How to Charge Electric Vehicles: A Comparison of Charging Infrastructure Concepts and Technologies

  • Benedikt Römer
  • Tobias Schneiderbauer
  • Arnold Picot
Conference paper


Electric vehicle sales are expected to soar within upcoming years. A main restraint could be the lack of charging infrastructure. With various available charging technologies, selection is an important challenge. This study provides a decision framework to select a suitable charging infrastructure technology for specific use-cases. We identify and explain the main criteria for an evaluation of charging infrastructure technologies. Furthermore, we develop an assessment framework. For the European market, we found that battery swapping stations should not be implemented. For home and workplaces, we recommend normal charging, whereas for public places and highways fast charging is preferred.


Charge Station Analytical Hierarchy Process Electric Vehicle Decision Framework Normal Charge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ananda J, Herath G (2009) A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ 68(10):2535–2548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (2009) Interviewing experts, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulanger AG, Chu AC, Maxx S, Waltz DL (2011) Vehicle electrification: status and issues. Proc IEEE 99(6):1116–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown S, Pyke D, Steenhof P (2010) Electric vehicles: the role and importance of standards in an emerging market. Energy Policy 38(7):3797–3806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brylawsk M, Lovin AB, Schewel L (2008) Smart Garage Charrette report. Rocky Mountain Institute, SnowmassGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers N (2011) Power politics: competing charging standards could threaten adoption of electric vehicles. 14 July 2011
  8. Chou Y, Lee C, Chung J (2004) Understanding M-commerce payment systems through the analytic hierarchy process. J Bus Res 57(12):1423–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Committee for Standardization (2011) Focus Group on European electro-mobility: standardization for road vehicles and associated infrastructure. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  10. Flick U (2009) An introduction to qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  11. Framel C, Little G, Salisbury M (2010) Preparing for the arrival of electric vehicles. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Frost and Sullivan (2009) Executive assessment of new business models and their ROI for vehicle manufacturers; utilities and infrastructure service providers in the electric vehicle market. Frost and SullivanGoogle Scholar
  13. Frost and Sullivan (2011) Strategic technology and market analysis of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in Europe. Frost & Sullivan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabay C (2011) Models and generic interfaces for easy and safe battery insertion and removal in electric vehicles. 15 July 2011
  15. IEA (2011) CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion highlights. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1(2):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laufenberg K, Moorhouse J (2010) Electric vehicles: powering the future. The Pembina InstituteGoogle Scholar
  18. Liebold R, Trinczek R (2009) Experteninterview. In: Kühl S, Strodtholz P, Taffertshofer A (eds) Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 32–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Belluck DA, Meyer A (2006) Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Anal 26(1)Google Scholar
  20. Lombardi P, Heuer M, Styczynski Z (2010) Battery switch station as storage system in an autonomous power system: optimization issue. Paper presented at the IEEE Power and Energy Society general meetingGoogle Scholar
  21. Meuser M, Nagel U (1997) Das Experteninterview: Wissenssoziologische Voraussetzungen und methodische Durchführung. In: Friebertshäuser B, Prengel A (eds) Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Weinheim-Basel, Weinheim, pp 481–491Google Scholar
  22. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation, 1st edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saunders JH (1994) A comparison of decision accuracy in the analytic hierarchy process and point allocation. George Washington University, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmutzler J, Wietfeld C (2010) Analysis of message sequences and encoding efficiency for electric vehicle to grid interconnections. Paper presented at the IEEE vehicular networking conference (VNC), Jersey City, NJGoogle Scholar
  27. Schoemaker PJH, Waid CC (1982) An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Manage Sci 28(2):182–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (2010) Report on the current situation and future direction of electric vehicle charger standardisation. Society of Motor Manufacturers and TradersGoogle Scholar
  29. Tanaka N (2011) Technology roadmap: electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Trinczek R (1995) Experteninterviews mit Managern: Methodische und methodologische Hintergründe. In: Brinkmann C, Deeke A, Völkel D (eds) Experteninterviews in der Arbeitsmarktforschung: Diskussionsbeiträge zu methodischen Fragen und praktische Erfahrungen. Institute for Employment Research Nürnberg, pp 59–67.
  31. Tzeng G-H, Lin C-W, Opricovic S (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33:1373–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Automobile emissions: an overview. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van den Bossche P (2010) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure. In: Pistoia G (ed) Electric and hybrid vehicles: power sources, models, sustainability, infrastructure and the market. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 517–543Google Scholar
  35. Wiederer A, Philip R (2010) Policy options for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in C40 cities. Harvard Kennedy School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  36. Yudan A (2010) Accelerating e-mobility: better place. Presentation held at the Automotive Summit on November 9, 2010 in Brussels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benedikt Römer
    • 1
  • Tobias Schneiderbauer
    • 1
  • Arnold Picot
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Digital Technology and ManagementLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München and Technische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Information, Organisation and ManagementLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations