Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Impacts of electric vehicles on the electricity generation portfolio – A T

Scandinavian-German case study
M. Taljegard , L. Göransson, M. Odenberger, F. Johnsson
⁎

Department of Space, Earth and Environment, Energy Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

• The hourly impact of electric vehicles

(EVs) on the electricity system is ana-
lysed.
• The models include individual driving
data to optimise EV-electricity gen-
eration.
• The demand for EVs in Scandinavia-
Germany is met by wind power and
thermal power.
• EVs with vehicle-to-grid substantially
reduces the need for peak power ca-
pacity.
• ERS will increase the current net load
profile by up to 18 GW.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study investigates how electrification of the Scandinavian and German road transportation sectors under a
Electric vehicle stringent CO2 cap will influence investments in new electricity generation capacity up to Year 2050 and the
Energy system modelling dispatch of the electricity generation portfolio in Year 2030. We apply a cost-minimisation investment model
Electric road systems and an electricity dispatch model of the Scandinavian and German electricity systems, assuming both optimised
Peak power
charging and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) charging strategy for passenger electric vehicles (EVs). Different EV battery
Vehicle-to-grid
sizes and EV deployment levels are investigated in 11 different scenarios, whereby two of the scenarios include
Smart charging
also electric trucks and buses using electric road systems (ERS). The results of the modelling show that with a cap
on CO2 emissions, the additional electricity demand from an electrified road transport sector is met mainly by
increases in the outputs from wind power and thermal power plants, in the form of coal in combination with
carbon capture and storage. In Year 2030, wind power generation in Scandinavia and Germany increases by
7–30% depending on the EV scenario, as compared to a scenario without EVs, which corresponds to a few more
percentage points than the increased demand from EVs in absolute terms. Furthermore, a V2G charging strategy
for passenger EVs smoothens the net load curve and almost completely reduces the need for peak power capacity
in the Scandinavian-German electricity system. The value of investing in solar power is also reduced in all the EV
scenarios by 22–42%, as compared to a scenario without EVs. This is due to the fact that in Northern Europe
solar power competes with EVs for peak power supply. ERS for mainly trucks and buses will increase the current
load profile by up to 18 GW in the Scandinavian-German electricity system.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maria.taljegard@chalmers.se (M. Taljegard).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.133
Received 7 March 2018; Received in revised form 27 October 2018; Accepted 30 October 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Taljegard et al.
1. Introduction
Electrification of road transportation is commonly seen as a way to
reduce the impact on climate of the transport sector (e.g. the European
Commission [1], Fridstrøm and Alfsen [2] and Johansson [3]). Several
governments are promoting zero-emission vehicles through different
policies, such as tax reductions and other economic benefits. Using an
optimistic deployment scenario for electric and hybrid vehicles in
Norway, Fridstrøm and Alfsen [2] have estimated a penetration of 1
million and 1.5 million electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs) by Year 2030 and Year 2050, respectively.
This would correspond to vehicle shares of 34% in Year 2030 and 53%
in Year 2050. In a fossil-free scenario for Sweden, the EV fleet is as-
sumed to increase to a share of 22% in Year 2030 and to 60% in Year
2050 [3]. Sweden recently established a target of a 70% reduction in
CO2 emissions by Year 2030 relative to Year 2010 [4]. Meeting this
target, will require substantial deployment of EVs over the coming
decades. This will create an additional electric load and necessitate
efficient integration of EVs into the electricity system. Although pre-
vious studies have shown that full deployment of passenger EVs will
have only a limited effect on the yearly electricity demand for a given
country (typically an increase of 5–6% in electricity consumption
[3,5]), electrification may enhance peaks in the net load. Different
charging alternatives [e.g., static charging or electric road systems
(ERS)] and charging strategies [e.g., charging directly upon home-
coming, an optimisation of the charging time to minimise the correla-
tion with peak load or vehicle-to-grid; V2G strategy] will result in
different EV load profiles. These will have different effects on the in-
vestments in capacity and dispatch of the electricity system. In addition,
the expected expansion in the coming decades of variable renewable
energy sources (vRES), e.g., solar and wind power, will force the elec-
tricity system to handle more variable electricity generation, for ex-
ample, through load management and storage [6].
Several studies have been carried out in recent years to determine
the load profiles and impacts of passenger EVs on, for example, the
dispatch of generation technologies, CO2 emissions, and peak power
demand [7]. Veneri[7] concludes in a review of several studies that a
controlled charging of EVs can increase the share of renewable elec-
tricity, when at the same time increase the load factor for base load
power plants. This will also reduce the need for peak power. The studies
conducted by Grahn [8], Weiller [9], Darabi et al. [10], Vatne et al.
[11], and Stamati & Bauer [12] have used detailed driving patterns and
simulation models to determine the load curve for passenger EVs. For
example, using a model that includes stochastic individual driving be-
haviours, Grahn [5,8] has concluded that with 50% adoption of pas-
senger PHEVs in Sweden and assuming that 5 kW of charging power
from ERS are available for all types of trips, a 2-GW peak load from EVs
in Sweden would occur at around 12 pm. The analyses made by Vatne
et al. [11] of large-scale adoption of passenger EVs in a Norwegian
region using a low-voltage distribution network model have shown that
a V2G charging strategy for passenger EVs will not exert extra pressure
on the grid during the peak hours of electricity consumption in Norway.
Another group of studies has looked at the combined effect of in-
tegration of passenger EVs and vRES on the electricity system, applying
electricity investment modelling and/or dispatch modelling to de-
termine the load curve for passenger EVs [13,14,15,16]. Such model-
ling studies take into account other factors that may be important when
delineating the optimal charging of EVs. In some of these energy system
modelling studies (e.g., Göransson et al. [13] and Hedegaard et al.
[14]), passenger EVs have been proposed as a way to facilitate the
accommodation of more intermittent electricity generation in the
electricity system. For example, Göransson et al. [13] have shown by
modelling western Denmark that PHEVs that are charged at home or/
and in public places may increase the peak load if the charging period is
mainly at the home arrival time after office hours. However, they have
also shown that if the charging patterns are delayed by a few hours, to
1638
Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650
avoid increasing the late-afternoon peak in electricity demand, the
vehicle charging can instead be used for ‘valley filling’ of the net
electricity load, thereby reducing the competition between wind power
and base load at low wind shares (i.e., up to 20%). The electricity
system of Northern Europe was modelled by Hedegaard et al. [14]
using a linear cost optimisation model without possibilities for power
transmission between countries. They showed that controlled charging
(i.e., delaying the charging time to avoid increasing the evening peaks
or using the V2G strategy) and discharging a small fraction of the EVs
facilitated a significant increase in wind power investments if the in-
troduction of EVs was followed by economic support for renewable
energy technologies. However, the results varied significantly from
country to country. Lund and Kempton [15] studied a power system
with large-scale wind power employment using a deterministic model
that optimises the operation of a given energy system. They concluded
that EVs could facilitate the integration of more wind power into the
electricity system, assuming that charging is allocated to hours of low
demand or that charging takes place during periods of excess electricity
generation. Jochem et al. [17] analysed the CO2 emissions for con-
trolled and uncontrolled EV charging in Year 2030 using a cost-opti-
mising model of the German electricity system. They concluded that the
vehicle CO2 emissions for Year 2030 could range from zero emissions to
about 110 g/km, and they recommended controlled charging as a way
to reduce the emissions from an electricity system that included EVs.
Schill & Gerbaulet [18] modelled also the integration of EVs in the
German electricity system by using a dispatch model with one year time
resolution. They concluded that a controlled EV charging strategy can
smoothen the load curve and not only increases the utilization of re-
newable energy, but also strongly increase the utilization of thermal
power plants in Year 2030 [18].
All the above-mentioned modelling studies investigated a single
country as a closed system, thereby focusing on regional or national
electricity systems. Hadley and Tsvetkova [19] and Verzijlbergh et al.
[16] used a multi-regional dispatch model to study the impact of EVs on
