Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Electric vehicle charge patterns and the electricity generation mix and
competitiveness of next generation vehicles
Taisuke Masuta , Akinobu Murata 1, Eiichi Endo 2
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 1-2-1, Namiki, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8564, Japan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 October 2013
Accepted 1 April 2014
Keywords:
Demand-side management
Electricity generation mix
Next-generation vehicle
Electric vehicle (EV)
Energy system analysis
Renewable energy sources
a b s t r a c t
The nuclear accident of 2011 brought about a reconsideration of the future electricity generation mix of
power systems in Japan. A debate on whether to phase out nuclear power plants and replace them with
renewable energy sources is taking place. Demand-side management becomes increasingly important in
future Japanese power systems with a large-scale integration of renewable energy sources. This paper
considers the charge control of electric vehicles (EVs) through demand-side management. There have
been many studies of the control or operation methods of EVs known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G), and it
is important to evaluate both their short-term and long-term operation. In this study, we employ energy
system to evaluate the impact of the charge patterns of EVs on both the electricity generation mix and the
technology competitiveness of the next generation vehicles. An advanced energy system model based on
Market Allocation (MARKAL) is used to consider power system control in detail.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The nuclear accident caused by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake
had a great impact on Japanese energy policy. The issue of whether
to phase out nuclear power plants and install renewable energy
sources, such as wind power or photovoltaic (PV) generation, on
a large-scale is being debated. In such a situation, attention is
focused on the installation of new energy technologies, such as
energy saving appliances or energy storage. Energy technology
based on electricity and those based on other energy mediums
often compete, as with electric heat pump water heaters and
gas-latent heat-recovery water heaters; electric vehicles (EVs)
and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs); and battery energy storage
and hydrogen energy storage. An energy technology based on electricity tends to be superior to one based on other energy mediums.
In conventional power systems where the ratio of generation from
nuclear power plants is high, the generation cost is supposed to be
Abbreviations: EDC, economic-load dispatching control; EV, electric vehicle;
FCV, fuel cell vehicles; ICEV, internal combustion engine vehicle; IEA, International
Energy Agency; LFC, load frequency control; LNG, liqueed natural gas; LPG,
liqueed petroleum gas; MARKAL, market allocation; PV, photovoltaic; V2G,
vehicle-to-grid.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 29 862 6680; fax: +81 29 851 7523.
E-mail addresses: taisuke.masuta@aist.go.jp (T. Masuta), aki.murata@aist.go.jp
(A. Murata), endo.e@aist.go.jp (E. Endo).
1
Tel.: +81 29 861 5828; fax: +81 29 851 7523.
2
Tel.: +81 29 861 5826; fax: +81 29 851 7523.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.001
0196-8904/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
338
to the power system frequency control. Fazelpour and his colleagues [11] propose an optimization method of charge allocation
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to improve voltage proles and
to minimize power losses. Other scholars [12] suggest a minimization method for both total operational costs and emissions by the
decentralized control of EVs. The leveling of the electricity load
demand is proposed for the charge control of EVs [13,14]. This
paper focuses on demand-side management through the charge
control of EVs in a long-term evaluation case study. The charge
control of EVs, which is a kind of V2G, enables efcient power system operation by shifting the charge period of the peak cut or peak
shift of electric power demand. Although the number of EVs is currently still small (about 25,000 passenger EVs in 2012 in Japan
[15]), their dispersal can be enhanced by charge control if they
are cheaply charged and have cost advantages. In this study, we
evaluate the impact of the charge patterns of EVs on power system
operation, the future electricity generation mix, and the technology competitiveness of next generation vehicles by energy system
analysis. We simultaneously consider the effectiveness of EV
charge control and the competitiveness of EVs, which is an alternative approach to verify the feasibility of V2G. An advanced energy
system model [16], which was developed based on Market Allocation (MARKAL) [17] and considers the characteristics of power system control, including demand-side management, is used for the
analysis. By employing this model, we plan a future generation
mix of all energy sectors, in which we consider the balance
between electricity and the other sources, although studies on
power system generation planning usually only focus on the electric energy sector [1820]. Moreover, we can compare the competitiveness of EVs to vehicles based on other energy mediums. Two
charge patterns are assumed; one is a nighttime load pattern,
where EVs are charged during the nighttime; the other is a controllable load pattern, where EVs are charged during the optimal time
for total system cost minimization.
