Cost-effective electric vehicle charging infrastructure siting for Delhi
Authored by Colin J R Sheppard, Anand R Gopal, Andrew Harris, Arne Jacobson
Date Published: 2016
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064010
Sponsors:
United States Department of Energy (DOE)
Platforms:
No platforms listed
Model Documentation:
ODD
Flow charts
Model Code URLs:
Model code not found
Abstract
Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) represent a substantial opportunity for
governments to reduce emissions of both air pollutants and greenhouse
gases. The Government of India has set a goal of deploying 6-7 million
hybrid and PEVs on Indian roads by the year 2020. The uptake of PEVs
will depend on, among other factors like high cost, how effectively
range anxiety is mitigated through the deployment of adequate electric
vehicle charging stations (EVCS) throughout a region. The Indian
Government therefore views EVCS deployment as a central part of their
electric mobility mission. The plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure
(PEVI) model-an agent-based simulation modeling platform -was used to
explore the cost-effective siting of EVCS throughout the National
Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, India. At 1\% penetration in the
passenger car fleet, or similar to 10 000 battery electric vehicles
(BEVs), charging services can be provided to drivers for an investment
of \$4.4 M(or \$440/BEV) by siting 2764 chargers throughout the NCT of
Delhi with an emphasis on the more densely populated and frequented
regions of the city. The majority of chargers sited by this analysis
were low power, Level 1 chargers, which have the added benefit of being
simpler to deploy than higher power alternatives. The amount of public
infrastructure needed depends on the access that drivers have to EVCS at
home, with 83\% more charging capacity required to provide the same
level of service to a population of drivers without home chargers
compared to a scenario with home chargers. Results also depend on the
battery capacity of the BEVs adopted, with approximately 60\% more
charging capacity needed to achieve the same level of service when
vehicles are assumed to have 57 km versus 96 km of range.
Tags
Protocol