How to Charge Electric Vehicles: A Comparison of Charging Infrastructure Concepts and Technologies
Conference paper
First Online:
Abstract
Electric vehicle sales are expected to soar within upcoming years. A main restraint could be the lack of charging infrastructure. With various available charging technologies, selection is an important challenge. This study provides a decision framework to select a suitable charging infrastructure technology for specific use-cases. We identify and explain the main criteria for an evaluation of charging infrastructure technologies. Furthermore, we develop an assessment framework. For the European market, we found that battery swapping stations should not be implemented. For home and workplaces, we recommend normal charging, whereas for public places and highways fast charging is preferred.
Keywords
Charge Station Analytical Hierarchy Process Electric Vehicle Decision Framework Normal Charge
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
- Ananda J, Herath G (2009) A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ 68(10):2535–2548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (2009) Interviewing experts, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Boulanger AG, Chu AC, Maxx S, Waltz DL (2011) Vehicle electrification: status and issues. Proc IEEE 99(6):1116–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brown S, Pyke D, Steenhof P (2010) Electric vehicles: the role and importance of standards in an emerging market. Energy Policy 38(7):3797–3806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brylawsk M, Lovin AB, Schewel L (2008) Smart Garage Charrette report. Rocky Mountain Institute, SnowmassGoogle Scholar
- Chambers N (2011) Power politics: competing charging standards could threaten adoption of electric vehicles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fast-charging-electric-vehicle-standards&print=true. 14 July 2011
- Chou Y, Lee C, Chung J (2004) Understanding M-commerce payment systems through the analytic hierarchy process. J Bus Res 57(12):1423–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- European Committee for Standardization (2011) Focus Group on European electro-mobility: standardization for road vehicles and associated infrastructure. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
- Flick U (2009) An introduction to qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Framel C, Little G, Salisbury M (2010) Preparing for the arrival of electric vehicles. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Frost and Sullivan (2009) Executive assessment of new business models and their ROI for vehicle manufacturers; utilities and infrastructure service providers in the electric vehicle market. Frost and SullivanGoogle Scholar
- Frost and Sullivan (2011) Strategic technology and market analysis of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in Europe. Frost & Sullivan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gabay C (2011) Models and generic interfaces for easy and safe battery insertion and removal in electric vehicles. http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=FP7_PROJ_EN&ACTION=D&DOC=6&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=012db0fa4c34:5429:5754f83e&RCN=97743. 15 July 2011
- IEA (2011) CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion highlights. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1(2):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Laufenberg K, Moorhouse J (2010) Electric vehicles: powering the future. The Pembina InstituteGoogle Scholar
- Liebold R, Trinczek R (2009) Experteninterview. In: Kühl S, Strodtholz P, Taffertshofer A (eds) Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 32–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Belluck DA, Meyer A (2006) Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Anal 26(1)Google Scholar
- Lombardi P, Heuer M, Styczynski Z (2010) Battery switch station as storage system in an autonomous power system: optimization issue. Paper presented at the IEEE Power and Energy Society general meetingGoogle Scholar
- Meuser M, Nagel U (1997) Das Experteninterview: Wissenssoziologische Voraussetzungen und methodische Durchführung. In: Friebertshäuser B, Prengel A (eds) Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Weinheim-Basel, Weinheim, pp 481–491Google Scholar
- Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation, 1st edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saunders JH (1994) A comparison of decision accuracy in the analytic hierarchy process and point allocation. George Washington University, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Schmutzler J, Wietfeld C (2010) Analysis of message sequences and encoding efficiency for electric vehicle to grid interconnections. Paper presented at the IEEE vehicular networking conference (VNC), Jersey City, NJGoogle Scholar
- Schoemaker PJH, Waid CC (1982) An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Manage Sci 28(2):182–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (2010) Report on the current situation and future direction of electric vehicle charger standardisation. Society of Motor Manufacturers and TradersGoogle Scholar
- Tanaka N (2011) Technology roadmap: electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Trinczek R (1995) Experteninterviews mit Managern: Methodische und methodologische Hintergründe. In: Brinkmann C, Deeke A, Völkel D (eds) Experteninterviews in der Arbeitsmarktforschung: Diskussionsbeiträge zu methodischen Fragen und praktische Erfahrungen. Institute for Employment Research Nürnberg, pp 59–67. http://www.iab.de/en/publikationen/weitere-publikationen/weitere-publikationen-details.aspx/Publikation/i950829f02
- Tzeng G-H, Lin C-W, Opricovic S (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33:1373–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Automobile emissions: an overview. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van den Bossche P (2010) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure. In: Pistoia G (ed) Electric and hybrid vehicles: power sources, models, sustainability, infrastructure and the market. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 517–543Google Scholar
- Wiederer A, Philip R (2010) Policy options for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in C40 cities. Harvard Kennedy School, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Yudan A (2010) Accelerating e-mobility: better place. Presentation held at the Automotive Summit on November 9, 2010 in Brussels.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer India 2013