Distribution grid impacts of electric vehicles: A California case study

Jenn, Alan; Highleyman, Jake

doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.103686

Cited by 55 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, our findings are in line with some regional studies ( Bellocchi et al., 2019a , 2018 ; Coignard et al., 2018 ; Dioha et al., 2022a , 2022b ; Forrest et al., 2016 ; Jenn and Highleyman, 2022 ; Mangipinto et al., 2022 ; Szinai et al., 2020 ; Tarroja and Hittinger, 2021 ; Wolinetz et al., 2018 ), suggesting that V2G charging strategy could reduce the electricity system cost, when compared to V1G. However, none of these studies characterized how the cost reduction could vary across a wide range of EV loads for different electricity system configurations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The value of EV in terms of power system operation cost, levelized and marginal cost of electricity generation, power plant dispatch, and environmental emissions could substantially be affected by the EV charging strategy employed ( Borlaug et al., 2020 ). The effect of EV on some of the above parameters has been examined for different countries ( Bellocchi et al., 2019b , 2019a ; Booysen et al., 2022 ; Broadbent et al., 2022 ; Dioha et al., 2022a , 2022b ; Dumlao and Ishihara, 2022 ; Greaker et al., 2022 ; Hill et al., 2019 ; Jenn and Highleyman, 2022 ; Kejun et al., 2021 ; Mangipinto et al., 2022 ; Tarroja and Hittinger, 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). Although there are numerous other studies on the value of EVs, this paper focuses on the relative value of EVs based on the plausible circumstances of different regions in an idealized context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Idealized analysis of relative values of bidirectional versus unidirectional electric vehicle charging in deeply decarbonized electricity systems

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Idealized analysis of relative values of bidirectional versus unidirectional electric vehicle charging in deeply decarbonized electricity systems

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hydrogen-based microgrids can aid utility planners in reducing carbon emissions and supporting local hydrogen vehicle owners [17]. Following a contingency event, FCETs can also serve as a reliable backup power supply for the electric system through V2G interfaces and increase the self-sustaining ability of each microgrid affected by the disaster [18]. The two-way flow of electricity can enhance the stability and resilience of the power grid.…”

Section: Motivation and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Fueling the seaport of the future: Investments in low‐carbon energy technologies for operational resilience in seaport multi‐energy systems

Xie,

Dehghanian,

Estebsari

2023

IET Generation Trans & Dist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to withstand and recover from disruptions is essential for seaport energy systems, and in light of the growing push for decarbonization, incorporating clean energy sources has become increasingly imperative to ensure resilience. This paper proposes a resilience enhancement planning strategy for a seaport multi‐energy system that integrates various energy modalities and sources, including heating, cooling, hydrogen, solar, and wind power. The planning strategy aims to ensure the reliable operation of the system during contingency events, such as power outages, equipment failures, or extreme weather incidents. The proposed optimization model is designed as a mixed‐integer nonlinear programming formulation, in which McCormick inequalities and other linearization techniques are utilized to tackle the model nonlinearities. The model allocates fuel cell electric trucks (FCETs), renewable energy sources, hydrogen refueling stations, and remote control switches such that the system resilience is enhanced while incorporating natural‐gas‐powered combined cooling, heating, and power system to minimize the operation and unserved demand costs. The model considers various factors such as the availability of renewable energy sources, the demand for heating, cooling, electricity, and hydrogen, the operation of remote control switches to help system reconfiguration, the travel behaviour of FCETs, and the power output of FCETs via vehicle‐to‐grid interface. The numerical results demonstrate that the proposed strategy can significantly improve the resilience of the seaport multi‐energy system and reduce the risk of service disruptions during contingency scenarios.

show abstract

“…Notes: a) Electricity selling price includes electricity price (0.8745 yuan/kWh) and service charge (0.8 yuan/kWh); b) With the widespread adoption of BEVs, it is necessary to upgrade the grid (Jenn and Highleyman, 2022), and the cost of upgrading the grid for BEVs was set to 12% of the total cost of its ETS (Sahoo et al, 2019) in our study; c) The first year is the construction period (if one is required), same for Tables 2 and 3; d) It accounts for 6% of in the first year and will increase by 5% each year thereafter.…”

Section: Focus Energy Chain Of Fcvsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levelized costs of the energy chains of new energy vehicles targeted at carbon neutrality in China

Qiu

Zhao

et al. 2022

Front. Eng. Manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diffusion of new energy vehicles (NEVs), such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), is critical to the transportation sector’s deep decarbonization. The cost of energy chains is an important factor in the diffusion of NEVs. Although researchers have addressed the technological learning effect of NEVs and the life cycle emissions associated with the diffusion of NEVs, little work has been conducted to analyze the life cycle costs of different energy chains associated with different NEVs in consideration of technological learning potential. Thus, relevant information on investment remains insufficient to promote the deployment of NEVs. This study proposes a systematic framework that includes various (competing or coordinated) energy chains of NEVs formed with different technologies of power generation and transmission, hydrogen production and transportation, power-to-liquid fuel, and fuel transportation. The levelized costs of three typical carbon-neutral energy chains are investigated using the life cycle cost model and considering the technological learning effect. Results show that the current well-to-pump levelized costs of the energy chains in China for BEVs, FCVs, and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) are approximately 3.60, 4.31, and 2.21 yuan/GJ, respectively, and the well-to-wheel levelized costs are 4.50, 6.15, and 7.51 yuan/GJ, respectively. These costs primarily include raw material costs, and they vary greatly for BEVs and FCVs from resource and consumer costs. In consideration of the technological learning effect, the energy chains’ well-to-wheel levelized costs are expected to decrease by 24.82% for BEVs, 27.12% for FCVs, and 19.25% for ICEVs by 2060. This work also summarizes policy recommendations on developing energy chains to promote the diffusion of NEVs in China.

show abstract

Distribution grid impacts of electric vehicles: A California case study

Cited by 55 publications

References 34 publications

Idealized analysis of relative values of bidirectional versus unidirectional electric vehicle charging in deeply decarbonized electricity systems

Idealized analysis of relative values of bidirectional versus unidirectional electric vehicle charging in deeply decarbonized electricity systems

Fueling the seaport of the future: Investments in low‐carbon energy technologies for operational resilience in seaport multi‐energy systems

Levelized costs of the energy chains of new energy vehicles targeted at carbon neutrality in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About