Overcoming barriers of electric vehicle charging technology adoption

(1)

LAPPEENRANTA-LAHTI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY LUT School of Engineering Science

Master’s Program in Industrial Engineering and Management

MASTER’S THESIS

Overcoming barriers of electric vehicle charging technology adoption

Author: Houssein Kanj, 2019

Supervisors:

Associate Professor Kalle Elfvengren Professor Ville Ojanen

(2)

1

ABSTRACT

Author: Houssein Kanj

Title: Overcoming barriers of electric vehicle charging technology adoption

Year: 2019

Faculty: LUT School of Industrial Engineering and Management

Major: Global Management of Innovation and Technology

Master’s Thesis: 78 pages, 20 figures, 18 tables and 3 appendix Examiners: Associate Professor Kalle Elfvengren

Professor Ville Ojanen

Keywords: Electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, barrier of adoption, renewable energy, Analytic hierarchy process, Battery, Charging station, Battery switch station

To protect the environment from global warming, Electric vehicles are brought back to the market as a solution for GHG emissions. The distribution process of EVs is still affected by several barriers hindering its diffusion, where a reliable infrastructure is a need for the mass acceptance of EVs.

To overcome the impediments of EV diffusion, it is essential to address its barriers in an innovative approach to improve the user adoption of this technology. A reliable charging infrastructure is needed to reduce the uncertainty overcharging from user perspectives. Versatile technologies and distribution strategies could be implemented in the charging infrastructure of EV to improve its reliability. This research presents a distribution strategy of EV charging technologies concerning different locations of installation. Also, shows the assessment of the cost-benefit for EV adoption powered by clean energy technologies. A new charging model consisting of a battery switch station will be analyzed and researched for its high adaptability in assisting EV to overcome its barriers.

The work will be based on the Analytical hierarchy process for charging selection.

(3)

2

List of tables:

Table 1: The driving capabilities of different electric charger on different types of BEVs (Pod- point.com, 2019)

Table 2: Overview of EV charging point characteristic (IEA, 2018) Table 3: EVs barriers adoptions (Noar et al., 2015, pp.5-6)

Table 4: Relationships between attributes and barriers (Michael Noar, 2015, pp.7) Table 5: The fundamental scale for using AHP (Saaty, 2008)

Table 6: Home location while considering charging station selection method Table 7: Workplace location while considering charging station selection method Table 8: Public area location while considering charging station selection method Table 9: Electricity products and prices (Helen, 2019)

Table 10: Factors priorities with respect to Home CS selection Table 11: Factors priorities with respect to Workplace CS selection Table 12: Factors priorities with respect to public CS selection Table 13: CS technologies comparison for Home use

Table 14: CS technologies comparison with respect to ideal technology for Home use Table 15: CS technologies comparison for workplace use

Table 16: CS technologies comparison with respect to ideal technology for workplace use Table 17: CS technologies comparison for Public area use

Table 18: CS technologies comparison with respect to ideal technology for Public area use

(6)

5

List of figures:

Figure 1: Structure of the thesis

Figure 2: The Key components of an Electric vehicle (Hyunjae et al., 2008, pp.1) Figure 3: Global EV stock by scenario, 2017-2030 (IEA, 2018)

Figure 4: Innovation adoption model (Çağan et al., 2019, pp.6)

Figure 5: Socio-technical elements and sustainable innovations (Noar, 2015, pp.3) Figure 6: SIBI model

Figure 7: EV adoption model

Figure 8: Overcoming the barriers of EV technology adoption framework Figure 9: Three layers AHP (Saaty and Vargas, 2012)

Figure 10: The hierarchy model presenting Goal, criteria and Sub-criteria Figure 11: Consolidated Global Results from Home perspectives

Figure 12: Consolidated Global Results from Workplace perspectives Figure 13: Consolidated Global Results from Public area perspectives

Figure 14: Overall cost of 40 kw battery for different electricity products and services Figure 15: BEV power by wind energy price vs Gasoline price

Figure 16: Cost benefit analysis for different 40 kw Battery prices Figure 17: Charging infrastructure distribution model

Figure 18: BSS overcoming the mains barriers of EV adoption Figure 19: Battery request management system for BSS Figure 20: Barrier solution model for BSS public transport

(7)

6

List of abbreviations:

EV Electric vehicle

EVCI Electric vehicle charging infrastructure GHG Greenhouse gases

BEV Battery electric vehicle RES Renewable energy sources BSS Battery switch station

CS Charging station

EVCS Electric vehicle Charging station ICE Internal combustion engine

ICEV Internal combustion engine vehicle PHEV Plugin hybrid electric vehicle ZEV Zero emissions vehicles IEA International Energy Agency Li-B Lithium-ion battery

LDBEV Light-duty battery electric vehicle HDBEV Heavy-duty battery electric vehicle UFC Ultra-fast charging

Kwh Kilowatt hours

PV Photovoltaics

WE Wind Energy

AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process CR Consistency Ratio

(8)

7

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the biggest challenge our world currently facing is Global warming, mainly caused by the additional release of Greenhouse gases into our atmosphere as a result of fossil fuels burning and other activities. One of the main responsible for air pollution is the transport sector, as it releases a quarter of all GHG emissions (Longo et al., 2018). Road transport particularly, considered responsible for over 70% of GHG emissions from the transport sector (European Commission, 2016). Introducing Electric vehicles (EV) in the transport system is an important strategy to reduce carbon and energy footprint, where EVs have become widespread because of their negligible gas emissions and lesser reliance on oil (Longo et al., 2018). However, uncertainties about reliance on EVs for transportation are rising and their high penetration raises heavy load on the power grid, which is affecting EVs diffusivity process creating barriers for their adoption. The EV charging infrastructure (EVCI) should have a reliable distribution channel to provide the EVs fleet, also should depend on renewable sources of energy to decrease the GHG emissions from EVs electricity charging needs.

The introductory section consists of the motives, background, the research objectives, research problems and finally the overall structure of the thesis.

1.1. Background

During the past decades, the automotive industry and the power sector contribute to a major change in society, by bringing motorized mobility and electricity to the communities. However, in our current days both transportation and energy generation sectors are the key contributors in GHG emissions (IPCC, 2014).

In December 2015, an international measure between 195 countries known as the Paris agreement addressing the climate change problem through reducing GHG emissions and restricting the global average temperature below 2° Celsius. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a 2° C is the maximum allowable emission after which unalterable climate harm would occur. As a consequence, all efforts must be on the deck, to incite firmly on less GHG emissions in order to avoid intolerable climate conditions from occurring (Longo et al., 2018).

(9)

8

The transport sector is one of the main elements contributing to climate change. The share of global emissions due to transport sectors are increasing in a variety of future scenarios. By sector, road transport is the largest contributor to global warming (Skeie et al., 2009). Through electrification of vehicles, the emission due to the combustion engine can be reduced, battery electric vehicle (BEV) offer the potential to reduce GHG emissions and cut the dependency on fossil fuels for transportation. However, many countries still feature highly pollutant power plant fleets.

Therefore, improvement of the EVs infrastructure with RESs share should precede the EV penetration in order to ensure the reduction of GHG in both transportation and electricity sector (Canals et al., 2016).

Powered by renewable energy BEV can reduce GHG emissions, the automotive history reveals that EVs have been available for a long time over a century (Krish, 2000), due to various factors market scale remained low. More recently the sustainable transportation issues with a combination of economic and political factors led to incentivize new attempts of mass production of EVs (Collantes and Sperling, 2008). However, a barrier to the market diffusion of EVs is rising due to the concern of the consumers about the reliability of EVs for transportation, though it is possible to find users groups who can fulfill their needs from driving BEV while remaining economical without public charging (Globisch et al., 2018). The need of charging EVs is one of the main differences from ICE vehicles (ICEV), EV consumers are interested in Charging Station (CS) points for daily needs (Philipsen et al., 2015). Where the battery limitation remains the chief drawback for adopting EVs, the travel ranges of charge mainly depend on the capacity of the battery and charging time depend on the types of charging technology and equipment (Tesla motors, 2012). Therefore, the design of reliable EV infrastructure is essential to overcome the adoption barriers of BEVs.

The positive impact of GHG emission reduction from road transport could be abolished due to the emission produced from the use of fossil fuels for electricity production. Therefore, the electricity produced for CS should be provided by RES, it is important for the power sector to start switching for renewable energy, or to implement new renewable power sources integrated with CS to reduce the overload of electricity on the power grid (Rautiainen, 2015) approaching a sustainable development for the road transportation sector. The integration of RES with EV varies a lot by country, based on the demand of electricity and level of infrastructure. However, the additional

(10)

9

power production is the best way to meet the electricity demand resulting from high integration EVs (Longo et al., 2018).

Several papers have focused on modeling reliable EV charging infrastructure (EVCI) that can help in improving the diffusivity process of EVs inside the market. Different charging method are implemented, each charging station have different impact and different reliability that affect the charging distribution system. Barriers are hindering these technologies to be successfully diffused and adopted.

Battery switch station (BSS) a new charging method with high potential in overcoming several barriers. By switching the battery for EVs we can avoid range anxiety, traveling long range will be easier without the need of stopping several times for recharge. Instead of charging the battery, replacing the battery at the switch station with fully charged one will help to overcome the most serious barrier of adopting EVs (Noar et al., 2015).

It is also keen to witness private investor entering charging infrastructure market which has reduced the diffusion of EVs (Serradilla et al., 2017). Therefore, it is critical to implement a reliable model which attract investors to enter this domain. It is also important to understand the variation of infrastructure cost which depends on (power, speed, outlets). In order to assess the condition required for a successful investment in different scenarios, it is essential to know the real world costs and profits behind this domain.

1.2. Research objectives and questions

The research objectives are the following:

 First objective to compare different types of CS and select the appropriate charging technology for different locations.

 Second objective is to analyze the cost benefit of purchasing EV car over the use of gasoline for transportation.

 Third objective to propose new innovative strategy based on battery switch station to provide a reliable EVCI and improve investment in this domain.

(11)

10

To achieve the objective of the research, several question should be answered which are the following:

 Question 1: How to implement each type of charging station to overcome the barrier hindering EV diffusivity?

 Question 2: How purchasing EV could be profitable while sustaining a clean transport system?

 Question 3: How battery switch station can provide a reliable infrastructure for EV and evolve the transport sector?

1.3. Research scope

This research focus on comparing the EV charging technologies and the importance of distinguishing each type of these technologies to provide a reliable infrastructure. The assessment of charging technology by using Analytical Hierarchy Process from user perspectives only, to indicate the requirements of charging station needed to reduce user uncertainty over charging. The electricity prices based on real cost provided to asses cost benefit over purchasing gasoline car.

The thesis work concentrate entirely on modeling the EV infrastructure from user perspectives.

The structure of the thesis is presented in Figure 1. However, the investors perspectives will not be included for charging selection. The cost of the infrastructure will not be analyzed, the prices of electricity generated, the EV performance and the impact of EV on the power grid stability are restricted from the scope of this work.

(12)

11 Figure 1. Structure of the thesis

(13)

12

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

It is substantial for each research to develop a relevant theoretical base before starting collecting data (Yin, 2009). The selective reviews focus on explaining the concept of electric vehicles, battery theologies, EV infrastructure and charging method, battery switch station, renewable energy integrated with EV systems, the factors that affect the investment in new innovations and barriers to adoption of new technology.

2.1. Electric vehicles

EV History

EV is a vehicle powered by an electric motor instead of ICE, the motor start to function by the use of the power supplied from the battery which is charged through plugging into electricity. For over a century EV existed, it was introduced after the release of the first DC powered motor in 1830.

These vehicles were first developed to replace horses and buggy. However, there were no rechargeable batteries during this period, therefore EV didn’t become a viable option until the Frenchmen Gaston Plante and Camille Faure invented and improved (1881) the battery storage (Ramesh, 2019). EVs had their “golden days” at the beginning of the 20^th century (Burton, 2013).

In 1990, nearly 40% of the cars sold in the US were EVs and 22 % belong to gasoline cars (Burton, 2013). However, the key technologies related to ICEV was developed during this period taking advantage over EVs for their limited range forcing them out of the market, which hinder the electric vehicle development for decades.

EV components and functionalities

EVs are environmental friendly known as zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs), the vehicle has less components no engine therefore no tune ups, oil changes and exhaust. In EV the electrical energy is taken from the battery directed to the electrical motor to produce mechanical energy, the mechanical energy is transferred to the driving wheel to produce the kinetic energy of the car, compared to ICEV the practical range is quite smaller (Rautiainen, 2015). EVs have high efficiency in power conversion through the proposition system of electric motor (Cheng, 2009).

The key components of EV are shown in Figure 2. The battery is the main energy storage, the

(14)

13

battery charger used to convert the electricity from power supply to charge the battery (Hyunjae et al., 2008). The battery voltage is DC inverted through power electronic inverter into switched- mode signal. The other electronic component supplied by the battery through DC-DC converter which regulate the voltage between the battery and the components (Cheng, 2009). Unfortunately, EVs have a serious disadvantage allowing ICEVs to takeover which is their limited range. The limited range of EVs is the ability to travel a specific amount of distance depending on the battery capacity, also recharging take a considerable amount of time comparing to ICEV.

Figure 2. The Key components of an Electric vehicle (Hyunjae et al., 2008, pp. 1)

Renaissance of electric vehicle

Conventional ICEV, mainly fueled with diesel or petrol, have dominated road transportation for the past century. As the transport sector is one of the biggest contributors to global carbon emissions (IEA, 2016), a paradigm switch in mobility is required. In 2011, European Commission set a target to reduce road transport emissions by 60% of 1990 levels in 2050, and within this to

“halve the use of conventionally fueled cars in urban transport by 2030 and phase them out in cities by 2050” (EU, 2011). Those vehicles power by ICE are defined as “conventionally fueled”.

Consequently, EV as ZEV has risen as a critical solver for carbon emission (EU, 2014). With the revolution of technology EVs show more potential as a reliable transportation facility. However, the concern over the range and charging time are still hindering EVs diffusion. Therefore, a different type of EVs emerge which are: BEV (battery electric vehicle) is fully operational on

(15)

14

battery, PHEVs (Plug-In Hybrid Electric vehicles) are cars operated on a battery with the use of ICE and Hybrid vehicle which are cars with electric battery charged by ICE (Fortum, 2019). Only BEV from these 3 types are 100% powered by electricity without the use of gasoline, therefore our focus will be only on BEV as zero tail-pipe emission.

EV global sales

The global market of EVs has increased in the past few years, 3.1 million cars around the world are sold from BEV and PHEV in 2017. EV market witnessed an increase of 57% from the previous year (IEA, 2018). The new policies and scenarios consist of increase to 13 million vehicles by 2020 and around 130 million by 2030 excluding the different type of EVs either it is small or heavy vehicles. Figure 3 shows the scenario of global EV stock between 2017 and 2030 under the new policies (IEA, 2018). Therefore geographic expansions and commitments to improve the EVs infrastructure is needed to achieve the expectation of future EV market.

Figure 3. Global EV stock by scenario, 2017-2030 (IEA, 2018)

Note: PLDVs = passenger light duty vehicles; LCVs = light commercial vehicles

(16)

15

2.2. Battery technologies of electric vehicle

The technology of batteries and the energy storage of BEV are a crucial problem for its development and market penetration of EVs.

Battery types

Compared to other types of batteries the lithium-ion battery (Li-B) specified as the best type of battery for EVs (Y. S. Bai, C. N. Zhang, 2014). It was widely mentioned that the strategy of battery charging is related to its life cycle, charging rate, capacity, temperature and safety (M. Ouyang, 2017). The common standard of charging a Li-B is to use a constant current/constant voltage strategy (Battery university a, 2019). Charging BEV take much longer time than refiling ICEV with gasoline, fast and rapid charging technologies are proposed to improve charging time and efficiency (Battery university b, 2019). Increasing the charging speed from fast charge to rapid or ultra-fast charge (300-400 kW) is desirable to decrease the gap between ICEs and EVs. Designing a battery which could withstand ultra-fast charging (UFC) is complicated, UFC shortens battery life and requires a complex design of battery (IEA, 2018), even for fast charging the battery most be designed to withstand high current (Chu, 2017). Table 1 show the charging capabilities of different electric charger on different types of BEVs.

Table 1. The driving capabilities of different electric charger on different types of BEVs (Pod- point.com, 2019)

Vehicle Empty to full charging time Model Battery 3.7kW

slow

7kW fast 22kW fast

43- 50kW rapid

150kW rapid

Nissan LEAF (2018)

40kWh 11 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 1 hrs Can't charge on this kind of charger Tesla Model

S Long Range

(2019)

100kWh 27 hrs 15 hrs 6 hrs 2 hrs 1 hrs for 300 miles

Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (2018)

13.8kWh 4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 40 mins Can't charge on this kind of charger

(17)

16 Battery sizes

There are variations of battery sizes used in today’s EVs, for light-duty BEVs (LDBEVs) range of battery size is between 20-100 kWh, for small vehicles, the size is around 20 kWh, mid-sized vehicles between 20-60 kWh, and larger cars between 75-100kWh (IEA, 2018). The larger the size of battery the longer it takes to charge it and the higher its range to travel. However, the additional weight of the battery reduces the efficiency of the car on the road, this is why it is important to focus on the energy efficiency and power densities. Therefore, decreasing the battery weight while increasing it is capacity is a setup goal to be achieved (Burke, 2007).

Battery price

The price of the battery is one of the most expensive parts of BEVs. The International energy agency (IEA) proclaim that in order for BEV to be competitive the battery prices should be reduced under USD 330/Kwh (IEA, 2013). However, the current prices are still much higher than the objectives of IEA and it affects the diffusion process of EVs negatively in the market (Mahmoudzadeh et al., 2017).

Battery life

Cycle life of EV batteries is considered one of its most important factors. There have been several studies concerning battery cycle life, such as environmental temperature, material type and charging depth (C. C. Hua, 2000). After the battery reaches a long cycle life, its capacity starts to become lower. The cycle life is also related to the battery charging rate. Hence, the damage caused using UFC is considerably increasing. Therefore, the cost of using UFC and fast chargers would be higher than using a slow or normal charger (Wu et al., 2018).

(18)

17

2.3. Electric vehicles infrastructure and charging methods

To improve the social acceptance of EVs, it is crucial to develop an appropriate charging infrastructure for BEV where the adoption barriers could be avoided by an adequate network of charging points.

1. EV infrastructure

The current structure development plans of EVCI have been related to the estimated volume of EVs, some research has been released to compare different roles of diverse type of EVCI on charging network (Liu., 2012).

There is rich literature concerning refueling behavior on petrol or diesel station distribution, despite the fact that petrol station and EVCS have many differences, their spatial distributions depend on charging demands and local refueling (Liu., 2012). Demographic and social economic factors, such as age and income, used to estimate the potential of hydrogen vehicles customer’s distribution (Melendez, 2008). Markets scales were investigated to identify appropriate locations for hydrogen refueling infrastructure (Kuby et al., 2009). The deviation that the drivers take from their shorter paths due to lack of refueling stations considered to optimizes the locations of fueling stations (Kim and Kuby, 2012).

The distribution of charging infrastructure and refueling stations are dependent on local demands.

Petrol and hydrogen station can only be made onsite. However, the use of different electric outlet offers EVs a larger charging flexibility (Liu., 2012). The best location of CS for EVs on a road network is when considering the spontaneous adjustments of drivers, the interaction of travel and charging decisions (He et al., 2015). The use and analysis of real-world traffic flow in urban areas considered important for implementation of EVCI (Andrenacci, 2016). Setting a fixed point of EVCS location allows evaluating the dimensions of CS while maximizing the amount of electricity charged by EVs (Xi et al., 2013). Two levels model presented by (Zheng et al., 2016), the first to locate CS and second to equilibrate the performance of traffic assignment. EV users prefer not to drive more than 5 minutes to find CS, only minority drive for 20 minutes to find CS, the density of CS is significantly correlated to EV satisfaction (Sun elt al., 2017). The integration of different types of an EV charging points is essential for the implementation of EVCI (Nicholas et al., 2012).

(19)

18 2. Charging points

EVs are charged using a cable plugged to the electric grid. This method is easy, light, compact, efficient and allow two directional flow (Nemry, 2009). However, safety should be considered in this procedure, the line carrying high voltage and current if not correctly plugged, the power flow from the plug to the car should be stopped for safety reason (Markel, 2010).

The “Society of Automotive and Engineers” has categorized CS into 3 categories level 1, level 2 and level 3 (Graham, 2011). Table 2 developed by (IEA, 2018) to provide an update of the most relevant charging point used for EVs.

Table 2. Overview of EV charging point characteristic (IEA, 2018) Conventional

plugs slow charges fast charges

Level level 1 level 2 Level 3

Current AC AC AC,

tri-phase DC Power ≤ 3.7 kW > 3.7 kW and

≤ 22 kW

>22 KW and ≤ 43.5 KW

Currently <

200KW

Level 1 is 220V AC between 15 to 20A, the most common charging point solution, correspond to commercial and residential voltages where there is no need for installation of new network, level 2 is 220V AC up to 40 A and require new circuit and level 3 could be AC 480 V three phase circuit or DC with power up to 200 kW. Level 3 called as fast charging, requires a specific network and strict measurement of safety (Mahmoudzadeh et al., 2017).

Three main locations are usually considered for EVs chargers which are home, work, and public.

Home assign a place of residence for the driver, the workplace is identical to home but for a shorter period of time and public is everywhere which not correspond to driver place of residence (Neubauer and Wood, 2014). Level 1 is particularly applicable for home without additional expenditure for EVCI, long charging compensated by long parking during the night. If EV used

(20)

19

by others charging at home may not fulfill its needs. Level 1 also can be applied at work, due to long work. For shopping mall level 2 are preferred for customers in order to charge faster in a shorter period of times (Zhao and Schafer, 2011).

For fast charging or level 3 charger, the battery must be designed to withstand high current as mentioned in (Chapter 2.2), the fast charger should be employed on for the first stage of the constant current stage, after the battery reach a good state of charge the current should be reduced to extend battery life and protect the circuit (Wu et al., 2018). For ultra-fast charger or rapid charger with a power output of 200 KW and above, in which the operation requires a shorter time for charging, it inflicts drawbacks on the distribution network, where it increases the short circuit level, drops voltage due to the consumption of huge amount of reactive power and depletion of transformer lifetime. Energy storage and coordinating the protection system are necessary to maintain the system (Jamian et al., 2014). However, most of the EVs vehicle can’t withstand supercharger because their supply of high power output which can endanger the vehicle and shorten battery life, only Tesla in 2017 show their capability of accepting a charge from supercharger with 120 kW output, which is the highest output recorded for charging EV (IEA, 2018). The fast charger and rapid charger usually installed for public use especially near the highway and long route for their short time of charging (Serradilla et al., 2017).

3. Battery switch stations

The BSS is the quickest solution for charging EVs, instead of waiting to charge the battery, it is replaced with a fully charged battery at the station. Range anxiety act as a barrier for adopting EVs, traveling long distance requires a different type of solutions instead of stopping for charging the battery several times, by building a network of BSS the drivers can travel long distance without worrying about travel range or charging time. The EV batteries are quite heavy “Better Place” the company that started to use the concept of BSS for EVs (Noel and Sovacool, 2016), designed a hold release mechanism for battery based on military technology (Senor and Singer, 2009). The concept of BSS existed in the early of 1900s (Kirsch, 2000), that concept has been abandoned and now restored as a technology solution. Better place used the entire concept of switching battery fully automated without the intervention of human, the design was simple and convenient for users.

A pair of robotic hand will remove the used battery and replaced with a fully charged one in 2

(21)

20

minutes, the same time used to charge at a gasoline station, station usually has one lane depending on traffic area some of them used 2 lanes (Noar et al., 2015). The depleted battery will be transferred to the storage room, recharged to be ready for the use by of EVs (J. Traube et al., 2013).

Also, dozens of BSS are presented in China as an important charging infrastructure, they are invested by “the State Grid Corporation of China (Richardson, 2013).

To operate BSS several charging methods should be presented for charging the battery used (A.

Kuperman et al., 2013). A dynamic model is proposed in order to purchase and make charging decisions for battery in BSS (Worley and Klabjan, 2011) the objective consist of electricity cost, penalty failing for satisfying customer demand and opportunity cost. Another strategy consists of buying and selling electricity a day ahead market (M. Armstrong et al., 2013). The BSS is a new type of charging mode, therefore study focus on location and impact of BSS (Jamian et al., 2014) shows that the location of BSS affects the voltage and power losses. There are also studies of the integration of BSS and RSE, where BSS is seen as a storage solution, storing the surplus of energy from renewable energy especially PVs and the surplus of the electricity grid (Liu et al., 2015).

BSS face different problems. First, disconnecting and connecting the battery could provoke discharge, sparks or degrade of contacts. Secondly, the cost of infrastructure for the station especially the numbers of batteries. Thirdly, available BEV is not designed with switchable battery. Lastly, the diversion of batteries types in the market will affect the storage of batteries in the station and increase the investment price (Mahmoudzadeh et al., 2017).

2.4. Electric vehicle infrastructure integrated with renewable energy

To achieve sustainable mobility, it is important to reduce low carbon emissions from road transport. As we mention previously relying on EVs show huge potential in reducing GHG emissions. However, EVs rely heavily on the electricity supplied from the power grid, where huge consumption of energy is needed to charge EVs batteries. The integration of EVCI and RES shows high expectations for reducing GHG emissions.

With the increase in numbers of EVs, the demand on electricity will dramatically increase due to the additional generation of electricity, the method of energy supplying differs between countries,

(22)

21

depending on the nation’s types of RES and conventional power generation systems. The main objective of using EVs is to cut the emission from road transport. Nonetheless, this objective won’t be achieved if the electricity generated to provide the EVs fleet is dependent on fossil fuels (Longo et al., 2018).

The growing of PV and WE have initiated new power quality and power balance control in different regions in EU, large offshores wind farms produce high capacity power and direct toward one single location due to their installation requirement (Richardson, 2013). However, wind speed fluctuation affect the power capacity produced from wind farms which can vary from 0 to 100%

in few days. Since PV and WE power production vary over time they are known as non- dispatchable energy sources (Jabr and Pal, 2009).

1. EV integrated with wind energy

The provision of ancillary services could be achieved by combining EV and WE (Bollen et al., 2010), EV coordinated with high services including ancillary service can regulate the power mismatch due to the variation of wind power, while eliminating the dependence on conventional energy (Pillai and Bak, 2011). Similar idea to ancillary service was suggested, where a large amount of EVs can be used as secondary reserves for the power system (Galus et al., 2011). Using these services cutting the dependence on conventional fuel as the reserve is a primary strategy established in Denmark to regulate the power grid (Energinet, 2019).

2. EV integrated with solar energy

PV can generate both levels low and medium voltage within the power systems, this motivates the integration of EVs with PVs (Richardson, 2013). EV can be used as storage energy for PV instead of regulating the power grid, during day time when the solar irradiation reaches its peak, solar energy can be stored using BEVs for future use (Bessa and Matos, 2011). Parking area can act as power source during drivers working periods, by charging and recharging the battery of EVs.

The integration of EVs with RES show high expectation in controlling and storing the energy from the power grid systems while cutting the reliance on fossil fuels and reducing GHG emissions.

(23)

22

2.5. Factors that affect the investment in new technologies

The heterogeneity model shows that the change in individuals will lead to a change in the value of innovations. An S-curve of the diffusion rate can be generated by the distribution values of new products from the adopter’s perspectives and the variation of cost overtimes and where the value of the product should be greater than its cost (Hall and Khan, 2002). The idea of adopting new technology is the same as any other investment under uncertainty. Therefore, the adoption or the investment decision are characterized by “uncertainty over future profit streams”, irreversibility that creates drown costs, and the opportunity to delay. In the real options model, the adopter has the option to adopt the new technology and exercise it at any time, which can affect the value of the product. Therefore, the option of waiting for the benefits of the product to overcome the product cost is essential for the adoption process, one of the reasons why the investments are low and the diffusion is slow (Hall and khan 2002). The factors that affect the spread of new technologies are the followings (Çağan et al., 2019):

 Organizational factors: The organization represent the structural characteristics, resources, and human collaborations. Poor communication may postpone innovation adoption, fear of replacement for labor, fear of investment for managers and old equipment’s need replacements. The substitution of capital to labor and new capital to old capital will facilitate the adoption of new innovations.

 Innovation attributes: These attributes are presented to show how individual perceptions could be used to predict the rate to the adoption of new innovations. These attributes are presented in the next section 2.6.

 Environmental characteristics: The environment as a source of information play an important role in decision making. One of the most important information sources is the market (Zaltman et al., 1973).

 Individual characteristics: Characterize the category of the adopters if they are familiar or not familiar with the service or product innovations.

Figure 4 present the innovational adoption model of the organization.

(24)

23

Figure 4. Innovation adoption model (Çağan et al., 2019, pp.6)

2.6. Barriers to adopt new technologies

The socio-technical element which influences the adoption of new technologies in the transport sector are the followings: Government intervention, competitors, regulatory pressure and the changes in social behaviors (Elzen et al.,2005). Some socio-technical barriers currently facing EVs can be avoided by implementing organizational and product features from customer’s perspectives. Figure 5 presents the factors affecting the relationships between organization strategy and product/service innovation which may affect the diffusion process of environmentally friendly innovations (Noar et al., 2015).

(25)

24

Figure 5. Socio-technical elements and sustainable innovations (Noar, 2015, pp.3)

The innovation, time, communication channels and social system are the key elements for the diffusion process (Rogers, 2003). Communication channels are defined by the way information about innovation spread, using communication channels firms can identify the barriers created by consumers to adopt new innovations (Egbue and long, 2012). Time represents the period of the diffusion process and social system is the studied society.

