4.7 Article

Optimal fleet, battery, and charging infrastructure planning for reliable electric bus operations

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.103066

关键词

Electric bus; Charging infrastructure; Fleet size; Battery capacity; Optimal planning; Reliability

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI) [P20001]
  2. KAIST-KU Joint Research Center, KAIST, South Korea
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIT) [2020R1C1C1005034, 2021R1A4A1033486]
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20001] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2020R1C1C1005034, 2021R1A4A1033486] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The electrification of bus systems has the potential to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Through optimization, it is possible to reduce the necessary battery capacity and discover the tradeoff between a large fleet size/high charging infrastructure capacity and battery capacity.
The electrification of bus systems offers the potential to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Motivated by this, we assume a scenario in which a single existing bus route is operated by battery-electric buses and find the optimal planning by determining the number of chargers, the electric bus fleet size, and the battery capacity. While decision-making, it is necessary to guarantee that all scheduled tasks are completed with reliability against stochastic electricity consumption. We discover that a large fleet size and a high charging infrastructure capacity can reduce the minimum necessary battery capacity, and this tradeoff is crucial in the optimization. We demonstrate the proposed framework using electric bus operation data collected in Jeju, Korea, and find that the optimal electrification of a bus route can be economically and environmentally beneficial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据