Search

The promotion of electric vehicles (EVs), triggered by environmental concerns, can also increase the flexibility of power systems through ancillary services, such as frequency regulation among others. Nevertheless, EV penetration has increased the concern regarding voltage drops in distribution grids. This concern has motivated researchers to examine EV reactive power provision to mitigate such problems. This work proposes a local market perspective to promote EV reactive power provision, enabling distribution system operators to control the voltage level using cost‐effective solutions. The authors propose the extension of a centralised control framework that schedules EV frequency regulation to optimise the reactive power provided by the same EVs. Additionally, extra power losses in chargers while EVs provide reactive power were investigated, and the associated cost in the economic evaluations were considered. A test‐case with the IEEE 33‐node distribution grid is used to assess the market potential of EV reactive power provision. This new service extends EV penetration in a cost‐efficient way without causing voltage problems. The simulation concludes that it is economically feasible to use EVs for reactive local provision with efficient chargers. These outcomes sustain the potential of promoting such new EV services through a proper market in distribution grids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The inconvenience of charging electric vehicles (EVs) is quantified by its time penalty. • Idealised charging schedules are derived from over 39,000 week-long travel diaries. • Convenience parity occurs when EV charging carries the same time penalty as petrol car fuelling. • Drivers who cannot charge at home are expected to suffer significant inconvenience. • Very few long journeys are delayed due to charging if natural breaks are taken as recommended. This paper presents a quantitative investigation of the inconvenience of electric vehicle (EV) charging relative to internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) fuelling in terms of the time penalty likely to be experienced by drivers. A heuristic approach to deriving idealised charging schedules from over 39,000 week-long travel diaries from the UK National Travel Survey is presented in order to quantify the expected convenience parity — the point at which EV charging and ICEV fuelling are of comparable convenience — for combinations of battery capacity, charger power and access to charging at different locations (home, workplace and public destinations). It was found that although the majority — up to 95% — of individuals who can charge at home are expected to be able to reach convenience parity with battery sizes currently available in EV models at the 'affordable' end of the market, this is significantly less likely for those who rely on workplace or public charging — and particularly for those who must rely solely on en route charging. These individuals are expected to suffer considerable inconvenience associated with EV charging relative to ICEV fuelling, and although greater battery capacities and charger power ratings are expected to lessen this inconvenience, there remains a significant gap in the convenience of EV ownership between those who can charge while parked at home and those who cannot. Further analysis is carried out to long journeys that cannot be made on a single charge; 'range anxiety' being a major obstacle to widespread EV adoption. It was found that if drivers are compliant with the UK Highway Code in taking regular breaks on long journeys, fewer than 0.01% of trips are expected to be delayed by charging when using battery capacities of 40–60 kWh. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]