Advertisement

The Potential Benefits of V2G

  • Lance Noel
  • Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens
  • Johannes Kester
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool
Chapter
Part of the Energy, Climate and the Environment book series (ECE)

Abstract

Vehicle-to-grid has a myriad of potential benefits, though they can roughly be characterized into three central themes that align with different elements of sociotechnical systems. These themes include technical, economic, and environmental elements, and each impacts different actors and has different scopes, ranging from the individual to society. That is, V2G offers benefits in being cheaper and faster than other energy storage devices, while also offering novel economic revenues to consumers and reducing the environmental damages from both the electricity and transport sectors. Of course, many of these benefits are intertwined with other dimensions of the sociotechnical system, especially the co-evolution of the electricity grid and adoption of electric vehicles, which the chapter discusses next.

References

  1. 1.
    Zakeri B, Syri S. Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle cost analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;42:569–96.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noel L, Brodie JF, Kempton W, Archer CL, Budischak C. Cost minimization of generation, storage, and new loads, comparing costs with and without externalities. Appl Energy. 2017;189:110–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDonagh S, O’Shea R, Wall DM, Deane JP, Murphy JD. Modelling of a power-to-gas system to predict the levelised cost of energy of an advanced renewable gaseous transport fuel. Appl Energy. 2018;215:444–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apostolaki-Iosifidou E, Codani P, Kempton W. Measurement of power loss during electric vehicle charging and discharging. Energy. 2017;127:730–42.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hedegaard K, Meibom P. Wind power impacts and electricity storage—a time scale perspective. Renew Energy. 2012;37(1):318–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. DOT. Highway Statistics 2016 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; 2018 Jun. Available from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/.
  7. 7.
    EIA. Electric Power Annual [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration; 2017 Dec. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/.
  8. 8.
    Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimensions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):013001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markel T, Meintz A, Hardy K, Chen B, Bohn T, Smart J, et al. Multi-lab EV smart grid integration requirements study [Internet]. Golden, CO: NREL; 2015 May [cited 2016 May 22]. p. 91. Report No.: NREL/TP-5400-63963. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/60958.pdf.
  10. 10.
    Eyer J, Corey G. Energy storage for the electricity grid: benefits and market potential assessment guide [Internet]. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Labortories; 2010 Feb. p. 232. Report No.: SAND2010-0815. Available from: http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2010–0815.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Pearre NS, Kempton W, Guensler RL, Elango VV. Electric vehicles: how much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2011;19(6):1171–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    PJM. Ancillary service market results [Internet]. Ancillary Services. 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 12]. Available from: http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/ancillary-services.aspx.
  13. 13.
    Nissan. 2018 Nissan Leaf [Internet]. Nissan USA. 2018. Available from: https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf.html.
  14. 14.
    Noori M, Zhao Y, Onat NC, Gardner S, Tatari O. Light-duty electric vehicles to improve the integrity of the electricity grid through vehicle-to-grid technology: analysis of regional net revenue and emissions savings. Appl Energy. 2016;168:146–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noel L, McCormack R. A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable electric school bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Appl Energy. 2014;126:246–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon. Technical support document: social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866 [Internet]. United States Government; 2010 Feb. p. 51. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/scc-tsd.pdf.
  17. 17.
    Allcott H, Wozny N. Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy paradox. Rev Econ Stat. 2014;96(5):779–95.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hausman JA. Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. Bell J Econ. 1979;10(1):33.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao Y, Noori M, Tatari O. Vehicle to grid regulation services of electric delivery trucks: economic and environmental benefit analysis. Appl Energy. 2016;170:161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park D, Yoon S, Hwang E. Cost benefit analysis of public service electric vehicles with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capability. In: IEEE; 2016 [cited 2018 Jul 5]. p. 234–39. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7512954/.
  21. 21.
    Geels FW. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J Transp Geogr. 2012;24:471–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhou Z, Levin T, Conzelmann G. Survey of U.S. ancillary services markets [Internet]. Center for Energy, Environmental, and Economic Systems Analysis, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory; 2016 Jan [cited 2018 Jul 5]. p. 59. Report No.: ANL/ESD-16-1. Available from: http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2016/01/124217.pdf.
  23. 23.
    Knezovic K, Marinelli M, Codani P, Perez Y. Distribution grid services and flexibility provision by electric vehicles: a review of options. In: IEEE; 2015 [cited 2017 Aug 18]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7339931/.
  24. 24.
    EIA. Petroleum & other liquids [Internet]. U.S. Energy Information Administration—data. 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 13]. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.php.
  25. 25.
    Pope III CA. Lung Cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA. 2002;287(9):1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schwartz J, Coull B, Laden F, Ryan L. The effect of dose and timing of dose on the association between airborne particles and survival. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(1):64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levy JI, Baxter LK, Schwartz J. Uncertainty and variability in health-related damages from coal-fired power plants in the United States. Risk Anal. 2009;29(7):1000–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCubbin D, Sovacool BK. Quantifying the health and environmental benefits of wind power to natural gas. Energy Policy. 2013;53:429–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brandt T, Wagner S, Neumann D. Evaluating a business model for vehicle-grid integration: evidence from Germany. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 2017;50:488–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Noel L, Firestone J. Public trust doctrine implications of electricity production. Mich J Environ Adm Law. 2015;5(1):89.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arent D, Pless J, Mai T, Wiser R, Hand M, Baldwin S, et al. Implications of high renewable electricity penetration in the U.S. for water use, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, and materials supply. Appl Energy. 2014;123:368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon. Technical support document: technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866 [Internet]. Washington, DC: United States Government; 2013 [cited 2016 Feb 17]. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf.