the dispatch of the electricity system, including trading between re-
gions. A multi-regional study captures the geographical smoothening
effects, which have importance for investment in wind power [20,21],
and the distribution of hydro power. Using a minimum-cost unit com-
mitment dispatch model, Verzijlbergh et al. [16] compared the impacts
of controlled passenger EV charging on cross-border transmission for
different levels of penetration of vRES. They found that transmission
lines and a controlled passenger EV charging strategy were additive in
terms of handling a high volume of vRES in the German electricity
system. However, the multi-regional modelling conducted by Hadley
and Tsvetkova [19] and Verzijlbergh et al. [16] did not include the
impact on new capacity investments (for example investments in peak
power) from controlled charging of EVs. The results from the previous
studies mentioned above underline the importance of controlled char-
ging in avoiding any increase in the late-afternoon peak generation
through large-scale introduction of passenger EVs. This raises the pos-
sibility for EVs to handle more variable renewable energy (vRE) in a
system that employs V2G charging. Surveys of travelling habits are
commonly used in these types of modelling studies to define travelling
patterns that can be used to estimate the aggregated impacts on the
electricity grid of EVs. However, such surveys do not provide in-
formation at the level of individual vehicle trips, which makes it diffi-
cult to capture the potentials of optimised charging and V2G charging.
The aim of the present study is to elucidate how massive deploy-
ment of EVs affect the combined Scandinavian (Norway, Sweden and
Denmark) and German electricity system while meeting stringent CO2
constraints. The present study adds to the previous modelling studies
by: (i) investigate the impacts of EVs both on investment decisions re-
lated to new power capacity and the dispatch of the power plants,
considering an electricity system with the geographical scope of several
inter-connected countries; (ii) apply the GPS information from 429
privately driven passenger vehicles to determine the input data on the
M. Taljegard et al.
Table 1
Total number of electric vehicles for Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany combined.
Passenger cars [thousands] Light trucksa [thousands]
(high/low deployment scenario) (high/low deployment scenario)
Year 2016 200/200 3/–
Year 2030 37,970/12,260 2180/–
Year 2050 76,050/44,260 4070/–
a
Trucks and buses are only modelled for a high electric vehicle deployment scenario.
characteristics and distribution of the vehicle fleet; and (iii) incorporate
the electrification of several vehicle types (passenger cars, trucks and
buses) through two types of charging strategies (static charging and
ERS).
The models used in this study minimises the system cost for elec-
tricity system over the investment period investigated, in this case up to
Year 2050. It also minimises the cost of electricity generation for a
particular year (in this work for Year 2030), including cross-border
trading of electricity. The modelling results for an electricity system
with and without the inclusion of EVs are compared for different
electrification scenarios, two of which also include electrification of
heavy vehicles assuming ERS. In addition, this study uses the GPS data
from 429 privately driven passenger vehicles to determine the different
daily driving patterns. This captures the spread in the individual driving
patterns in a better way than can be achieved using an aggregated fleet,
and thus better represents the limitations that apply to the ability of the
vehicles to distribute the charging over time. Two different charging
strategies for passenger EVs are analysed: (i) an Optimisation strategy, in
which the charging time of the EVs is optimised in order to minimise
the electricity system cost of meeting the electricity demand; and (ii) an
optimisation plus V2G strategy that also includes discharging of pas-
senger EVs to the grid (Optimisation + V2G). The remaining part of the
paper is organized as follows: Section 2 described the methodology and
modelling used, Section 3 presents the results from the modelling and
Section 4 discusses the results. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions
drawn from the work.
2. Methodology
Integration of EVs in the combined Scandinavian and German
electricity system is analysed using an Electricity Systems Investment
model (ELIN) and an Electricity System Dispatch model (EPOD), ori-
ginally constructed by Odenberger et al. [22] and Unger et al. [23] and
further refined by Göransson et al. [24] and Nyholm et al. [25]. These
two models have previously been used to study the transformation of
the European electricity system to meet European policy targets on CO2
emissions. The ELIN model is a cost-minimisation model that is de-
signed to analyse transformation of the European electricity system by
making investment decisions in new electricity generation capacity
until Year 2050, while meeting assumptions related to key scenario
parameters, e.g. a CO2 emissions trajectory. The EPOD model takes the
description of the power system, fuel and CO2 prices, and transmission
lines as obtained from ELIN for a certain year (in the present work, Year
2030) and carries out optimisation to find the least-cost hourly dispatch
of the system. The investment model ELIN is run until 2050, since the
model has perfect foresight and might impact the results for Year 2030.
The geographical scope of the modelling is Sweden, Norway, Denmark
and Germany. The results are presented in aggregated form for the
investigated countries.
In the present study, the two models are expanded to include an
electrified road transport sector in the form of static charging of pas-
senger EVs and/or ERS, where the number of EVs is exogenously given
as new load. Thus, a new demand for electric transportation has been
added to both the investment model and the dispatch model. The two
models optimise the times of charging and discharging of the passenger
1639
Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650
Busesa [thousands] Heavy trucksa [thousands]
(high/low deployment scenario) (high/low deployment scenario)
0/– 0/–
75/– 490/–
125/– 1000/–
EVs, while at the same time fulfilling a given hourly EV demand with
the number of EVs, the battery size, and the hourly EV demand being
exogenously given. Thus, there is no optimisation of vehicle or battery
investments in the models. In ELIN, every decade until Year 2050 is
modelled with 480 h per year (20 representative days with 1-hour time
resolution). The new load from EVs and the Optimisation + V2G
strategy (i.e., EV batteries providing storage) may affect investment
decisions regarding electricity generation capacity in ELIN. In EPOD,
Year 2030 is modelled with 8760 h to determine the optimal dispatch of
the power plants, as well as, the hourly charging and discharging of
passenger EVs during a full year.
2.1. Data and assumptions
To estimate the impact of EVs on the electricity system, data are
needed for: (i) the total number of EVs; (ii) the total yearly driving
distance using electricity; (iii) the fuel consumption per km; and (iv) the
travelling patterns of persons driving EVs. The trucks and buses are
assumed to use ERS for all their vehicle kilometres in two of the in-
vestigated scenarios. In those two scenarios, it is also assumed that all
trips for passenger EVs that are longer than the battery driving range
use ERS as a range extender. The yearly aggregated electricity demand
for the EV fleet (EiEV
, y ) in region i and for year y is given by the equation:
EiEV
, y = Ni, y × vkm × FC i I, y Y (1)
where Ni, y is the number of EVs in region i for year y, vkm is the number
of yearly kilometres per vehicle using electricity, and FC is the elec-
tricity consumption per kilometre.
2.1.1. Number of electric vehicles and vehicle specifications
Table 1 shows the assumptions made regarding the total number of
passenger cars, electric trucks and buses in Years 2016, 2030 and 2050.
The total numbers of passenger vehicles in Norway, Sweden, Denmark
and Germany in Year 2016 were 2.6 [26], 4.6 [27], 2.4 [28], and 46
[28] million vehicles, respectively. It is further assumed that there will
be an increase of approximately 13% and 37% in the numbers of pas-
senger vehicles by Years 2030 and 2050, respectively, based on an es-
timate made for Sweden by Johansson et al. [3]. In the present study, a
high EV deployment scenario assumes an EV share of the total fleet of
60% by Year 2030 and 100% by Year 2050. For all four countries, this
entails 38 million and 76 million passenger EVs by Years 2030 and
2050, respectively, as shown in Table 1. In a sensitivity analysis, a low
deployment scenario has been investigated with an EV share of 20% by
Year 2030 and 60% by Year 2050. Trucks are categorised as light or
heavy. The numbers of light and heavy trucks and buses in each country
in Year 2016 are taken from Eurostat [28], and the total numbers of
light/heavy trucks and buses are assumed to increase in all regions by
Year 2050, according to the scenarios developed for Sweden by Jo-
hansson et al. [3]. Furthermore, the same rates of electrification as for
passenger vehicles are assumed for trucks and buses. The number of
EVs per country is exogenously given in the model.
The rates of fuel consumption are assumed to be 0.16, 0.33, 1.19
and 2.06 kWh per km for passenger cars, light trucks, buses, and heavy
trucks, respectively, and these values exclude the electric motor effi-
ciency and other electrical and mechanical power transmission losses
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

[29]. The yearly driving ranges, based on national statistics for Sweden,
are 14,000, 41,000, and 57,000 km per year for light trucks, buses, and
heavy trucks, respectively, and are assumed to be the same for all the
countries [27]. The power required for static charging of passenger EVs
is assumed to be 3.7 kW. The charging and discharging efficiency of the
battery is assumed to be 95% (i.e., a round-trip efficiency of 90%) for
both static charging and ERS in the models [29].

2.1.2. Travelling patterns

Individual travelling patterns determine the time periods during
which the passenger EVs are parked and available for charging/dis-
charging back to the grid. In the present study, the assumptions made
regarding passenger travelling patterns are based on GPS data from 429
randomly chosen gasoline and diesel vehicles that completed a total of
107,910 trips between Years 2010 and 2012 in the Västra Götaland
region (for more details of the dataset, see Karlsson and Kullingsjö [30]
and Kullingsjö and Karlsson [31]). In total, 12,400 week-days and
5800 days during weekends and holidays were included in the mea-
surements. The average yearly driving distance per vehicle for the
measured fleet was 17,400 km and the average two-way daily com-
muting distance was 58 km [30]. This is higher than the Swedish na-
tional average of 12,400 km per year, possibly due to a larger share of
the measured vehicle fleet being run on diesel, as compared to the
Swedish national average. The passenger EVs are assumed to be
available for charging at all stops that last at least 1 h. Fig. 1 shows the
share of the aggregated passenger fleet that is available for charging
(i.e., vehicles that are parked for more than 1 h). In this study, the
driving patterns from 200 vehicle-week-days out of 12,400 vehicle-
week-days were used for optimisation of the model, so that they to-
gether match the profile and driving distance of the aggregated fleet
shown in Fig. 1. This was performed to capture in a better way the
spread of the individual driving patterns than can be achieved using an
aggregated fleet, and thus better represent the limitations related to the
ability of the vehicles to distribute the charging over time.
The clustering method K-means was used to choose the 200 vehicle-
days that are representative in terms of distance and driving profile,
whereby each day is assigned a weighting factor. Running the model
with more than 200 daily driving profiles was computationally onerous
and it was found that 200 vehicle-days were needed to represent ac-
curately the aggregated driving profile. These 200 vehicle-week-day
profiles were used repetitively in the model to represent the driving
Fig. 2. Load profile for trucks and buses for an average day, where Hour 1
correspond to 1 am.
patterns for all days of the year. The drawback of the applied modelling
methodology in using representative driving days is that it does not
allow the taking into account of the electricity stored in the vehicle
batteries from one day to another. Thus even though there is good
overall representation of the demand profiles from the representative
days, there is no information on the inter-linkages between such re-
presentative days.
Trucks and buses are assumed to be electrified using ERS. The load
profile for an average day for buses and trucks, as shown in Fig. 2, is
taken from the analysis of traffic flow data presented by Taljegard et al.
[29]. The demand from ERS is then the yearly load profile, i.e., the
hourly share of the yearly demand, multiplied by the total amount of
yearly driving for the fleet.
2.2. Investment and dispatch model structure
The Scandinavian-German electricity generation system analysed in
the present work is as previously mentioned, derived from two opti-
misation models: the ELIN investment model and the EPOD dispatch
model. The investment model minimises the total investment and
running cost, while the dispatch model minimises the total running cost
of the electricity generation system. Eqs. (2) and (3) describe the ob-
jective functions of the investment model and the dispatch model, re-
spectively. The demand in ELIN and EPOD (i.e. Year 2030 for the EPOD
model) must then be satisfied for each year, time-step and region,
which implies the constraint seen in Eq. (4). A full mathematical de-
scription of the EPOD dispatch model is described in Goop et al. [32].
run
MINCtot = i I p P y Y t T (ci, p, y, t · gi, p, y, t )

inv fix
+ i I p P y Y (Ci, p, y i i, p, y + C i, p, y x i, p, y ) (2)

MINCtot = i I
run
p P t T (ci, p, t · gi, p, t + cicycl
, p , t )+ i I
fix
p P Ci, p x i, p (3)

p P gi, p, y, t + j I , j i qy, t , i, j Di, y, t i I, y Y, t T (4)

where

Ctot is the total system cost

Fig. 1. Share of the aggregated fleet that is parked, i.e., available for charging/
discharging to the grid, and share of the aggregated fleet that is being driven on
an average day, where Hour 1 corresponds to 1 am.
I is the set of all regions
P is the set of all technology aggregates
Y is the set of all years in the investment period
T is the set of all time-steps (differ between the models)
cirun
, p, y , t is the running cost of region i, with technology aggregate p in year y at time-
step t

1640
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

gi, p,y,t is the electricity generation in region i, technology aggregate p, for year y at resolution for 20 representative days per year until Year 2050 are in-
time-step t
cluded in the investment modelling of this work. The electricity de-
cicycl is the cycling costs (summed start-up costs and part-load costs) in region i
, p, t
with technology aggregate p in year y at time-step t mand and the distribution of the numbers of EVs per country into re-
Ciinv is the investment costs of technology aggregate p in region i and year y gions within each country are given according to GDP [37].
, p, y
is the fixed operational and maintenance costs of technology aggregate p in The present study takes the results from the investment model (i.e.,
Ci,fix
p, y
region i and year y the description of the power system, fuel and CO2 prices, and trans-
ii,p, y is the investment in region i and technology aggregate p in year y mission lines) for Year 2030 and performs optimisation in the dispatch
xi, p,y is the existing capacity in region i and technology aggregate p in year y model (EPOD), to uncover the least-cost hourly dispatch of the system
Di,y,t is the demand for electricity in region i and year y at time-step t for Year 2030. The EPOD model analyses the dispatch of power tech-
qy, t, i, j is the flow of power, positive or negative, from region j to region i in year y
nologies, demand for peak power (i.e., use of gas turbines to cover only
at time-step t
peak demand), and the generation patterns of the power technologies in
Due to computational limitations, the geographical scope of the mod- the system. Furthermore, the model provides the: (i) annual electricity
elling in this work is limited to Scandinavia and Germany (although production by fuel and technology; (ii) total yearly system cost; (iii)
ELIN and EPOD are normally run for the EU-27 countries plus Norway charging and discharging profiles of the EVs; and (iv) hourly marginal
and Switzerland). Scandinavia and Germany are sub-divided into 14 cost for electricity. The EPOD model also takes into consideration the
regions based on the current bottlenecks in transmission capacity. linkages between the operation of a combined heat and power plant
In this work, the ELIN model includes an annual constraint on CO2 and the district heating load, as well as the cycling properties of power
emissions, with a linear reduction in emissions between Year 2010 and plants (minimum load requirements, start and stop decisions). The
Year 2050. The levels of emissions from the modelled electricity system electricity demand, as well as wind power and solar power fluctuations
correspond to reductions of 60% and 93% in Year 2030 and Year 2050, are included on an hourly basis in EPOD. The hourly data are based on
respectively, as compared to Year 1990, which is in line with the data from the European Network of Transmission System Operators for
emissions target set by the European Union [33]. A scenario with a Electricity ENTSO-E (load) [38], and MERRA metrological data (solar
stricter CO2 cap designed to achieve a 99% reduction in emissions by [39,40] and wind [41]). EV transportation demand and the battery
Year 2050 is also investigated in a sensitivity analysis. The version of interaction with the electricity system are all parts of the model version
the investment model applied in this study has a time horizon up to applied in this work.
Year 2050, with investment decisions made every decade and an intra-
annual time resolution of 20 representative days and an hourly time
resolution chosen based on Nahmmacher’s method [34], with some 2.3. Electric vehicle implementation
minor modifications. This approach to represent time was further
evaluated by Reichenberg [35]. The data used for choosing the re- The inclusion of 200 individual daily passenger EV driving profiles
presentative days with Nahmmacher’s method are derived from the and ERS in the ELIN and EPOD models requires modification of the
wind and solar power profiles, as well as the load profile. models used in previous studies. Fig. 3 illustrates the structure of the
The development of the electricity supply system over time is based models and their main input and output parameters. The EVs are im-
on phasing out current power plants based on projected technical life- plemented using the same equations in the investment model (ELIN)
times and then making investments in new generation capacity to meet and the dispatch model (EPOD), although in the investment model
the electricity demand, subject to a number of constraints. Information every tenth years (y) until Year 2050 are modelled with 480 h per year
on the current European electricity supply system in the model is from (20 representative days with 1-hour time resolution). In contrast, the
the Chalmers Energy Infrastructure databases, which have almost full EPOD calculations are limited to Year 2030 (i.e., y = 2030) with 8760 h
coverage of power plants that have a rated net capacity > 10 MW (for (1-hour time resolution). A new demand for passenger EVs and a de-
more information on the database, see Kjärstad and Johansson [36]). mand for other types of vehicles (i.e., trucks and buses) using electricity
Possible generation technologies for the model to invest in are on- and through ERS have been added to the balancing constraint, which on an
off-shore wind power, solar power, heat pumps, and different types of hourly time-scale balances electricity generation and demand (see Eq.
thermal power plants (e.g., condensing, with carbon capture, and
combined heat and power), which can be run on coal, lignite, natural
gas, oil, biomass or waste. For the scenario considered, new investments
in nuclear and hydro power are not allowed, due to both political and
nature preservation reasons. The investment costs, operational and
maintenance (O&M) costs and technical life-times for the different
technological and fuel options are given in Appendix A. Carbon capture
and storage (CCS) in combination with fossil sources has in the model a
capture efficiency of about 90%. The development over time of the
electricity demand, excluding EVs, for different countries in all the in-
vestigated scenarios is based on the Energy Roadmap scenario titled
“High Energy Efficiency” [33] (see Table A2 in Appendix A). A mod-
erate increase (approximately 2.5% in total by Year 2050 compared to
Year 2015) in electricity demand is assumed. The national electricity
demand is divided into regional demand based on the statistics for gross
domestic product (GDP) obtained from Eurostat [37]. The transmission
network between regions is modelled according to the current expan-
sion plans with their specific capacities and limits. There is also the
possibility to invest in additional transmission capacity in the invest-
ment model. The energy demand (excluding EVs), possible generation
technologies for the model to invest in, and the modelling of the
transmissions lines are the same in all the investigated scenarios. An
hourly EV demand and the balancing of the EV batteries for the 200 Fig. 3. A schematic of the main modelling elements applied in this work, in-
individual daily passenger EV driving profiles on an hourly time cluding the input and output parameters used in this study.

1641
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

Table 2
Charging strategies and electrification scenarios investigated in this work.
Scenario Share of EVs by Transport modes CO2 emissions reduction in Charging strategy Passenger EV Passenger EV battery Share of the road
Year 2030/ included the electricity system by battery size [kWh] capacity by Year 2030/ distance on electricity
2050 Year 2050 2050 [TWh]

S1 0%/0% – 93% – – – –
S2 20%/60% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation 30 0.4/1.3 0.93
S3 20%/60% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation + V2G 30 0.4/1.3 0.93
S4 20%/60% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation + V2G 15 0.2/0.7 0.85
S5 20%/60% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation + V2G 85 1.0/3.8 0.98
S6 60%/100% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation 30 1.1/2.3 0.93
S7 60%/100% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation + V2G 30 1.1/2.3 0.93
S8 60%/100% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation + V2G 15 0.6/1.1 0.85
S9 60%/100% Passenger EV 93% Optimisation + V2G 85 3.2/6.5 0.98
S10 60%/100% Passenger EV 99% Optimisation + V2G 30 1.1/2.3 0.93
S11 60%/100% Passenger EV, 93% Optimisation + V2G 30 1.1/2.3 1.0
trucks and buses
S12 60%/100% Passenger EV, 93% Optimisation + V2G 15 0.6/1.1 1.0
trucks and buses

(5)). Eqs. (6)–(10) are added to the models and are implemented with
the aim of optimising the time of charging and discharging of the
passenger EV, while at the same time fulfilling a given hourly passenger
EV demand assuming 200 individual daily passenger EV driving pro-
files. There are constraints on: (i) the maximum amount of charging at
each time-step (Eq. (6)); (ii) the maximum amount of discharging to the
grid at each time-step (Eq. (7)); (iii) the amount of EVs connected to the
grid available for charging and discharging to the grid (Eq. (8)); (iv) the
balancing of the charging and discharging of the EV battery (Eq. (9a)
and (9b)); and (v) the maximum EV battery storage capacity (Eq. (10)).
All variables in the model can be zero or positive values.
p P gi, p, y, t + j I , j i qy, t , i, j Di, y, t +
dp DP (Ei, dp, y, t
i I, y Y, t T (5)
EiDPEV
, dp, y, t
is the passenger EV discharging to the wheels for driving profile dp in
region i, for year y at time-step t
BSi, dp, y is the maximum storage capacity of the EV batteries for driving profile dp
in region i and for year y
Eqs. (6) and (7) limits the amount of electricity that can be charged and
discharged each hour depending on the number of passenger EVs that
are being parked for more than one hour. The maximum storage ca-
pacity of the batteries depends on both the number of passenger EVs
and the capacity of each passenger EV battery. In both the dispatch
model and the investment model, the balancing equations of the battery
(i.e., Eqs. (9a) and (9b)) is executed only on a daily basis and not be-
tween days. This means that the storage level of the battery at hour
CPEV
EiDgrid ERS
, dp, y , t · n )+Ei, y , t t + 1 depends on the storage level and the charging and discharging of
the battery at hour t, except for the last hour of the day (see Eq. (9b)).

EiCPEV NCi, dp, y, t ·CP i I , dp DP , y Y, t T (6)

, dp, y, t
2.4. Charging strategies and electrification scenarios
EiDgrid BSi, dp, y i I , dp DP , y Y, t T (7)
, dp, y, t
Two charging strategies for passenger EVs in the electricity system
NCi, dp, y, t FAdp, t ·Ni, dp, y i I , dp DP , y Y, t T (8) are investigated, both of which use a form of controlled charging:

SLiPEV
, dp, y, t + 1 SLiPEV CPEV
, dp, y, t + Ei, dp, y, t ·n EiDGrid
, dp, y, t EiDPEV
, dp, y, t i I , dp • Optimisation strategy: Charging of the electric vehicles is part of the
electricity system optimisation and charging is allocated in time
DP , y Y, t T (9a)
such that the total cost of the electricity system is minimised, while
SLiPEV SLiPEV CPEV
EiDGrid EiDPEV at the same time it fulfils a given hourly EV demand. If the charging
, dp, y, tt 23 , dp, y, tt + Ei, dp, y, tt ·n , dp, y, tt , dp, y, tt i I , dp
strategy is Optimisation, the variable for discharging of the EV bat-
DP , y Y , tt TT (9b) tery back to the electricity grid is set to zero.
SLiPEV BSi, dp, y i I , dp DP , y Y, t T (10)
• Optimisation + V2G strategy: Compared to the Optimisation strategy,
, dp, y, t
the Optimisation + VG2 strategy has in addition the possibility to
where discharge the passenger EVs back to the grid based on the most
advantageous case from the electricity system point-of-view, while
at the same time fulfilling a given hourly EV demand. Therefore, in
TT is the set consisting of only the last hour of each day the Optimisation + V2G strategy, the passenger EVs become an ac-
DP is the set of individual daily passenger EV driving profiles
tive player in grid operation by providing capacity- and energy-
EiCPEV is the passenger EV charging for driving profile dp in region i, for year y
, dp, y, t
at time-step t balancing services on an hourly basis. The flexibility of the charging
EiDgrid is the passenger EV discharging to the grid for driving profile dp in region strategy is limited by the number of passenger EVs connected to the
, dp, y, t
i, for year y at time-step t electricity grid at each time-step, the battery storage capacity, and
is the electricity demand for the electric road system in region i, for year y
EiERS
, y, t the maximum charging power (see Eqs. (6)–(10)).
at time-step t
n is the charging and discharging efficiency of the EV battery
NCi, dp, y, t is the number of passenger EV that are connected to the grid for driving Table 2 shows the twelve scenarios (S1–S12) investigated, whereby
profile dp in region i, for year y at time-step t each scenario consists of a combination of battery size, charging
CP is the charging power strategy, EV deployment level, CO2 emission reduction level by Year
FAdp, t is either 1 or 0 depending if the vehicles belonging to driving profile dp
2050, and transport modes. Scenario 1 (S1) is a reference scenario
are connected or not connected to the grid at time-step t
Ni, dp, y is the number of passenger EVs belonging to driving profile dp in region i, without EV. In Scenarios S2–S10, only the electrification of passenger
for year y EVs with static charging is investigated, assuming different battery
SLiPEV
, dp, y, t
is the storage level of the passenger EV battery for driving profile dp in capacities and passenger EV deployment levels (high deployment sce-
region i, for year y at time-step
nario or low deployment scenario, as described in Table 1). Three dif-
ferent battery sizes are investigated for the passenger EVs (15 kWh,

1642
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

30 kWh, and 85 kWh per battery), enabling a usable driving range of

Wind power generation [share of

approximately 90 km, 190 km, and 530 km, respectively. The distance

total production in Year 2030]

that can be travelled solely on electricity depends on the daily driving
profile (in this study, 200 profiles). In the model, the distance that can
be travelled solely on electricity is maximised. The remainder of the
distance (i.e., not covered by electricity) is in Scenarios S2–S10 as-
sumed to be covered by, for example, a conventional engine, assuming
that the vehicle is a PHEV. A shift of technology mode has not been
included in the modelling of the electricity system in these scenarios. In

0.40

0.42
0.43
0.42
0.43

0.42
0.44
0.43
0.44

0.43

0.44
0.44
Scenarios S6–S12, a high deployment of EVs is assumed with the
number of EVs presented in Table 1. In S10, the CO2 emissions level by
Year 2050 is restricted to 99% (instead of 93% as in all the other sce-

period 2020–2050 [GW]

New inter-connectors in
narios). In S11 and S12, full electrification of the road transport sector
is assumed, since in addition to static charging of passenger EVs, trucks
and buses use ERS. ERS is also used in S11 and S12 as a range extender
for passenger EVs for those trips that can’t be completed using only
electricity, due to the battery size and driving pattern. For trucks and
buses, ERS is seen as the main way of using electricity. As shown in

10.7

10.2
9.7

8.8
8.8
9.2
8.8

9.0
9.4
8.9

9.1
9.4
Table 2, the aggregated passenger battery energy capacity for the four
countries investigated ranges from 0.2 TWh to 6.5 TWh, depending on

Wind power curtailed

the scenario and year.

in Year 2030 [%]

Fig. 4 shows the yearly electricity demands exogenously given in the
model for EVs for Years 2030 and 2050, aggregated for Denmark,
Sweden, Norway and Germany for Scenarios S2–S12. As shown in
Fig. 4, the electricity demand varies within the ranges of 30–170 TWh

2.1

1.7
2.0
1.9
1.9

1.7
1.9
1.9
2.1

1.1

1.6
1.9
by Year 2030 and 110–350 TWh by Year 2050. The EVs will in these Summary of the results with respect to main effects of including EVs in the electricity system models for Scandinavia and Germany.
scenarios increase the total electricity demand by 3–19% by Year 2030 Total investments in period
and 12–39% by Year 2050. 2020–2050 [GW]

3. Results

3.1. System impacts of integrating EVs

335

332
319
317
319

344
338
335
341

383

379
383
All the results are presented in aggregated form for Scandinavia and
Germany. Table 3 summarises the main modelling results for Scenarios
2030/2050 [€/tonne]

S1–S12 in relation to the system cost, new investments in capacity and

Cost of CO2 in Year

transmission lines until Year 2050, curtailment, and the generation of

wind power in Year 2030. The total CO2 emissions from the electricity
system are approximately the same for all the investigated scenarios,
22/112
20/31

20/35
19/34
19/34
19/34

21/40
21/40
21/39
21/40

26/46
26/46
since the emissions are capped. Electrification of the transport sector
will, of course, also reduce the tailpipe emissions from the vehicles. To
keep the CO2 emissions in the electricity system below the CO2 cap as
[billion €] and ([€/MWh])

the total electricity demand increases with the charging of EVs, a higher
System cost from EPOD

shadow price for CO2 is reached by Year 2050 (Table 3). An increase in
26 (28.7)

(28.0)
(27.2)
(27.2)
(27.2)

(29.2)
(27.8)
(27.9)
(27.8)

29 (28.7)

32 (29.9)
32 (29.6)
26
25
25
25

29
28
28
28
[billion €] and ([€/MWh])
System cost from ELIN

65 (17.1)

(17.0)
(16.9)
(16.9)
(16.9)

(17.4)
(17.3)
(17.3)
(17.3)

74 (17.7)

79 (17.5)
79 (17.5)
68
67
67
67

73
72
71
73

S10 (Opt+V2G-30 KWh)

S11 (Opt+V2G-30 KWh)

S12 (Opt+V2G-15 KWh)
S3 (Opt+V2G-30 KWh)
S4 (Opt+V2G-15 KWh)
S5 (Opt+V2G-85 KWh)

S7 (Opt+V2G-30 KWh)
S8 (Opt+V2G-15 KWh)
S9 (Opt+V2G-85 KWh)
99% reduction in 2050

ERS for trucks/buses

High EV deployment
Low EV deployment
S2 (Opt.-30 KWh)

S6 (Opt.-30 KWh)
S1 (without EV)

Fig. 4. Estimated annual electricity demands for electric vehicles (EV) in

Table 3

Scandinavia and Germany combined for Year 2030 and Year 2050 for Scenarios
S2 to S12.

1643
M. Taljegard et al.
the CO2 shadow price makes investments in more expensive electricity
generation technologies profitable.
The cost per generated unit of electricity will in the EV scenarios be
approximately the same as in the scenario without EV in both models,
as shown in Table 3. A small reduction (up to 1%) in investment, fuel
and fixed O&M costs can be noticed in the investment model for the
Scenarios S3–S5 compared to the scenario without EVs. The running
cost per unit of electricity is reduced with 3–5% in the dispatch model
EPOD for the Scenarios S2–S9 compared to the scenario without EVs.
The main cost reductions in EPOD are in the cycling costs (i.e., start-up
costs and part-load costs) and the variable and fixed O&M cost. In the
Scenarios S11–S12 which includes also ERS, the cost per unit of elec-
tricity will instead increase with 3–4% compared to the scenario
without EVs as seen in Table 3.
The total investment in new capacity for the period 2020–2050 in
Scandinavia and Germany (combined) is 335 GW in the scenario
without EVs (S1). The investments in capacity can, when the
Optimisation + V2G strategy is employed, be reduced in these scenarios
through low deployment of passenger EVs (S3–S5), by approximately
5% compared to the scenario without EV. The main reason for the re-
duction in capacity investments in the Optimisation + V2G scenario,
despite the higher demand for electricity, is the possibility for passenger
EVs to reduce the need for peak power capacities in the Scandinavian-
German electricity system. In addition, the Optimisation charging
strategy (S2 and S6) reduces the need for peak power demand, albeit to
a lesser extent, since only an optimised charging is taking place and
there is no possibility for the discharge of electricity back to the grid. In
S6–S12, which entail extensive deployment of EVs, the investments in
new capacity increase by up to 14% to meet the new demand from EVs,
as compared to the scenario without EVs (Table 3). However, the per-
cent increase in investments is still lower than the percent increase in
demand when integrating EVs.
An excess of electricity generation under high-wind condition may
lead to the curtailment of wind power certain hours if there is no
possibility for storage or flexible use of electricity. The modelling re-
sults show that flexibility can be provided by passenger EVs in the form
of so-called “valley filling” in all the scenarios, with the EVs being
charged when there is an excess of electricity in the system. In all the
EV scenarios, there is a minor reduction in the share of the wind power
that is curtailed (Table 3), as compared to the case without EV (S1). In
the investigated region, regulation of generation from reservoir hydro
power and geographical smoothening through trade between regions
can also help to reduce curtailment in all 12 scenarios.
Table 3 also gives the total investments in new inter-connector ca-
pacity, of which a major fraction is the connections between Denmark
and Germany. With the Optimisation + V2G charging strategy, the in-
vestment in transmission lines decreases in some of the passenger EV
electrification scenarios (S2–S5, S7–S9 and S11–S12), as compared to
the scenario without EV. The decrease in investment in transmission
lines is attributed to the possibility to discharge the EVs to the grid so as
to smoothen the load curve and cover the peak power demand, rather
than using trade during those specific hours. The total amount of
electricity that is traded between the regions increases by up to 10% in
the scenarios with EVs (i.e., S2–S12), thereby increasing the use of the
transmission lines compared to the scenario without EV.
3.2. New investments in capacity and electricity generation
Fig. 5 shows the sum of investments in new capacity for the time
period 2020–2050 in the absence of EVs (Fig. 5a), and the differences in
new investments between an electricity system without EVs (S1) and
Scenarios S2–S12 with EVs (Fig. 5b) for Scandinavia and Germany
combined. The largest differences between the scenarios with and
without EVs are in the capacity investments in peak power, solar power,
thermal power, and wind power, as shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows the
1644
Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650
electricity generation in Year 2030 for the same scenario.
Fig. 6a shows that hydro power, fossil (gas and coal) power and
wind power dominate the annual electricity generation in Year 2030 in
Scandinavia and Germany. The additional electricity demand from EVs
is mainly covered by increased production from wind power and flex-
ible complements to wind power, i.e. natural gas and biogas-based
generation (Fig. 6b). The share of generation of wind power in Year
2030, compared to the total generation in Year 2030, is 40% in S1
(without EV), and 42–44% in S2–S12, as shown in Table 3. Therefore,
EV batteries facilitate only to a minor degree the integration of wind
power, given that the batteries can only provide diurnal storage in the
model, whereas wind power is characterised by fluctuations in gen-
eration on longer time-scales (i.e., several days).
In the longer time perspective, i.e. to Year 2050, the modelling re-
sults give – although not shown in the figures, that the additional
electricity demand from EVs is mainly covered by increased production
from wind power and some thermal power plants with CCS. In Fig. 5b,
it can be seen that the presence of EVs results in greater investments up
to 2050 in wind power capacity with the addition of 7–30 GW (i.e., an
increase of 4–17%) for EV Scenarios S2–S12. Towards the end of the
time period investigated, very low CO2 emission levels are allowed,
thus inhibiting natural gas to act as complement to wind power. Lack of
low cost flexible generation (e.g., the price of biogas has increased by
Year 2050) gives thermal base load generation in the form of coal with
CCS a competitive advantage relative wind power. At the same time,
the sites with most favourable wind conditions in Germany have al-
ready been deployed.
The flexible electricity demand of EVs stimulates a shift from peak-
load generation to base-load generation as seen in Fig. 5b. In the sce-
narios with EVs, the thermal plants and nuclear power plants will in-
crease the full load hours and be cycled to a lesser extent. Therefore,
there will be fewer emissions from the use and cycling of fossil fuel-
fired power plants in the scenarios with EV. This will create, within the
confines of the CO2 cap, room for more coal with CCS. In S10, in which
the CO2 emissions are set to almost zero by Year 2050, higher levels of
biomass (both biomass steam and biogas CCGT plants) together with
CCS lignite co-fired with biomass are used to cover some of the in-
creased demand from the EVs.
In all the EV scenarios that include Optimisation + V2G (i.e., S3–S5
and S7–S12), capacity investments in peak power capacity for Years
2020–2050 will in total decrease by 13–15 GW, as compared to the
scenario without EVs (S1) (Fig. 5b), which corresponds to a reduction of
close to 100%. Starting up thermal plants to cover the demand gen-
erates start-up and part-load costs and emissions, which can be reduced
or avoided in all the scenarios that include Optimisation + V2G of pas-
senger EVs owing to a smoothening of the net load curve. Therefore,
EVs support the integration of more wind power to a small extent, while
they also support the integration of more thermal power plants by in-
creasing the full-load hours for these technologies. For the passenger EV
scenarios with the Optimisation strategy without the possibility to dis-
charge the EV batteries to the grid (S2 and S6), the investments in peak
power for the period 2020–2050 are reduced by 3 GW (21%) and 9 GW
(59%), respectively, compared to the scenario without EVs. Investments
in solar power are taken place after Year 2030 in mainly Germany. The
value of investing in solar power, as compared to wind power, is re-
duced in all the EV scenarios for Year 2020–2050, by 12–20 GW (i.e.,
22–42%). The reduction in solar power in Scandinavia and Germany
could be due to the fact that in Northern Europe, which has poor
conditions for solar power, solar power mainly contributes to reducing
the day-time peak load. Under these conditions and with no cost at-
tached to using EV batteries for discharging to the grid, solar power
competes with EVs for peak power supply.
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

Fig. 5. New capacity investments in Scandinavia and Germany for the period 2020–2050 S1 without EV (a) and the differences in GW capacity investments between
an electricity system without EV (S1) and EV Scenarios S2–S12 (b). CCS = carbon capture and storage; BW-CSS = lignite co-fired with biomass carbon captured and
storage; Opt = Optimisation charging strategy; Opt + V2G = optimisation and vehicle-to-grid charging strategy; ERS = electric road systems.

Fig. 6. Total annual electricity generation in Scandinavia and Germany in Year 2030 for the scenarios without EV (S1) and the differences in electricity generation
between an electricity system without EV (S1) and EV Scenarios S2–S12 (b). Opt = Optimisation charging strategy; Opt + V2G = optimisation and vehicle-to-grid
charging strategy; ERS = electric road systems.

3.3. Power plant dispatch
Fig. 7 compares the hourly dispatch of the power plants in Scenario
S1 without EVs (Fig. 7a) with the S7-Optimisation + V2G scenario
(Fig. 7b) during a 1 week period in October of Year 2030. Fig. 7b in-
cludes also the hourly load for the charging and discharging to the grid
of the EVs in the same scenario (S7). In the Optimisation + V2G sce-
nario, the usage of thermal power is increased compared to the case
without EVs, and it is used to a greater extent as traditional base-load
generation in the electricity system. With EVs, nuclear-powered, as well
as fossil fuel- and bio-powered generation plants are cycled less fre-
quently with EVs than without EVs as seen in Fig. 7. In both of the
scenarios depicted in Fig. 7, the peak power is used for several hours
during 1 week. However, in the Optimisation + V2G case, the peak
power capacity can be reduced by discharging the EV batteries to the
grid (Fig. 7b). Fig. 7 also shows that the solar PV installed by Year 2030
mainly acts as peak power in the Scandinavian-German electricity
system.
3.4. Charging and discharging of electric vehicles
Fig. 8 displays the charging and discharging to the grid profiles from
the EV fleet for an average day, as obtained from the modelling in
Scenario S7 with Optimisation + V2G, as well as the annual maximum
spread of the levels of charging and discharging to the grid. It is clear
that the major share of the charging in Year 2030 occurs during night-

1645
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

Fig. 7. Model results for the generation of electricity and for charging and discharging from the EVs back to the electricity grid during a period of 1 week in October
in Year 2030 for S1 without EVs (a) and for S7 with Optimisation + V2G (b). CCS = carbon capture and storage.

time when the load from other sectors is low. In contrast, discharging to
the electricity grid occurs mainly during the peak hours in the morning
and afternoon (Fig. 8). The times of charging and discharging of pas-
senger EVs in Year 2030 are heavily influenced by the load curve from
other sectors.
Table 4 shows, for Year 2030, the total amount of discharging from
the vehicle to the electricity grid (i.e., Optimisation + V2G operation)
and the total amount of CO2 emissions in Year 2030 from the transport
sector, both if burning fossil fuels in combustion vehicle engines or CO2
emissions from the electricity system when charging EVs. The annual
level of discharging to the grid is in the range of 17–45 TWh in Year
2030. This level is low compared to the total generation in Scandinavia
and Germany of approximately 900 TWh per year, although it provides
flexibility to the system, which is important for reducing the levels of
peak power, as shown in Fig. 7. This service can to a large extent be
provided by the EV:s already in the scenarios with small batteries

Fig. 8. Charging (a) and discharging back to the electricity grid (b) from the EV fleet for a yearly average day, and the spread between the maximum and minimum
values for EV Scenario S7. The minimum values are zero for all hours.

1646
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

Table 4
Levels of power charging and discharging from vehicles to the electricity grid and the total CO2 emissions in Year 2030 from the road transport sector in Scandinavia
and Germany if using fossil fuels or electricity.
S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12
Battery capacity in Year 2030 [TWh] 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.6 3.2 1.1 1.1 0.6

Discharge in Year 2030 [TWh] – 17 17 18 – 20 20 18 17 45 30

Max charging/discharging power in Year 2030 [GWh/h] 28/0 43/29 41/21 44/29 56/0 62/35 60/37 63/34 60/35 72/59 71/40
Total emissions from the transport sector if using electricity in Year 2030 [MtCO2]a 4 3 3 3 10 11 10 11 11 17 15
Total emissions from the transport sector if using fossil fuels in Year 2030 [MtCO2] 29 29 27 31 91 91 83 95 91 119 136
Emissions per unit of electricity to the electric vehicles from the electricity system Year 112 85 98 86 94 96 98 95 95 101 94
2030 [gCO2/kWh]

a
Calculated as the CO2 emissions per GWhel multiplied by the amount of EV charging minus the discharging (GWh) each hour followed by summing for all hours
of Year 2030.

(15 kWh). However, larger batteries (85 kWh), as in S5 and S9, could
contribute to less severe cycling of the batteries than in the scenarios
with smaller batteries (15 kWh and 30 kWh), as in S3, S4, S7 and S8, in
which the battery is discharged more frequently from 90% down to
20% of battery capacity.
Passenger EVs will smoothen the net load curve so that the hour
with maximum net load is reduced with 7 GW (from 120 GW to
113 GW) if the Optimisation + V2G strategy is applied. With the
Optimisation strategy (and no V2G), the peak net load will be reduced by
less than 1 GW. In contrast, ERS of mainly trucks and buses will increase
the current net load profile by a maximum of 18 GW, assuming the
current travelling patterns. However, despite ERS for trucks and buses,
EVs as a whole decrease the need for peak power compared to the
scenario without EVs, since the Optimisation + V2G charging strategy is
applied for the passenger vehicles in those scenarios with ERS.
The present study used 200 daily driving profiles to represent the
spread in the individual driving patterns in a more detailed way than
can be achieved using one profile for the aggregated fleet, and to enable
a more realistic representation of battery availability in the electric
grid. In Fig. 7, charging and discharging to the grid are shown for
1 week in October for the sum of all the driving profiles. Fig. 9 shows,
for the same week in October, the charging (9a), EV load (9b) and
discharging back to the electricity grid (9c) for 3 of the 200 individual
daily passenger EV driving profiles. The profiles chosen are those with
the maximum, minimum and median daily driving distances. In Fig. 9,
the results from Scenario S7, which assumes a 30-kWh vehicle battery
and the Optimisation-V2G charging strategy are presented. As shown in
Fig. 9, the different driving profiles are charged and discharged in very
different ways due to differences in the daily driving distance and
profile. The profile with the maximum daily driving distance (802 km
per day) is almost never discharged back to the grid, since the charging
that takes place, mostly during the night-time, needs to be used for
driving during the day-time. The profile with the minimum daily
driving distance (5 km per day) can to a large extent allow discharging
to the grid, since a shorter driving distance means more time connected
to the grid, as well as, fewer hours charging the battery to be used for
driving.
3.5. CO2 emissions
The total CO2 emissions in Year 2030, calculated based on the EPOD
results for electricity used by all road transport in Scandinavia and
Germany are in the range 3–17 MtCO2 (Table 4), while the emissions
from burning fossil fuels are at maximum 29–136 MtCO2. Therefore, the
saving in CO2 emissions by switching from fossil fuels to electricity in
the road transport sector is about 85% for all the EV scenarios in Year
2030. The level of CO2 emissions from the electricity system for pas-
senger EVs is approximately 15 gCO2/km. This can be compared with
an average of 180 gCO2/km for the current vehicle fleet and the goal of
95 gCO2/km in Year 2020 set by the European Union.
4. Discussion
Although the modelling results presented in this work provide in-
sights into the influences that EV introduction would have on invest-
ments in the electricity generation portfolio, several parameters that
could influence the outcomes remain uncertain. These include: (i) fu-
ture driving patterns and the market diffusion of autonomous vehicles;
(ii) the dimensioning of battery size in relation to individual driving
patterns and preferences; and (iii) the willingness of individual house-
holds to participate in an optimisation and V2G solution. On the one
hand, cheaper batteries might lead to over-dimensioning of the battery
in relation to the daily travelling demand. The excess capacity could be
used for balancing the electricity system. On the other hand, the con-
tinuous development of the charging infrastructure, including ERS and
charging stations in public places, may lead to smaller batteries being
installed in passenger EVs. However, the present study shows that the
effects on the electricity system are marginal when the battery fleet for
Scandinavia and Germany increases from, for example, 0.2 TWh to
6.5 TWh. This is, however, probably dependent upon the fact that the
investment model can only balance EV battery storage within days. A
region with a lot of good resources for wind power, as is the case for the
investigated region, needs more long-term storage (i.e., of at least
several days) to increase further the wind power share of the total
generation. EVs neither substantially increases or decreases the share of
wind power in the system provided the assumptions in the present
study. The share of wind power linked to the integration of EVs might
be under-estimated in the present study, since no between-days storage
of electricity in the EV batteries is allowed.
Naturally, a smart charging strategy that includes V2G might in-
crease the degradation rate of batteries, owing to the higher frequency
of cycling. For battery owners to participate in a V2G system, they
would need to be compensated for such degradation. This may be
economically feasible, as EV batteries would thereby, to a large extent,
reduce the need for peak power during hours when the electricity price
is high. The EV batteries could potentially also be used as regulating
power (i.e., capacity available to meet demand within a short interval
of time) as investigated by Andersson et al. [42]. One decade after
significant EV employment, there is the potential to obtain substantial
battery capacity from batteries that are too degraded for EV purposes,
yet, have a potential role to play in the stationary electricity system.
However, the life-span and remaining capacity of such batteries are
highly uncertain. A V2G charging solution would most likely require
reinforcement of the local grid and the installation of additional char-
ging stations. It would be of interest to compare the value for the
electricity system of being able to charge and discharge EVs only at the
home location and in all parking lots. There may also exist other var-
iation management strategies to reduce peak power, such as stationary
batteries/secondary-life EV batteries, household temperature manage-
ment, and hydrogen storage. For the scenarios investigated, the options
for handling variability in net load output are restricted to trade, EV
batteries, and the ramping of thermal power plants. An interesting

1647
M. Taljegard et al.
Fig. 9. Modelling results for the charging (a), EV transport load (b) and dis-
charging back to the electricity grid (c) during 1 week in October for three of
the individual daily passenger EV driving profiles, i.e., the maximum, minimum
and median daily driving distances. The results are taken from EV Scenario S7.
future study would be to include the cycling cost of batteries and sto-
rage options other than EV batteries in similar models.
The results presented in this study are system-specific, i.e., fully
valid only for the investigated region, which is characterised by access
to reservoir hydro power, good conditions for wind power, but less-
good conditions for solar power. For other countries with similar con-
ditions for wind, solar and hydro power, the same type of electricity
system modelling might show similar results. A different region, such as
Spain, with more favourable conditions for solar power but little hydro
power, might instead utilise the EV batteries for handling daily
1648
Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650
variations of solar power, pointing to the need for investigations in such
regions.
An alternative to EVs is fuel cell vehicles that are powered by hy-
drogen. While hydrogen has a lower efficiency from electricity power
source to wheels compared to EVs, it offers better possibilities for en-
ergy storage and is produced during periods of excess electricity gen-
eration, as described in Taljegard et al. [29]. Using a fuel that could be
stored for several weeks and distributed at constant flow could provide
additional flexibility for the electricity system compared to batteries,
and could enhance the integration of more wind power [43]. However,
there are currently few hydrogen vehicles on the market, mainly due to
the lack of hydrogen infrastructure and difficulties associated with
hydrogen storage. ERS have gained a new interest during the past few
years mainly due to the fact that current battery technology are too
heavy for long range vehicle categories such as buses and heavy trucks.
ERS can potentially reduce the fuel costs per kilometre, but it is less
clear what the vehicle cost will be since it depends on the extent of ERS
and the possibility to reduce the on-board battery for trucks and buses,
as well as cars. It is not obvious which option/options that are the best
for the transport sector when moving away from fossil fuels, since both
hydrogen, EVs with static charging and ERS has its own advantages and
disadvantages, and these alternatives need to be investigated further
considering different economical and technical parameters. However,
such an analysis is considered outside the scope of this work. The
present work deals with the relation between future road electrification
and investments in new electricity generation. There are of course many
other aspects which will influence the possibility to electrify road
transportation as well as the conditions for electrification may differ
between different regions. Thus, there is a need for more work to
provide a more comprehensive assessment of electrification of the
transport sector.
5. Conclusions
A model-based investigation of the impacts of EVs on the
Scandinavian and German electricity system is presented. We compare
an Optimisation strategy, in which the charging time of the EVs is op-
timised to minimise the electricity system cost of meeting the electricity
demand, and an Optimisation + V2G strategy that also includes dis-
charging of passenger EVs to the grid. The methodology is superior to
methods found in literature in terms representing individual daily
passenger EV driving profiles. This enables an improved description of
the availability of passenger vehicle batteries connected to the elec-
tricity grid. The modelling results shows that the different driving
profiles are charged and discharged in very different ways due to dif-
ferences in the daily driving distance and profile. This study also in-
vestigates the impacts of EVs on both investment decisions related to
new power capacity and the dispatch of the power plants.
With respect to the modelling of the variations in electricity supply
induced by the EV load, the additional demand from an electrified
transport sector by Year 2030 is mainly met by increased generation
from wind power complemented with natural gas and biogas genera-
tion, provided that there is a cap on CO2 emissions. The modelling gives
that the CO2 emissions from the electricity system Year 2030 supplying
passenger EVs are only 15 gCO2/km. Towards Year 2050, i.e. the end of
the time period investigated, very low CO2 emission levels are allowed,
resulting in investments in both wind power and thermal base load
generation in the form of coal with CCS (or CCS lignite co-fired with
biomass) to cover the additional EV load. Lack of low cost flexible
generation and moving to sites with less favourable wind conditions
gives thermal base load generation in the form of coal with CCS a
competitive advantage relative wind power. The electricity generation
from wind power increases by 7–30% in the EV scenarios. This corre-
sponds to a few percentage points higher than the increase in transport
M. Taljegard et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650

electricity demand from EVs. Thereby, EVs neither substantially in-
creases or decreases the share of wind power in the system provided the
assumptions in the present study.
Furthermore, the present study shows that optimised charging, and
especially that allowing discharging to the grid (V2G), reduces (by
20–100%) the need for new investments in peak power capacity, as
compared to the scenario without EVs. The value of investing in solar
power is also reduced in all the EV scenarios by 22–42%, as compared
to a scenario without EVs, due to the fact that in Northern Europe solar
power competes with EVs for peak power supply.
In the present work, battery sizes greater than15 kWh per vehicle do
not facilitate the integration of more wind power or reduce the cur-
tailment of wind power, bearing in mind that the battery representation
in the modelling in this work only allows for intra-day storage. A sce-
nario with full electrification of the road transport sector, including ERS
for trucks and buses increases the net load by 18 GW. However, a sce-
nario that includes ERS still decreases the need for peak power, as
compared to a scenario without EVs, provided that the
Optimisation + V2G charging strategy is applied to the passenger EVs.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the Norwegian Public Road
Administration for financial support, and Dr. Sten Karlsson and Dr. Lars
Henrik Björnsson at Chalmers University of Technology for valuable
data input and fruitful discussions.

Appendix A. Input data

See Tables A1 and A2.

Table A1
Technology investment, operational and maintenances costs (O&M) and life-times of some of the key technologies available in the ELIN model [44–48].
Life-time Investment Fixed O&M Variable O&Ma
[Years] costa [€/kWel] costa cost
[€/kWel/ [€/MWhel]
year]

Hard coal
Condense 40 1560 27.36 2.1
CHP/BP 40 1560 27.36 2.1
CCS 40 3003 90.5 2.1
CCS + bio-cofiring 40 3463 107.6 2.1

Lignite
Condense 40 1560 31.68 2.1
CHP/BP 40 1560 31.68 2.1
CCS 40 3003 90.5 1.36
CCS + bio-cofiring 40 3463 107.6 2.1

Natural gas
GT 30 390 7.92 0.4
CCGT 30 780 12.96 0.8
CHP/BP 30 1014 16.56 0.7
CCS 30 1800 35.1 2.1

Bio & waste

Condense 40 1860
GT 30 380 7.92 0.7
CCGT 30 755 12.96 0.8
Waste 40 6630 443 2.1
CHP/BP 40 3150 57.6 2.1

Intermittent
Wind (onshore) 25 1320 30 1.1
Wind (offshore) 25 2190 100 1.1
Solar PV 25 1280 20 1.1
Small hydro 75 3745 73 1

a
The values shown for investment costs and the fixed/variable O&M costs are based on the World Energy Outlook assumptions of the IEA from the 2011–2014
editions [44–47] and have been extrapolated for Year 2035 to Year 2050. Investment costs for CCS technologies are obtained from the Zero Emission Platform [48].

Table A2
National electricity demand in TWh [38].
Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 Year 2050

Norway 134 125 127 131

Sweden 150 151 148 150
Denmark 35 35 36 38
Germany 563 561 556 576

1649
M. Taljegard et al.
References
[1] European Commission. Electrification of the transport system - studies and reports;
2017.
[2] Fridstrøm L, Alfsen KH. Vegen mot klimavennlig transport; 2014.
[3] Johansson T. Fossilfrihet på väg. Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of Enterprise, SOU;
2013. p. 84.
[4] Swedish Government. Det klimatpolitiska ramverket. Regeringskansliet 2017.
[5] Grahn P. Electric vehicle charging impact on load profile [Licentiate Thesis].
Stockholm; 2013.
[6] Robert Meyer MK, Themelis Nickolas, Bronicki Lucien, Soder Lennart, Vega Luis.
Renewable energy systems. Springer; 2013.
[7] Veneri O. Technologies and applications for smart charging of electric and plug-in
hybrid vehicles. Springer; 2017.
[8] Grahn P. Electric vehicle charging modeling [Doctoral Thesis]. Stockholm; 2014.
[9] Weiller C. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle impacts on hourly electricity demand in
the United States. Energy Policy 2011;39:3766–78.
[10] Darabi Z, Ferdowsi M. Aggregated impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on
electricity demand profile. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2011;2:501–8.
[11] Vatne Å, Molinas M, Foosnas JA. Analysis of a scenario of large scale adoption of
electrical vehicles in nord-trøndelag. Energy Procedia 2012;20:291–300.
[12] Stamati T-E, Bauer P. On-road charging of electric vehicles. IEEE transportation
electrification conference and expo (ITEC). 2013. p. 1–8.
[13] Göransson L, Karlsson S, Johnsson F. Integration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
in a regional wind-thermal power system. Energy Policy 2010;38:5482–92.
[14] Hedegaard K, Ravn H, Juul N, Meibom P. Effects of electric vehicles on power
systems in Northern Europe. Energy 2012;48:356–68.
[15] Lund H, Kempton W. Integration of renewable energy into the transport and elec-
tricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy 2008;36:3578–87.
[16] Verzijlbergh R, Martínez-Anido CB, Lukszo Z, de Vries L. Does controlled electric
vehicle charging substitute cross-border transmission capacity? Appl Energy
2014;120:169–80.
[17] Jochem P, Babrowski S, Fichtner W. Assessing CO 2 emissions of electric vehicles in
Germany in 2030. Transport Res Part A: Policy Pract 2015;78:68–83.
[18] Schill W-P, Gerbaulet C. Power system impacts of electric vehicles in Germany:
charging with coal or renewables? Appl Energy 2015;156:185–96.
[19] Hadley SW, Tsvetkova AA. Potential impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on
regional power generation. Electric J 2009;22:56–68.
[20] Reichenberg L, Hedenus F, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. Tailoring large-scale elec-
tricity production from variable renewable energy sources to accommodate base-
load generation in Europe. Renew Energy 2018.
[21] Reichenberg L, Wojciechowski A, Hedenus F, Johnsson F. Geographic aggregation
of wind power—an optimization methodology for avoiding low outputs. Wind
Energy 2017;20:19–32.
[22] Odenberger M, Unger T, Johnsson F. Pathways for the North European electricity
supply. Energy Policy 2009;37:1660–77.
[23] Unger T, Odenberger M. Dispatch modelling of the European electricity supply: the
EPOD model. Methods and models used in the project pathways to sustainable
european energy systems. Mölndal 2011:97–101.
[24] Göransson L, Goop J, Unger T, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. Linkages between de-
mand-side management and congestion in the European electricity transmission
system. Energy 2014;69:860–72.
[25] Nyholm E, Goop J, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. Solar photovoltaic-battery systems
in Swedish households – self-consumption and self-sufficiency. Appl Energy
2016;183:148–59.
[26] Statistics Norway. Registered Vehicles. https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-
reiseliv/statistikker/bilreg [accessed 7 March 2018].
[27] Statistics Sweden. Fordonsstatistik; 2017. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/
1650
Applied Energy 235 (2019) 1637–1650
statistik-efter-amne/transporter-och-kommunikationer/vagtrafik/fordonsstatistik/
[accessed 7 March 2018].
[28] Eurostat. Road transport equipment - stock of vehicles. European Commission;
2017.
[29] Taljegard M, Göransson L, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. Spacial and dynamic energy
demand of the E39 highway – implications on electrification options. Appl Energy
2017;195:681–92.
[30] Karlsson S, Kullingsjö L-H. GPS measurement of Swedish car movements for as-
sessment of possible electrification. Electric vehicle symposium and exhibition
(EVS27). 2013. p. 1–14.
[31] Kullingsjö L-H, Karlsson S. The Swedish car movement data project. In: Proceedings
to EEVC Brussels, Belgium, November 19–22, 2012; 2012.
[32] Goop J, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. The effect of high levels of solar generation on
congestion in the European electricity transmission grid. Appl Energy
2017;205:1128–40.
[33] European Commission. Energy Roadmap 2050. Brussels; 2011. https://ec.europa.
eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2012_energy_roadmap_2050_en_0.pdf [ac-
cessed 7 March 2018].
[34] Nahmmacher P, Schmid E, Hirth L, Knopf B. Carpe diem: a novel approach to select
representative days for long-term power system modeling. Energy
2016;112:430–42.
[35] Reichenberg L. Variability and variation management in a renewable electricity
system [Doctoral Thesis]; 2017.
[36] Kjärstad J, Johnsson F. The European power plant infrastructure—presentation of
the Chalmers energy infrastructure database with applications. Energy Policy
2007;35:3643–64.
[37] Eurostat. Gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices by NUTS 2 regions;
2012. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10r_2gdp
&lang=en [accessed 7 March 2018].
[38] European Network of Transmission Operators for Electricity. Hourly load values for
all countries for a specific month (in MW); 2017. http://www.entsoe.eu/db-query/
consumption/mhlv-a-specific-country-for-a-specific-month [accessed 7 March
2018].
[39] Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO). MERRA-2 tavg1_2d_rad_Nx:
2d,1-hourly,time-averaged,single-level,assimilation,radiation diagnostics V5.12.4.
Greenbelt, MD, USA: Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center
(GES DISC); 2015 [accessed 7 March 2018].
[40] Norwood Z, Nyholm E, Otanicar T, Johnsson F. A geospatial comparison of dis-
tributed solar heat and power in Europe and the US. PLoS ONE 2014.
[41] Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO). MERRA-2 tavg1_2d_slv_Nx: 2d,1-
hourly,time-averaged,single-level,assimilation,single-level diagnostics V5.12.4.
Greenbelt (MD, USA): Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services
Center (GES DISC); 2015 [accessed 7 March 2018].
[42] Andersson S-L, Elofsson A, Galus MD, Göransson L, Karlsson S, Johnsson F, et al.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as regulating power providers: case studies of
Sweden and Germany. Energy Policy 2010;38:2751–62.
[43] Göransson L, Johnsson F. A comparison of variation management strategies for
wind power integration in different electricity system contexts. Wind Energy
2018;21:837–54.
[44] International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook; 2011.
[45] International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook; 2012.
[46] International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook; 2013.
[47] International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook; 2014.
[48] Zero Platform. The costs of CO2 capture - post-demonstration CCS in the EU.
Brussels, Belgium; 2011. http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/
publications/119801/costs-co2-capture-post-demonstration-ccs-eu.pdf [accessed 7
March 2018].