Multi-energy station design for future electric vehicles: A synergistic approach starting from scratch.

In transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), deploying charging infrastructure for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen refueling infrastructure for fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) is a key challenge. This paper presents a multi-energy EV station, accommodating both electricity and hydrogen refueling needs. This dual functionality increases system flexibility and simultaneously supports the adoption of BEVs and FCEVs. Unlike existing studies that consider only limited design options in EV station designing, this study modeled and optimized fifteen multi-energy EV station designs, combining renewable and non-renewable resources. These designs were evaluated against sustainability criteria covering technical, economic, environmental, and sociopolitical dimensions. The decision-making model used the AHP to weigh various criteria and employed methods such as GRA, MOORA, EDAS, TOPSIS, and VIKOR for ranking design alternatives. The planning model identified Design 14 as the optimal choice for the targeted site. This optimal design is cost-effective, offering a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of 0.046 $/kWh and a levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) of 3.907 $/kg. It outperforms the baseline design economically, reducing the LCOE by 1.97 times and LCOH by 1.35 times. Environmentally, it decreases emissions by 514.2 t/year compared to the grid. The station can operate safely with established safety measures. Results are benchmarked against other studies from various sites, and a sensitivity analysis on uncertain parameters elucidated expected variations in the outcomes. The presented EV station planning model can be applied worldwide, considering the meteorological conditions of the specific site. • Optimized 15 multi-energy EV stations for combined charging and H 2 refueling. • An innovative decision model with integrated methods was used for the assessment. • Optimal design achieved 1.74× reduction in net present cost and 9.34× in unmet load. • Optimal design evaded 514.2 t/yr carbon emissions compared with grid. • Optimal design results were compared for Pakistan, India, Turkey, Egypt and China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]