12
1 A Corridor - Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Yu (Marco) Nie Mehrnaz Ghamami Northwestern University

A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

1

A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle Charging

Infrastructure

Yu (Marco) NieMehrnaz Ghamami

Northwestern University

Page 2: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

2

Introduction

• Why to switch from conventional vehicles?

• Why to switch to electric vehicles?

• Future of electric vehicles fleet

• Batteries and charging station specifications

Page 3: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

3

Design ModelCharging Station Cost Battery Cost

Level of Service Constraint

Page 4: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

4

Special CasesDiscrete capacity for Charging Facility

Battery Swapping

min 𝑧 𝑃, 𝐸 = 𝐶𝑝 + 𝑃𝜆𝑙 min 1, 𝑓 𝐶𝑠𝑙

𝛽𝜃𝐸− 1 + 𝜆𝑙𝐶𝑒𝐸

Subject to: 𝑙

𝛽𝜃−

𝑇0𝑃

𝛼𝜃≤ 𝐸 ≤

𝑙

𝛽𝜃

min 𝑧 𝑃, 𝐸 = 𝐶′𝑝 + 𝑟𝑃3𝜆𝑙 min 1, 𝑓 𝐶𝑠𝑙

𝛽𝜃𝐸− 1 + 𝑛𝑏𝐶𝑒𝐸

Subject to:

𝑙

𝛽𝜃

(𝑇0𝑡𝑒+1)

≤ 𝐸 ≤𝑙

𝛽𝜃

𝑛𝑏 ≡ 𝜆𝑙 +𝑙

𝛽𝜃𝐸− 1 𝜆𝑙f

Page 5: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

5

Case Study

• Chicago, IL- Madison, WI

• 150 miles

• 80% confident range

Page 6: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

6

Case StudyBaseline model

Page 7: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

7

Case StudySensitivity of Demand (Baseline model)

• Total cost increases with density and decreases with LOS

• Density is only effective when low

• Increases in delay, causes smaller batteries and charging

stations with

more charging stations

Page 8: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

8

Case StudySensitivity of Technology (Baseline model)

• Total cost decreases with the two costs

• Advancing battery technology more effective

• Charging station cost is ineffective when battery cost is low

• Larger batteries are feasible with lower battery cost

Page 9: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

9

Case StudyDiscrete capacity for Charging Facility

Page 10: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

10

Case StudyBattery Swapping

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑤𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

• At low density the two options are the same

• Swapping is more competitive at high density and high level ofservice

Page 11: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

11

Conclusion• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV

market penetrate rates.

• Level 3 charging is needed to achieve a reasonable level ofservice.

• Advancing battery technology seems to promise largerimpacts than the charging technology.

• Battery swapping enables the use of smaller batteries and toachieve higher level of service.

• If existing infrastructure can be remodeled to supportbattery swapping and charging operations, charging could bea socially optimal solution for modest levels of service.

Page 12: A Corridor-Centric Approach to Planning Electric Vehicle ......• Level 2 charging is indeed socially optimal for very low EV market penetrate rates. • Level 3 charging is needed

12

Thank You

Questions?