  33. 33.
    Howard P. Omitted damages: what’s missing from the social cost of carbon. Cost of carbon project; 2014 Mar. p. 82.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Havranek T, Irsova Z, Janda K, Zilberman D. Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ. 2015;51:394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Howarth RB, Gerst MD, Borsuk ME. Risk mitigation and the social cost of carbon. Glob Environ Change. 2014;24:123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Viscusi WK, Aldy JE. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain. 2003;27(1):5–76.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moomaw W, Burgherr P, Heath G, Lenzen M, Nyboer J, Verbruggen A. Annex II: methodology. In: IPCC special report on renewable energy and climate change mitigation [Internet]. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY; 2011. Available from: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf.
  38. 38.
    Budischak C, Sewell D, Thomson H, Mach L, Veron DE, Kempton W. Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J Power Sources. 2013;225:60–74.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Loisel R, Pasaoglu G, Thiel C. Large-scale deployment of electric vehicles in Germany by 2030: an analysis of grid-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-grid concepts. Energy Policy. 2014;65:432–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Archer CL, Simão HP, Kempton W, Powell WB, Dvorak MJ. The challenge of integrating offshore wind power in the U.S. electric grid. Part I: wind forecast error. Renew Energy. 2017;103:346–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nikolakakis T, Fthenakis V. The optimum mix of electricity from wind- and solar-sources in conventional power systems: evaluating the case for New York state. Energy Policy. 2011;39(11):6972–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    EPA. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2016 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 Apr [cited 2018 Jul 16]. p. 995. Report No.: EPA 430-R-18-003. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/2018_complete_report.pdf.
  43. 43.
    Brandt J, Silver JD, Christensen JH, Andersen MS, Bønløkke JH, Sisgaard T, et al. Assessment of health-cost externalities of air pollution at the national level using the EVA model system [Internet]. 2011 Mar. p. 98 (Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series). Report No.: CEEH Scientific Report No. 3. Available from: www.ceeh.dk/CEEH_Reports/Report_3/CEEH_Scientific_Report3.pdf.
  44. 44.
    Buekers J, Van Holderbeke M, Bierkens J, Int Panis L. Health and environmental benefits related to electric vehicle introduction in EU countries. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 2014;33:26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    von Stackelberg K, Buonocore J, Bhave PV, Schwartz JA. Public health impacts of secondary particulate formation from aromatic hydrocarbons in gasoline. Env Health. 2013;12:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    World Bank. GDP (current US$) [Internet]. The World Bank—data. 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 16]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD.
  47. 47.
    Yamagata Y, Seya H, Kuroda S. Energy resilient smart community: sharing green electricity using V2C technology. Energy Procedia. 2014;61:84–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Díaz A, Ramos-Real F, Marrero G, Perez Y. Impact of electric vehicles as distributed energy storage in isolated systems: the case of Tenerife. Sustainability. 2015;7(11):15152–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    International Energy Agency. Global EV outlook 2017: Two million and counting [Internet]. OECD; 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 16]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/global-ev-outlook-2017_9789264278882-en.
  50. 50.
    Nilsson M, Nykvist B. Governing the electric vehicle transition—near term interventions to support a green energy economy. Appl Energy. 2016;179:1360–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lund H, Kempton W. Integration of renewable energy into the transport and electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy. 2008;36(9):3578–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pensini A, Rasmussen CN, Kempton W. Economic analysis of using excess renewable electricity to displace heating fuels. Appl Energy. 2014;131:530–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mwasilu F, Justo JJ, Kim E-K, Do TD, Jung J-W. Electric vehicles and smart grid interaction: a review on vehicle to grid and renewable energy sources integration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;34:501–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gelazanskas L, Gamage KAA. Demand side management in smart grid: a review and proposals for future direction. Sustain Cities Soc. 2014;11:22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mai T, Mulcahy D, Hand MM, Baldwin SF. Envisioning a renewable electricity future for the United States. Energy. 2014;65:374–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    MacDonald AE, Clack CTM, Alexander A, Dunbar A, Wilczak J, Xie Y. Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Change [Internet]. 2016 Jan 25 [cited 2016 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2921.
  57. 57.
    Kempton W, Pimenta FM, Veron DE, Colle BA. Electric power from offshore wind via synoptic-scale interconnection. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107(16):7240–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sovacool BK, Cooper C. The governance of energy megaprojects: politics, hubris and energy security. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2013. p. 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Torbaghan ME, Burrow MPN, Hunt DVL. Risk assessment for a UK pan-European supergrid. Int J Energy Res. 2015;39(11):1564–78.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Van Hertem D, Ghandhari M, Delimar M. Technical limitations towards a supergrid; A European prospective. In: IEEE; 2010 [cited 2018 Jul 16]. p. 302–9. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5771696/.
  61. 61.
    Zarazua de Rubens G. Who will buy EVs after early adopters? Using machine learning to identify EV mainstream buyers and their characteristics. Rev Energy. 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lance Noel
    • 1
  • Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens
    • 1
  • Johannes Kester
    • 1
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Business and TechnologyAarhus UniversityHerningDenmark
  2. 2.Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)University of Sussex UnitFalmerUK
  3. 3.Universiti Tenaga NasionalKajangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations