Received: 13 April 2020 Revised: 29 May 2020
DOI: 10.1002/er.5678
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Environmental impact assessment of green energy systems
for power supply of electric vehicle charging station
Constantin Filote1
Ioan Aşchilean3
1
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, Stefan cel Mare
University of Suceava, Suceava, Romania
2
ICSI ENERGY Department, National
Research and Development Institute for
Cryogenic and Isotopic Technologies—
ICSI Rm, Valcea, Romania
3
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical
University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania
Correspondence
Raluca-Andreea Felseghi, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, Stefan cel Mare University of
Suceava, Universitaţii Street, No. 13,
720229 Suceava, Romania.
Email: raluca.felseghi@insta.utcluj.ro
Ioan Aşchilean, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Technical University of
Cluj-Napoca, C-tin Daicoviciu Street, No.
15, 400020 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Email: ioan.aschilean@ccm.utcluj.ro
Funding information
Romanian Ministery of Research and
Innovation, CCCDI-UEFISCDI, Grant/
Award Number: PN-III-P1-1.2-PCCDI-
2017-0776/No 36 PCCDI/15.03.2
Int J Energy Res. 2020;1–24.
Accepted: 1 June 2020
| Raluca-Andreea Felseghi1 | Maria Simona Raboaca1,2 |
Summary
The Electric Vehicle (EV) as a clean alternative to Classic Vehicle that use fos-
sil fuels is promoted as an immediate solution to improve the quality parame-
ters of the environment related to the transport sector. The transition to clean
electrified mobility must be considered from the sustainability spectrum, and
the planning of a strategy related to the implementation of electric vehicles
implies, from the beginning, providing clean energy conditions to go toward a
green-to-green paradigm. It should be noted that the successful implementa-
tion of the “green electro mobility” concept depends heavily on the green
energy supply solutions of green electric vehicle, so Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations (EV-CS) should be powered by electricity generation systems based on
green resources. This research article has as main objective the environmental
impact assessment from the perspective of CO2 emissions embedded in green
stand-alone energy systems and the estimation of the environmental benefits
of their implementation in the power supply of EV-CS from the perspective of
avoided CO2 emissions compared to the classic electricity supply grid. The
results indicate that the green energy systems represent feasible solutions for
the independent energy support of electric vehicle charging stations, being able
to supply electricity based on on-site available 100% alternative energy sources.
Related to 1 kWh of electricity, the CO2 emissions embedded in these systems
represent on average 11.40% of the CO2 emissions of the electricity supplied
through the grid at European level and on average 7.10% of the CO2 emissions
of the electricity supplied through the grid worldwide. Results also show that
the average price of 1kWh of electricity generated by the analyzed systems is
4.3 times higher than the average unit price of the European Union grid
energy, but this indicator must be correlated with the kgCO2/kWh cost savings
compared to the electricity production from classic power plants.
KEYWORDS
clean energy, CO2 emissions embedded in system, eco-responsibility of electric vehicle charging
station, environmental impact of electric vehicle, green electro mobility, green energy, green-to-
green paradigm
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 FILOTE ET AL.
1 | INTRODUCTION
“Climate change” is one of the largest phenomena with a
negative impact that generates significant threats to the
environment, the social and economic framework.1
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to the global
phenomenon of climate change, the main sources of
GHG produced by humans being related to the burning
of traditional classic fuels for the generation of electricity,
transport, industry and households.2
The report of the World Meteorological Organization
of December 20193 highlights that “there is no sign of
slowing down and even less of a decline, despite all
commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate
changes.4 The quoted report indicates that the global
average CO2 concentration reached 407.8 ppm in 2018,
compared to 405.5 ppm in 2017. At this moment the CO2
concentration is 50% higher than in 1750, before the
industrial revolution opened the era of large-scale use of
coal, oil and gas. Since 1990, the increase in the level of
greenhouse gasses has led to an increase of 43% in the
heating effect of the atmosphere. Most of this effect–four
fifths–is caused by CO2. But the concentrations of meth-
ane and nitrogen oxide, two other key greenhouse gasses,
have also increased in 2018 with more than the annual
average of the last decade.3
CO2 is the greenhouse gas released into the environ-
ment with the highest weight in relation to the other
harmful emissions, being usually produced by human
activities. Other greenhouse gasses are issued in smaller
quantities, but they capture heat much more efficiently
than CO2, and in some cases are thousands of times
stronger. Figure 1 summarizes the GHG weights issued at
the worldwide level by the main economic sectors.5,6
The energy sector produces the highest share of green-
house gas resulting from the human activities. Therefore,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 80% by 2050 will
exert particular pressure, especially on power generation
(A) (B)
systems. Plans are being set up around the world and in the
EU Member States, and ways for achieving the agreed
energy and climate eco-responsibility goals for 2030 are
being opened. Policies and measures to support innovation
and investment are in a continuous process of development,
and the European Commission has recently adopted its
long-term strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
2050.7-9
The transport and mobility sector represents 31% of
global final energy consumption (see Figure 2), ranking
second after the residential sector–considered the largest
energy consumer and GHG massive emitter.10 Given that
the target of 80% decarburization globally translates into
practice also for the transport sector, it is necessary to
combine efforts to switch from propulsion based on inter-
nal combustion engines powered by conventional fossil
fuels to those using alternative fuels, respectively when
using electric propellers.
Worldwide, in recent years, there has been a diversifi-
cation of the vehicle propulsion mode, by using biofuels,
biogas, electricity, and exceptionally, hydrogen (H2), the
main types of vehicles, respectively the main fuels used
by these vehicles were schematically shown in Figure 3.
As clean alternatives to vehicles that consume fossil
fuels, electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
(FCVs) have attracted significant attention both to the
researchers and the manufacturers, because it is considered
that they do not generate harmful emissions for the environ-
ment during the operational phase.11,12 Although FCVs are
exceptional options for mitigating GHG emissions, hydrogen
infrastructure and economy face serious limitations,13 but
EV use has grown rapidly in recent years–electric vehicle
charging station (EV-CS) infrastructure management is con-
venient through worldwide availability of grid electrification,
especially in congestion key knots from urban areas.14,15
Counteracting the effects on climate change and the
effort to improve environmental parameters combined
with the obvious and worrying depletion of traditional
F I G U R E 1 GHG
emissions by sector. Carbon
dioxide (CO2);
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
Methane (CH4); Nitrous Oxide
(N2O) [Colour figure can be
viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FILOTE ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 Final energy
consumption by sectors10 [Colour figure
can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 3 Vehicle types and fuels [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
fossil fuel resources, as well as the associated costs of
increasing extraction, is vital to developing a whole range
of innovative technologies with low carbon footprint that
will ensure long-term sustainability of global mobility,
based on electric propellers and/or alternative fuels.
Although electric cars were introduced to the market
more than three decades ago by large manufacturers, it has
only become popular in recent years with consumers.16
The integration of electric vehicles into the car park can
significantly reduce the overall level of greenhouse gas
emissions and air pollution, especially if the electricity
comes from renewable sources.17
Currently, electro mobility is considered a perfect solu-
tion for decarbonizing the transport sector. The develop-
ment of electric vehicles has made significant progress,
being recognized as an effective way to support transport
by reducing oil dependence and air pollution, producing
potential benefits for human health and improving the
quality parameters of the environment and it is anticipated
to act a significant role in the future for a broad range of
transport systems.16,17
However, it is impetuous necessary to take into
account the fact that this technological deployment will
only be a part–a solution to the problem regarding the
3
availability of motor fuel and its impact on the quality of
the environment.
In the reports by International Energy Agency (IEA)
it is appreciated that in the transport sector, the technol-
ogy of electric or hybrid cars with direct power supply
from the grid is constantly expanding. The EV market is
growing rapidly and according to most forecasts, it will
continue on this trajectory.16-18
However, the transition to green vehicles will not be
very easy, and for the widespread adoption by consumers
of the concept of electro mobility technological improve-
ments are needed, in particular an improvement of infra-
structure is needed, so that electric vehicle charging
stations to become as numerous as conventional fuelling
stations, and the capacity to produce energy from clean
alternative sources to be expanded to take full advantage
of the electro mobility benefits.19,20
The transition to clean electrified mobility must be con-
sidered from the sustainability spectrum, and the planning
of a strategy related to the implementation of electric vehi-
cles implies, from the beginning, providing clean energy
conditions to go toward a green-to-green paradigm.