2. Energy system model
An advanced energy system model, which was developed by
expanding the functions of MARKAL in a previous study [16], is
used for the analysis. The characteristics of the advanced model
are presented in this section.
2.1. MARKAL
MARKAL was developed in the international cooperation project lead by International Energy Agency (IEA) [17,21]. It is an optimization model that considers all the energy sectors and models an
energy system as the network ow from supply to demand. MARKAL can describe energy technologies in detail through their technical characteristics. It determines the multi-period composition of
the energy technologies, including nal energy consumption and
the electricity generation mix. It has been widely applied to energy
system analysis studies [2224]. However, MARKAL does not consider power system control of both the power plants and the
demand side in detail, which must, however, be taken into account
in an energy system analysis that weighs the time change of the
output of renewable energy sources, electric power demand, and
demand-side management. Thus, an advanced energy system
model [16] is used in this study.
2.2. Indices and parameters
The index of the analysis period is represented by T (13 periods
from 1990 to 2050 by every 5 years), that of the season by Z, and
that of the time period by Y. Z is set as the following 9 patterns
8
ET; Z; Y; ELA ET; Z; Y 1; ELA
>
>
>
< RC ELA qhrZ; Y CT; ELA
UP
>
ET;
Z;
Y 1; ELA ET; Z; Y; ELA
>
>
:
RC DOWN ELA qhrZ; Y CT; ELA
Eqs. (2)(4) stand for the LFC constraints [6]. The constraint equations of the upper limit of the LFC capacity are given by (2) and
(3). CLFC(T, Z, Y, ELA) is the LFC capacity of ELA at Y in Z in T. RLFC(ELA)
is the proportion of the LFC capacity of ELA to the rated capacity.
RPmin(ELA) is the proportion of the minimum output of ELA to the
rated capacity; af(ELA) is the availability factor of the ELA. The Eq.
(4) indicates that the total LFC capacity must be more than a certain
proportion to the total electric power demand. ED(T, Z, Y) is the total
electric power demand at Y in Z in T. RD is the proportion of the LFC
capacity to the total electric power demand, which is set to 2% in
this study. The LFC capacity for the output uctuation of the renewable energy sources is not considered.
339
C LFC T; Z; Y; ELA
RLFC ELA
ET; Z; Y; ELA
RPmin ELA
X
C LFC T; Z; Y; ELA RD ED T; Z; Y
Allday
X
EEV T; Z; Y; EV
ELA
frZ; Y 0 ; TD0
cf T; EV CT; EV
eff T; EV
Allday
X
qhrZ; Y 0
EEV T; Z; Y 0 ; EV Nighttime
frZ; Y 0 ; TD0
X
Y
qhrZ; Y 0
Y0
cf T; EV CT; EV
eff T; EV
340
341
The objective function is set to minimize the total system cost. The
discount rate is set to 5%. The analysis condition is presented in
this section. The technical characteristics of other technologies
than are offered in this section are based on the data of Japanese
MARKAL [2] in the analysis. The analysis period is from 1990 to
2050. The parameters from 1990 to 2010 are tuned to match the
actual data.
The model used in the analysis considers the EDC and LFC of
thermal and hydro power plants as described in Section 2. Table 3
342
Table 1
Data on wind power generation and PV generation.
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Wind (onshore)
275
15
24
188
11
27
177
11
30
173
11
30
170
11
30
Wind (offshore)
492
27
31
357
21
36
260
17
40
257
17
40
254
17
40
PV (residential)
515
8
12
230
4
12
1S9
3
12
156
2
12
128
2
12
PV (non-residential)
450
16
16
185
7
16
158
6
16
135
5
16
116
4
16
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Table 2
Data on other electric power facilities.
Type
Nuclear
Nuclear (LWR)
Hydro
Hydro
Hydro (pumped storage)
Hydro (mixed pumped storage)
Coal
Coal (PC)
Coal (IGCC)
Coal (AF)
Oil
Oil
Oil (private)
Oil (privatev cogen.)
Oil (cogen.)
Gas
Gas turbine
Gas engine
LNG
Blast FNC
LNG (CC)
Gas fuel cell (cogen.)
Gas fuel cell
Gas engine (cogen.)
Gas turbine (cogen.)
Other
Hydrogen fuel cell
Geohydrothermal
Biomass
Cost (103JPY/kW)
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
350
25
350
25
350
25
350
25
350
25
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
850
23
122
9
381
10
850
23
122
9
381
10
850
23
122
9
381
10
850
23
122
9
381
10
850
23
122
9
381
10
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
230
12
239
13
230
12
239
13
230
12
288
12
239
13
230
12
288
12
239
13
230
12
288
12
239
13
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
190
10
218
11
238
12
130
10
190
10
218
11
238
12
130
10
190
10
218
11
238
12
130
10
190
10
218
11
238
12
130
10
190
10
218
11
238
12
130
10
cost
107
6
171
9
603
38
249
21
120
7
2776
108
2103
82
120
11
120
11
107
6
171
9
603
38
249
21
120
7
860
8
587
5
120
11
120
11
107
6
171
9
603
38
249
21
120
7
490
4
441
4
120
11
120
11
107
6
171
9
603
38
249
21
120
7
280
4
289
4
120
11
120
11
107
6
171
9
603
38
249
21
120
7
160
3
193
4
120
11
120
11
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
Construction cost
Annual maintenance cost
1924
75
800
46
356
19
624
5
800
46
356
19
382
3
800
46
356
19
218
3
800
46
356
19
125
2
800
46
356
19
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
Construction cost
Annual maintenance
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
cost
Coal
LNG-CC
Oil, Gas
Hydro
30
30
30
30
Down
31
82
100
100
58
75
100
100
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
presents the minimum output, the rate of change, and the LFC
capacity of thermal and hydro power plants (percentage to the
rated capacity) in the analysis [6,32].
3.5. Data on next generation vehicles
Eleven types of vehicles are considered as the nal demand
technologies in the passenger car sector: gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV), gasoline ICEV (light vehicle), diesel
ICEV, liqueed petroleum gas (LPG) ICEV, liqueed natural gas
Fig. 9. Assumed upper bound of total share of next generation vehicle in Japan.
343
(LNG) ICEV, methanol ICEV, hydrogen ICEV, gasoline hybrid vehicle, hydrogen FCV, EV, and EV (light vehicle). LPG ICEV, LNG ICEV,
methanol ICEV, hydrogen ICEV, gasoline hybrid vehicle, hydrogen
FCV, EV, and EV (light vehicle) are assumed as next generation
vehicles. The expected vehicle price ratio to gasoline ICEV and
vehicle efciency is shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The prices
of gasoline hybrid vehicles, hydrogen FCVs, and EVs are determined to be the same as that of gasoline ICEVs after 2030. The
upper bound of the total share of next generation vehicle in Japan
is determined with reference to the governments target [33] as
shown in Fig. 9. The cost of hydrogen fueling station is based on
[22].
4. Analysis results
Analysis results are shown in this section under the condition
presented in the previous section. Two cases of analysis are implemented. In Case 1, EVs are charged in the nighttime load pattern,
and in Case 2, they are charged in the controllable load pattern.
4.1. Electricity generation mix
The total system cost in Case 2 is smaller by 0.034% than that in
Case 1 because EVs can be charged to minimize the total system
cost in the former case. Figs. 10 and 11 show the transition of
the installed capacity of electric power facilities and that of annual
electricity generation in Japan from 2010 to 2050, respectively.