“The Electric Power Research Institute” (EPRI, 2010), identified the key barriers charging, concern, cost, perceptions, and safety as key barriers for EV adoption, while (Egbue and long, 2012), found that cost, infrastructure, and battery range are most likely the socio-technical barriers. Table 3 present the barriers to adopt new technologies and specify how these barriers can be applied to EVs.

(26)

25

Table 3. Barriers for EVs adoption (Noar et al., 2015, pp.5-6)

Usage

Performance The concern about the range of EVs.

Handling and performance, reliability and lack of understanding the cost advantage.

Knowledge Inexperience create various concern about range of EVs.

Inexperience create concern about the time of charging.

Unclear understanding and poor knowledge about EVs.

Convenience Driving range, charging stations availability and EVs price are the main barriers of EVs adoption.

The need of incentives for EVs adoption.

Lack of service between product and service, it applies as charging infrastructure.

Charging station location concern.

Value EVs purchase for saving the cost of purchasing gasoline.

Cost of EVs is one of the major concern of purchasing the vehicle.

Concern about the impact of charging types on electricity rates.

Risk

Safety Inexperience cause safety concern about EVs (electrocuted during rainy days, battery explosion).

Limited understanding about EVs safety.

System failure Concern about overloading the electric grid.

Tradition Interest in use of gas station as a logical place to recharge EVs.

Performance Degradation or failures of EVs batteries.

Image Concern about surrounding acquisition of vehicles.

Car purchase based on life style and personality.

Green eco-product image among consumers.

The importance of the car brand.

(27)

26

The main barriers identified by (Noar et al., 2015) are the cost and the range of the vehicle per battery charge.

Barriers are the hindrance of the adoption of new innovations. The rate of product adoption is related to five attributes: Relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trial-ability, and observability (Rogers, 2003, pp.221-259).

 Relative advantage is “The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes”.

 Compatibility is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters”.

 Complexity is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use”.

 Trial-ability is “the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis”.

 Observability is “the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others”.

These attribute offer concepts to encourage the adoption and diffusion of new innovations, Table 4 address the mentioned attributes to the adoption barriers.

Table 4. Relationships between attributes and barriers (Michael Noar, 2015, pp.7) Attributes (Rogers, 2003) Barriers

Relative advantage Usage performance Value-Cost

Image

Compatibility Usage-convenience

Tradition

Complexity Usage-knowledge

Risk-performance, safety

Trial-ability Usage-knowledge

Observability Risk-social

Image

Usage-knowledge

(28)

27

The new product has a lower chance to be successful with a high level of product advantage (Calantone et al., 2006). In order to successfully improve the adoption of new transport alternative fuel system, the infrastructure must be developed with the development of the vehicles and their diffusion process should be simultaneous (Meyer and Winebrake 2009).

(29)

28

3. THEORIES AND METHODS

3.1. Theoretical framework

A comprehensive literature review was conducted, developing a meaningful background concerning all features of EVs and their technologies. The theoretical bases presented in (Chapter 2.5-2.6) elaborate the barriers for adoption of new innovations and suggest the relative theories to overcome these barriers for EVs especially.

The SIBI model inspired from (section 2.5-2.6) presented in Figure 6 shows that the combination of Socio-technical element, innovation adoption model, barriers for EV adoption referring to innovation attributes is essential to configure the EV adoption model and to overcome the EV adoption barrier which are elaborated in Figure 7 and Figure 8.

Figure 6. SIBI model

(30)

29

The prosperity of EVs diffusion is important to maintain a clear transport system with low GHG emission. Sustainable mobility is a transport system which is a more fluid, more convenient, safer, more accessible and friendly environment. To achieve this goal developing a convenient EV system is necessary for our future development and human prosperity.

Referring to the SIBI model as seen in Figure 6 and the literature review an EV adoption model was designed as shown in Figure 7, which presents the factors to EV adoption. The four factors mentioned by (Çağan et al., 2019) in Chapter 2.5 applied for EV as innovation adoption model are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. EV adoption model

(31)

30

The organizational strategies show that R&D collaboration is essential for EV companies especially for the development of human knowledge about the EVs features, developing the engineer’s skills and manager’s skills concerning new EV innovations. Also, the share of technologies will reduce the capital cost of the firm and help in the product development process.

Collaborations between energy companies and charging stations deployment firms will help to overcome uncertainties in decisions making for charging point installation. New global policies will specify the decisions for all stakeholders inside the organization as a global goal to be achieved.

Engaging small scales of EV systems in the market, for example, the electric Taxi model and Electric bus model for public road transport sector. Educate the adopters and societies about the use of EVs, to disseminate the knowledge barriers and increase consumer awareness. The use of sustainable energy sources to overcome the negative responses of society from the use of the unclean fossil fuels. Marketing and advertisement are essential for the EV promotion to ameliorate the desirability of EVs.

The new global policies concern about climate change, EV as zero GHG emission vehicle set the EV as an important pillar to achieve sustainable mobility, which promotes the growth of the electric vehicle market and prioritize its adoption.

A framework design presented in Figure 8 from the information gathered in our literature research to overcome the EV technologies barriers while providing sustainable mobility.

(32)

31

Figure 8. Overcoming the barriers of EV technology adoption framework

The model presented in Figure 8 show that to overcome the barriers of EV technologies adoption it is important to provide a reliable charging infrastructure, reduce the cost of the vehicle and the energy charged, to rely on RES, provide safety concern and choose the right battery technologies for the vehicle. Reliable charging infrastructure needs an appropriate charging method with a suitable location, mentioned as model 1. Charging strategies need to identify an appropriate location for EVCI, to reduce range anxiety of the consumer and to manage to charge availability.

Charging method depends on the type of battery available in the market because different batteries have different charging requirement. As we mentioned previously in (Chapter 2.3.2) in case of a problem occurring while charging the power supply should be stopped for safety reason.

Appropriate battery technology needed to increase the travel distance and to manage avoiding the risk of overheating the battery, to improve its life cycle. It is important to reduce the cost of the vehicle and the battery, appropriate selection of battery that can provide a long range with cheap price is prioritize for EV adoption. Reducing the cost of electricity charged while maintaining a

(33)

32

clean energy production presented as model 2. Dependency on RES to avoid unnecessary response from society about EV energy sources. The reliance on RES in the charging strategies will help to regulate the power system and store electricity for renewable energy technologies. The barriers of EV adoption could be avoided by applying these different features.

Model 1 presented by choosing the right technology for each different charging location providing a reliable EVCI. The charging method presented are suggested previously in (Chapter 2.3.2-2.3.3), Convenient (level 1), slow (level 2), fast (level 3) and battery switch station (BSS). Also, the location presented mentioned in (Chapter 2.3.2), home, workplace and public area. To select an appropriate charging method with a suitable location Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method will be used.

Model 2 will cover the benefits of cost reduction while using RES. By using the cost of electricity provided from different energy sources especially RES, a generation of cost analysis for battery charging package will be identifying. The battery model consists of 40 KW capacity used for Nissan Leaf 2019 model, the battery used for its convenient size and availability in the market, no uncertainty for charging price using the fast charger. The cost of electricity will be dependent on the energy production price. By comparing the price of electricity in the battery pack to fuel price, a cost-benefit analysis for purchasing EV will be provided.

(34)

33

3.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process

The Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) developed in 1980 by Thomas Saaty, is a mathematical operation used for multi-criteria decision method (MCDM). Based on comparing 2 inputs, weights are calculated to find the dominant eigenvector of a positive mutual decision matrix (Goepel, 2018). AHP help to find both objective and subjective aspects of a decision. Furthermore, AHP incorporates a valuable method to check the consistency of the evaluations by the decision makers, thus reducing the bias in making decisions (Saaty, 1980).

The complexity of AHP built on an idea that a complex problem should be presented in an easier way to be understandable by everyone. The concept of simplicity is deduced from “Hierarchical structuring of complexity into homogeneous clusters of factors”. The AHP used to establish measurement for both physical and social domains.

The AHP model consists of 3 layers presented in Figure 9. The first layer is the goal of the study, the second layer presents the criteria, the sub-criteria and in the last part, it refers to the alternatives,

which are defined by the decision makers (Saaty, 2008).

Figure 9. Three layers AHP (Saaty and Vargas, 2012)

(35)

34

The organized decision needed to generate priorities are presented by the followings:

 Determine the problem and identify the knowledge required.

 Organize the decision hierarchy from the top starting with the goal, objectives from a wide perspective, through intermediate levels to the lowest levels.

 Build a set of pairwise pairing matrices. Each top-level element is used to compare items directly below with respect to it

 Use the priorities obtained from the prioritization comparisons at the level below directly.

Do this for each item. Then for each element in the level below, add its weighted values and get a global priority. Continue this added process weight until the final priorities of the alternatives are obtained at the lower level (Saaty, 2008).

(36)

35

4. CALCULATION MODEL AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Model 1

In the empirical part of the research, as mentioned earlier in (Chapter 3.1) AHP will be used for Model 1 shown in Figure 8. AHP will be applied to select an appropriate charging method suitable for each different location from user perspectives. Data have been analyzed using AHP-OS (AHP online system) and excel to rank the alternative and find the most suitable charging method for each area.

1. Model development

First step to define the Goal, then identifying criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. The criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives are specified from the literature research. The Goal, criteria and Sub- criteria present in Figure 10.

Goal: The main objective is to compare all charging stations and select the most suitable station for each location. Therefore, AHP will be operated 3 times for each different location separately.

Criteria: The important factors that help to decide which charging station to use. These factors are mentioned below decided by reviewing several research done previously mentioned in the literature review and the opinion of expert in this field. Also related to user perspectives about charging EVs.

 Installation Cost: Identify the cost of the charging station design and installation.

 Cost of electricity from user perspectives: the cost of electricity provided from the charging station referred to user point of view.

 Charging time: The time needed to charge the vehicle.

 Safety concern: The risk of getting electrocute while charging.

 Impact on battery: The impact on the battery from the charging station that can lead to shorten battery life and increase battery temperature.

 Charging Station installation: The complexity of building the charging station.

 Operation method from user perspectives: The simplicity of using the charging station for consumers.

(37)

36

 Impact on electricity network: The effect of charging stations on the consumption of electricity from the power grid.

 Battery design: The requirement of designing the charging station for different battery types.

The range of anxiety one the most important barriers of adoption aren’t present because we are focusing on charging stations technologies only, and the range is affected by the battery capacity.

However, the range of anxiety can be overcome by combining these different criteria especially charging time and the battery design.

Sub-Criteria: Define the elements of each criterion, to provide more information concerning their concepts. These sub criteria are selected referring to the literature research, which help on identifying our alternatives.

 Installation Cost: High installation cost, Average installation cost, Low installation cost.

 Cost of electricity from user perspectives: High charging cost, Average charging cost, Low charging cost.

 Charging time: Long time (7 hours and more), Average time (3 to 6 hours), Short time (0.5 to 2 hours), Very short time (Few minutes).

 Safety concern: No risk, risky, dangerous.

 Impact on battery: High B-impact, moderate B-impact, Low B-impact.

 Charging Station installation: Easy installation, Standard installation, Complicated installation.

 Operation method from user perspectives: Easy operation, Standard operation, Complicated operation.

 Impact on the electricity network: High E-impact, moderate E-impact, Low E-impact.

 Battery Design: Simple Design, Standard Design, Complicated Design, Special Design.

Alternatives: They are the available charging technology mentioned in (Chapters 2.3.2-2.3.3).

The following alternatives are:

(38)

37

1. Convenient or (level 1) charger: Low installation cost, Low charging cost, Long time, No risk, Low B-impact, Easy installation, Easy operation, Low E-impact, Simple Design.

2. Slow or (level 2) charger: Low installation cost, Low charging cost, Average time, Risky, moderate B-impact, Easy installation, Easy operation, moderate E- impact, Standard Design.

3. Fast or (level 3) charger: Average installation cost, Average charging cost, Short time, Risky, High B-impact, Standard installation, Standard operation, High E- impact, Complicated Design.

4. Battery switch station (BSS): High installation cost, Low charging cost, Very short time, No Risk, Moderate B-impact, Complicated installation, Easy operation, Low E-impact, Special Design.

