errors of up to 25% [19][20][21][22].It should also be noted that the battery operating strategies studied by Faria et al. (2014) were not designed to achieve emissions arbitrage. As such, environmental impacts were negative when those operating strategies were applied to Portugal and Poland [18]. The literature is abundant with algorithms for peak reduction, cost minimization and self-sufficiency maximization [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. There is good reason for this: All these objectives are quantifiable and desired by consumers, distribution network operators, or other relevant stakeholders. However, environmental benefit is also desirable, as evidenced by survey data on opini...