In Fig. 10, the ratio of the installed capacities of nuclear and coal
power plants decreases and that of gas power plants, wind power
generation, and PV generation increases as the years go by. Both
onshore and offshore wind power generation and residential PV
generation, but not non-residential PV generation, are installed
up to the upper bound in 2050 in the both cases. The trends of
the transition of the installed capacity are almost the same in the
both cases. In 2040, the total capacity in Case 1 is, however, smaller
than that in Case 2 because the installed capacity of PV generation
in the former is smaller than that in the latter. Actually, the
installed capacity of the residential PV generation reaches the
upper bound after 2045 in Case 1, whereas it is attained after
2040 in Case 2. As described hereinafter, the electric power
demand in the daytime is small in Case 1 because all the EVs are
charged in the nighttime, and the power supply from PV generation in the daytime has less of an advantage in Case 1. Therefore,
the age of the PV installation to the upper bound in Case 1 is later
than that in Case 2.
Similar to Fig. 10, the trends of the transition of the generation
are almost the same in the both cases before 2040 in Fig. 11. However, the total generation amount in Case 1 is smaller than that in
Case 2 after 2040 because, as will be discussed in detail, of the
energy breakdown consumed in the passenger car sector.
Figs. 1214 respectively show the daily generation curve, the
daily load curve, and the marginal generation cost on a weekday
in summer in 2050. Different colors are used for each generation
in Fig. 12 and for EVs and the others in Fig. 13. In Fig. 12, which
is assumed to represent 2050, the installed capacity of the coalred power plants is zero, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The EVs
are charged at constant power in the nighttime in Case 1 in
Fig. 13(a), whereas they are charged at about 4 h and midday, for
both load leveling and the efcient use of PV generation in Case
2 in Fig. 13(b). The charge period at midday corresponds to the
time zone of the maximum PV power output, as shown in
Fig. 12. The marginal generation cost in Fig. 14 means the incremental system cost per unit of electricity power when the total
system cost is minimal. It is high from 17 to 21 h in Case 1 in
Fig. 14. This result indicates that the total cost for electricity generation increases because the EVs are charged in this time zone.
344
However, the marginal costs in all periods are the same as in Case 2
in Fig. 14. The generation costs are leveled by the charge control of
EVs in Case 2.
4.2. Impact on technology competitiveness of next generation vehicles
The MARKAL-based energy system model considers the total
energy consumption but not the number of EVs as their diffusion.
The energy consumption is determined as a result of the analysis.
Fig. 15 shows the energy breakdown in the passenger car sector.
Hydrogen FCVs have competitiveness against EVs in Case 1 after
2040, whereas they do not have in Case 2. In Fig. 11, electricity generation in Case 1 is smaller than that in Case 2 after 2040, as mentioned in Section 4.1, since the electric power demand also
decreases, given that the energy consumed by EVs in Case 1 is
smaller than that in Case 2 after 2040. In Figs. 12 and 13, electricity
generation and demand in Case 1 are particular larger around 20 h
compared to Case 2. In Case 1, the generation from other around
this time mainly hydrogen fuel cells, whose generation cost is
expensive is larger than that in Case 2 in Fig. 12. The generation
ratio of others around this time becomes higher, if the total electricity generation is greater than 160 GW, in answer to the increase
345
5. Conclusion
In this paper, the impact of charge patterns of EVs on the electricity generation mix and technology competitiveness of next generation vehicles has been evaluated by an energy system analysis.
The analysis results reveal that hydrogen FCVs have competitiveness against EVs, if the EVs are charged in the nighttime, when
the electricity generation cost is expensive. However, under the
analysis condition assumed in this study, the optimal charge period is around 4 h and midday, when the electric power demand
is the smallest, and the PV power output is the largest, respectively; therefore, hydrogen FCVs are not competitive against EVs.
We will compile all the detailed analysis conditions and results,
including those shown in this paper, into a standalone report.
The development of an estimation method of EV use (drive/
charge) pattern and a V2G method that considers user convenience
is necessary because the EVs cannot always be practically charged
in the optimal period for the system. In future works, we will
develop a statistical estimation method of EV charge patterns
and a new V2G method, which considers both charge and
346