Remark: The BSS will only be applicable for public use because of it is high capital cost and complex design, which need to be diffused on high investment scale operated from firms or the government.

(39)

38

Figure 10. The hierarchy model presenting Goal, criteria and Sub-criteria

(40)

39

2. Data collection and analysis

After defining and organizing the different elements of AHP, the second step is to compare all elements pairwise respect to the objectives. However, here the comparisons are different for each location of installation. Therefore, the comparisons will be repeated for 3 different places, because the importance of criteria and sub-criteria change respectively with changing the location of installation. This installation of the charging station will take part at the home of the user, the workplace of the consumer and the public areas.

The comparisons are done referring to the literature research and checked by experts in the industrial engineering department and for engineers in the automation field. To obtain relative importance, a numbering scale was selected as shown in Table 5. The table should be in a way that illustrates the slight differences between the objects (Saaty and Vargas, 2000).

Table 5. The fundamental scale for using AHP (Saaty, 2008) Numeric

Value

Verbal Judgement

Explanation

1 Equal Both activities have the same importance and equally contribute to the objective

3 Moderate

strong

Experience and judgement slightly favor one over another 5 Strong Experience and judgement strongly favor one over another 7 Very strong An activity is favored very strongly over another

9 Extreme strong The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation

Analyzing the data require taking the values and determining the values of the floor and ceiling by rounding. The cell in the matrices contains a numeric value as shown in Table 5 to reflect the severity of judgment. Table 6 shows which criterion is more important, and how much more on a scale 1 to 9 with respect to CS Selection. For example, the installation cost is 4 times more important than the cost of electricity, therefore the cost of electricity will have 4. For each criterion a comparison with respect to another forming a (9 x 9) matrix table. The Consistency Ratio (CR)

(41)

40

will help in checking the coherence of the decision taken. If the value of CR is greater than 10%, we need to revise the judgment, if CR is smaller or equal to 10% the decisions are acceptable.

Firstly, a pairwise comparisons for the following criteria:

1: Installation Cost.

2: Cost of electricity.

3: Charging time.

4: Safety concern.

5: Impact on battery.

6: charging station installation.

7: Operation method.

8: Impact on E-network.

9: Battery Design.

Secondly, a pairwise comparison for the Sub-criteria corresponding to each criterion are

available in the (Appendix 1,2 and 3). The data are analyzed taking in consideration Home as the location of the charging method selection, then Workplace and finally Public area.

The priority comparison of criteria for each different location as presented in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8.

(42)

41

 Home as location for installation:

Table 6. Home location while considering charging station selection method

CR = 7.7%

 Workplace as location for installation:

Table 7. Workplace location while considering charging station selection method

CR = 8.9%

 Public area as location for installation:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 0.20 1.00 5.00 0.33 5.00

2 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.33 0.17 0.25 2.00 0.20 3.00

3 0.33 4.00 1.00 3.00 0.25 0.50 4.00 0.33 5.00

4 0.25 3.00 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 3.00 0.25 4.00

5 5.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00

6 1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 0.33 1.00 4.00 0.50 4.00

7 0.20 0.50 0.25 0.33 0.20 0.25 1.00 0.20 2.00

8 3.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 0.33 2.00 5.00 1.00 4.00

9 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.50 0.25 1.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 1.00 2.00 0.14 3.00 0.17 2.00 3.00 0.25 0.20

2 0.50 1.00 0.14 2.00 0.17 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.20

3 7.00 7.00 1.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 8.00 4.00 3.00

4 0.33 0.50 0.17 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.25

5 6.00 6.00 0.33 5.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 2.00

6 0.50 0.50 0.17 3.00 0.20 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.33

7 0.33 0.50 0.13 1.00 0.17 0.20 1.00 0.25 0.20

8 4.00 3.00 0.25 3.00 0.25 1.00 4.00 1.00 0.25

9 5.00 5.00 0.33 4.00 0.50 3.00 5.00 4.00 1.00

(43)

42

Table 8. Public area location while considering charging station selection method

CR = 9.2%

4.2. Model 2

In model 2. Using the electricity prices provided by Helen company for energy production and electricity distribution, we can conclude the cost for a specified battery capacity and comparing it with the actual price of Finnish gasoline.

As we mentioned previously to achieve sustainable mobility is important to use a renewable source of energy. Model 2 consists of a combination of renewable prices and cost assumptions.

The electricity transfer company referred to is (Helen) the prices are presented in Table 9. The battery type used as mentioned in (Chapter 3.2) is 40 kW Nissan Leaf battery. The 40 kW battery is a simple battery which requires slow or convenient charging method. After analyzing the cost of electricity needed for a fully charged battery, a comparison with gasoline price which is (1.53 euro according to Finnish index in 30.9.2019) for a high-efficiency ICEV of 25 km/L are presented to provide the overall cost-benefit of BEV.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 1.00 0.20 0.11 0.25 0.17 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.17

2 5.00 1.00 0.14 4.00 0.50 6.00 5.00 5.00 0.33

3 9.00 7.00 1.00 8.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 6.00

4 4.00 0.25 0.13 1.00 0.25 3.00 3.00 2.00 0.20

5 6.00 2.00 0.14 4.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 0.33

6 1.00 0.17 0.11 0.33 0.17 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.14

7 2.00 0.20 0.11 0.33 0.17 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.17

8 3.00 0.20 0.13 0.50 0.25 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.20

9 6.00 3.00 0.17 5.00 3.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 1.00

Overcoming barriers of electric vehicle charging technology adoption

MASTER’S THESIS

Overcoming barriers of electric vehicle charging technology adoption

ABSTRACT

Table of Contents

List of tables:

List of figures:

List of abbreviations:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.2. Research objectives and questions

1.3. Research scope

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Electric vehicles

2.2. Battery technologies of electric vehicle

2.3. Electric vehicles infrastructure and charging methods

2.4. Electric vehicle infrastructure integrated with renewable energy

2.5. Factors that affect the investment in new technologies

2.6. Barriers to adopt new technologies

3. THEORIES AND METHODS

3.1. Theoretical framework

3.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process

4. CALCULATION MODEL AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Model 1

1. Model development

2. Data collection and analysis

4.2. Model 2