4.7 Article

Allocation optimization of electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) considering with charging satisfaction and distributed renewables integration

期刊

ENERGY
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 560-574

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.028

关键词

Multi-objective optimization; EVCS; Distributed renewables; Charging satisfaction; k-means; GA-PSO

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71501071]
  2. Beijing Social Science Fund [16YJC064]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017MS059, 2018ZD14]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under the background of large-scale electric vehicle (EV) development, it is necessary to design and deploy the EVCS more scientific. Among various factors influential to the EVCS allocation, charging satisfaction and distributed renewables integration were mainly considered in this paper. First, with System Dynamics (SD) model, the key factors affecting the EVCS allocation were identified from the conduction mechanism. Then, focusing on the site selection of EVCS from the aspect of user satisfaction, k-means clustering method was used to illustrate the relationship between charging distance and satisfaction degree. On this basis, considering with renewables integration and stable operation of power system, the paper constructed a multi-objective function including voltage fluctuation, load fluctuation and connected capacity of energy storage in EVCS. Third, under the feeder framework of an IEEE 33-node, GA-PSO was employed to determine the best solution of EVCS allocation., i.e. the optimal allocation number of EVCS, the site and capacity of EVCS, and the access nodes of renewables and EVCS. Combing with the analysis results, suggestions from the aspects of technology standard, finance subsidy, land use support and energy management were proposed for accelerating the generalization of EVs and strengthening the supporting infrastructure construction. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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