This paper aims to make a comprehensive compara-
tive analytical overview of environmental performances
4 FILOTE ET AL.
achieved by alternative technologies associated with low
carbon footprint electro mobility as opposed to the classic
technologies. It is notable that the successful implemen-
tation of green electro mobility concept depends strongly
on the green energy solutions of green electric vehicles, so
electric vehicle charging stations should be powered by
electricity production systems based on green resources.
The increasing demand for electric vehicles and the
need to ensure a sustainable energy infrastructure for EV-
CS motivate researchers to explore research in this domain.
It is obvious that in order to contribute to the GHG emis-
sions reduction from the transport sector, electric vehicles
should be charged with clean electricity from green energy
resources. The existing scholarly literature discussed below
presents various approaches to the clean power supply for
the EV-CS proposed by other researchers.
Bhatti et al conduct in Reference 21 a complete study
on the use of solar energy for the power supply of electric
vehicles. The focus is on the comparison between two
types of EV charging, grid connected and stand-alone
mode, from both economic and technical feasibility point
of view. Also, a solid background with reference to the
architecture and control of the integrated photovoltaic–
grid EV charging systems is made in Reference 22.
Some studies in the literature highlight elements of
design, sizing and optimal management of EV-CS powered
by renewable energy. In Reference 23, Bhatti et al propose
a solution for the optimum sizing of a photovoltaic array
and storage unit used for an EV office workplace charging
system. The solution is computed using particle swarm
optimization, taking into account both the financial model
(fixed prices) and the energy management algorithm,
obtaining a 16% decrease in price compared to a typical
charging system. Domínguez-Navarro et al24 design an EV-
CS that is energetically supported by wind and sun, with
batteries provided as an energy storage medium. By con-
ducting the study, the authors conclude that the use of
renewable energy in EV charging would reduce the impact
on the electricity grid, and could also reduce pollutant
emissions. Karmaker et al combined the sun and biogas
energy resources to produce electricity to drive EV-CS. The
authors claim that by implementing this type of energy sys-
tem in the power supply of EV-CS it is possible to obtain a
reduction of CO2 emissions (34.68%) compared to a classic
energy supply system.25
Most of the researchers focus on optimizing energy sys-
tems that power electric vehicle charging stations. These
studied systems integrate various alternative energy con-
version equipments and various green energy storage solu-
tions. Hafez and Bhattacharya26 conduct the optimization
of energy systems in order to minimize the life cycle cost.
Different energy sources are considered, such as renewable
energy technology (solar, wind) and diesel generation.
Khan et al present in Reference 27 an optimization model
which aims to reduce the functional costs of a solar micro-
grid. The authors implement several methods, such as dual
decomposition, Lambda iteration, Lagrange relaxation or
binary integer programming in order to obtain a joint opti-
mization solution. The simulations validating the solution
show a good cost and emission reduction. In Reference 28,
Mehrjerdi and Hemmati propose a three-level charging sys-
tem with optimization on the rated power and capacity of
storage systems. The power grid reinforcement and the
capacity of charging station are also taken into account in
the simulation. In Reference 29, Suganaya et al propose a
strategic placement method for charging stations and dis-
tributed generation systems, as well as a smart energy man-
agement framework. As in Reference 23, PSO algorithm is
used in order to deal with the time constraint. Basit et al
present in Reference 30 a complete review of renewable
energy sources and make an approach to solve critical
issues in photovoltaic panels related to low efficiency, iner-
tia reduction, harmonics, by comparing three models in
MATALB/Simulink and introducing the FACTS technol-
ogy/controllers (flexible AC transmission system). Moradi
et al31 raise a multi-objective optimization problem in order
to obtain an optimal solution regarding the impact on the
microgrid of the EV charging stations and renewable
energy sources. The goal of optimization based on the Dif-
ferential Evolution algorithm is to increase energy quality
and efficiency and to decrease the energy losses. In Refer-
ence 32, the author's combines estimations on photovoltaic
energy yield from available roof and façade areas with sim-
ulations of electric vehicle charging energy load. In Refer-
ence 33, Kurien et al conduct a feasibility study related to
solar based EV charging stations mounted on the roofs of
the installed gas station, the considered location being Deh-
radun, India. This solution improved the overall accep-
tance of EVs and power generation using renewable
energy sources. Another feasibility study in conducted by
Rodriguez et al,34 in relation to EV charging using PV sys-
tems, leading to a decrease in CO2 emissions and less over-
load of local grids. The study was conducted in several
countries and the results showed that the countries with
high irradiation (Brazil and Australia) are more likely to
operate such systems. Esfandyari et al35 proposed a model
for optimizing and designing an energy system based on
photovoltaic panels and batteries with practical applicabil-
ity for charging light electric vehicles. The study highlights
the energy performances of the system, a cost analysis was
carried out, but also, environmental benefits are presented
and CO2 savings estimates are made.
Some authors propose new approaches and energy
solutions for the power supply of EV-CS, by integrating
new technologies for electricity production, especially
hydrogen energy.36-40 Xu et al39 introduce a unique concept
FILOTE ET AL.
to provide, in the same location, both the electric charging
of the electric vehicles and the hydrogen supply of fuel cell
vehicles. Mehrjerdi conducts a study on the optimal coop-
eration of solar panels, hydrogen storage system, water
electrolyzer, fuel cells, and diesel generator with the goal of
fuelling at the same time electric vehicles and hydrogen
vehicles. The research results are disseminated consisting
of energy efficiency and economic analysis.40 Another
researcher proposes for study a stand-alone energy system
dedicated to EV-CS that integrates solar and wind energy
with various energy storage media (battery, hydrogen, and
ammonia energy storages). The specific objective of the
study is to investigate the level of contribution of each
alternative energy source to EV charging.41
Other approaches in the literature refer to the public
studies on the willingness of EV drivers to pay for renew-
able energy, the economic and environmental benefits
resulting from the use of renewable energy for electric
vehicle charging42 and present geospatial, political and
socio-demographic trends related to the implementation
of alternative energies in the power supply of electric vehi-
cle charging stations.43 Eser et al make a research in Ref-
erence 44 related to battery electric vehicles and the
European Union requirement of having lower CO2 emis-
sions. Power plants and transmission lines are modeled
and simulated using a georeferenced optimal power flow.
Betancourt-Torcat, et al formulate in Reference 45 an opti-
mal decision-making methodology using a general alge-
braic modeling system for satisfying the overall electricity
demand, considering carbon capture and distribution of
electricity to EV-CS. De Tena and Pregger investigate in
Reference 46 the impact of electro mobility on power sys-
tems in Europe, especially in Germany by 2050. Their pro-
posal is to ensure the energy demand during peak loads
using controlled charging and hydrogen production, thus
obtaining a 10% efficiency increase.
By analyzing and overviewing the perspectives for the
implementation of renewable energies in EV-CS it can be
stated that this research area is constantly evolving. We will
be stander-by to novel and completely different modes of
manufacturing and using energy. Electricity could be
engendered from practically zero pollution resources in a
future day, after the fossil fuel economy.
Existing research in the field of implementing clean alter-
native energies in the power supply of EV-CS successfully
demonstrates the energy, economic and environmental ben-
efits. However, there is no work that making an environmen-
tal impact assessment of green energy systems for power
supply of electric vehicle charging station in a dedicated
approach. Even if these energy systems do not seem to pro-
duce pollutants in operation, they have an impact on the
environment due to the embedded pollutant emissions in
systems, which can be stated throughout the whole life cycle.
5
This research article fills the gap in the literature
by assessing the environmental impact from the perspec-
tive of CO2 emissions embedded in alternative energy
systems and estimating the environmental benefits of
their implementation in the power supply of EV-CS from
the perspective of avoided CO2 emissions compared to
the classic electricity supply grid. The study was orga-
nized as follows: Section 2, Background presents in a
comparative manner an overview of the life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) of the conventional vehicle vs the electric
vehicle, and then the environmental impact of the elec-
tricity production recorded by the Grid Mix Composition
from the perspective of CO2 emissions is presented; in
Section 3, Materials and Methods–a brief framework for
conducting the study is presented, being proposed for
analysis a series of electricity production systems based
on the conversion of clean energy resources, and the
methods of analysis are widely described, together with
the proposed input data for the purpose of conducting a
case study; Section 4 presents the Results of the study in
the form of comparative graphs that are critically dis-
cussed; Section 5, Discussion gives practical implications,
limitations, suggestions and future research directions
are highlighted; Section 6 concludes the paper.
2 | BACKGROUND
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a worldwide standardized
methodology through the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) 1404047 which, together with
other tools for implementing environmental policies (eg,
eco-labeling, “green” procurement, carbon footprint), is
the basis of sustainable development, being a useful tool
in substantiating the decisions regarding the protection
of the environment.
The Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) approach requires a
broader perspective, paying attention to the raw materials
used, the supply chains, the use of products or the provi-
sion of services and, finally, the effects produced as a result
of waste disposal, without excluding the possibilities of re-
use or recycling.48 The use of LCT can help to avoiding sit-
uations where one problem is solved while another one is
created, thus preventing the transfer of tasks from one stage
of the life cycle to another, from one region to another,
from one generation to another or between different types
of impact. Also, the LCT can help to the identification of
opportunities that can be transposed into decisions, in
order to improve the environmental performance (LCA)
and increase the economic benefits.48,49
Figure 4 briefly shows the main stages that are part
of the vehicle life cycle to be taken into account for the
drawing up of an inventory of relevant inputs and
6 FILOTE ET AL.
outputs related to the assessment of potential environ-
mental impacts associated with these elements in order
to identify opportunities to the improve environment
aspects at different points of the life cycle.
By analyzing the diagram in Figure 4, the main ques-
tion that this study will answer is stated. Who generates
more greenhouse gas emissions: the classical fossil fuel
consumption of conventional vehicles or electric vehicles
that consume electricity produced in traditional coal-fired
power plants?
In addition, in order to improve the environmental
performances of electro mobility based on the LCT, the
main opportunity to increase the benefits of EV eco-
responsibility was drawn, by intervening on a key point
in this chain, namely the green energy supply of EV-CS,
respectively the energy support of these consumers by
using locally available alternative renewable resources.
It is well known that clean alternative energy conver-
sion technologies do not produce pollutants during oper-
ation and do not degrade the environment,50,51 but they
must also undergo a careful life cycle analysis to high-
light their impact on the environment.
2.1 | Environmental impact—
Comparative presentation of the
conventional vehicle vs electric vehicle
Nowadays, some research topics are focusing on the
impact of electro mobility on the environment and on the
comparative approach of environmental life cycle assess-
ment of alternative (EV, FCV) and conventional vehicles
(CV),52 various results of the analyzes and studies in the
field being presented in the specialized literature.
Fernández proposed a more realistic approach to EV
contribution to GHG emissions in the city, research based
F I G U R E 4 Life Cycle
Thinking for conventional
vehicles and electric vehicles
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
on the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated
with an EV.53 Wu et al presented a survey from China
aimed at investigating environmental concerns in EV pub-
lic acceptance.54 Pouria Ahmadi studied the environmental
impacts and behavioral drivers of deep decarburization for
transport through electric vehicles.55 Qiao et al conducted
a study on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Electric
Vehicles in China: combining the vehicle cycle and fuel
cycle. The main results of the study indicate that the GHG
emissions during the life cycle of an EV was about 41.0
tCO2eq in 2015, 18% lower than those of an internal com-
bustion engine vehicle. This value is expected to be reduced
to only 34.1 t CO2eq in 2020, due to the reduction of the
GHG emission factor due to electricity.56
Onata et al ask the question “How sustainable is elec-
tric mobility?” The authors concluded that “the adoption
of electric vehicle alternatives does not favor macroeco-
nomic indicators and they have slightly less for a life-cycle
cost.”57 Wael Salah et al investigate the impact of large-
scale EV implementation and use on energy demand and
on improving environmental parameters.58
Thiel et al analyzed the EV societal impacts and infra-
structure deployment at EU scale, specifically they analyze
the likely impact of related plans of the EU member states.59
Milligan et al conducted an analysis related to “driven per-
formance of Electric Vehicles in Edinburgh and its environs,”
where an argumentation is provided on the impact of the
electricity mix on carbon emission decreasing.60
Li et al conducted in Reference 61 a research on EV
carbon emissions during the whole life cycle. According
to the analyzes carried out by the authors, it follows that
the CO2 emissions of EVs of the same weight class are
24% to 31% higher than those of conventional fuel vehi-
cles, which is due to the current composition of the elec-
tricity grid mix in China. As the proportion of clean
energy in the grid mix composition increases, the benefits
FILOTE ET AL. 7

of electric vehicles for reducing CO2 emissions will grad-
ually emerge.61
Bicer and Dincer carry out a comparative assessment of
the life cycle of internal combustion vehicles fuelled by var-
ious fuels, ranging from hydrogen to gasoline, electric vehi-
cles and hybrid electric vehicles also being considered for
the study. The results of the study highlight that, among all
the analyzed fuel/vehicle categories, the hydrogen vehicle
is the best ecological option. With respect to the EVs, the
authors conclude that although they do not directly emit
CO2 during operation, the processes of production and dis-
posal/recycling of the batteries have consequences that
harm the environment in terms of acidification, eutrophi-
cation and human toxicity. The essential element of sus-
tainability in the operation of EVs is the use of non-fossil
fuel routes and/or clean alternative resources for the gener-
ation of electricity they consume.62
Kawamoto et al in the work “Estimation of CO2
Emissions of Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle and
Battery Electric Vehicle Using LCA” conclude that “the
CO2 emissions of CV and EV are dependent on the
regions as well as the CO2 emissions of battery produc-
tion. This study suggested that EV is not only solution for
reducing CO2 emissions globally, but it is important for
car manufacturers to introduce CV as well as EV to each
region in consideration of electricity mixes and so on.”63
Skrúcaný et al in the article “Impact of the Electric
Mobility Implementation on the Greenhouse Gasses Pro-
duction in Central European Countries” concludes that “the
quantification of the positive environmental consequences
T A B L E 1 Energy consumption during the vehicle life cycle.
Comparative presentation of conventional the vehicle vs electric
vehicle66
Energy consumption (kJ)
Conventional Electric
Life cycle vehicle vehicle
Manufacturing stage 9.50 × 107 16.20 × 107
Driving stage 240.00 × 107 136.00 × 107
Recycling stage 0.20 × 107 51.40 × 107
TOTAL 249.70 × 107 203.60 × 107
of increasing electro mobility varies greatly in different
countries, which means full-scale deployment of electro
mobility does necessarily deliver the sustainability of trans-
port that was expected from it.”64
Baumann et al in the work “Reducing the Environ-
mental Impacts of Electric Vehicles and Electricity Sup-
ply: How Hourly Defined Life Cycle Assessment and
Smart Charging Can Contribute” emphasize that the mix
of electricity used for charging sessions for electric vehi-
cles significantly influences the EV life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions.65
Xiao and Wen66 conducted a comprehensive analysis
of the impact of electric vehicles on the environment in
the United States based on the Life Cycle Assessment
method. In the study, the main stages of the life cycle of
car were approached, and the results were presented and
analyzed critically compared to the similar parameters
calculated for a conventional vehicle.
One of the research directions, which refers to energy
consumption during the EV life cycle, whose results are
presented in Table 1, shows that compared to the total
EV life cycle it is more energy efficient than CV. This
aspect is justified by the energy consumption of EV in
driving stage decreased by 43.34% compared to CV
consumption.66
The other research direction addressed refers to the
environmental pollutants emitted during the EV life
cycle, the results being presented in Table 2. Reported to
the life cycle, the EV is more environmentally friendly
than the CV, an aspect justified mainly by the CO2 emis-
sions discharged by the EV, which represents 60.30% of
those discharged by the CV. It should be mentioned that
the CO2 discharged by the EV in the driving stage repre-
sents CO2 emissions embedded in the electricity con-
sumed by the vehicle, and the CO2 discharged by the CV
is due to the consumption of classic fossil fuel.66
Regardless of the approach to the problem of electro
mobility, it is obvious that the widespread adoption of
the electric vehicle as an eco-responsible and sustainable
solution to the environmental problems in the transport
sector depends decisively on the quality of the electricity
that is used for their propulsion. Therefore, for the suc-
cessful implementation of the EV, the attention should
be directed in particular to the decarburization of the grid

T A B L E 2 Environmental pollutant emissions during the vehicle life cycle. Comparative presentation of the conventional vehicle vs
electric vehicle66

Discharge coefficient

Vehicle type CO2 CH4 CO NOX dust SOX VOC

−2
CV 1890 × 10 2
2.10 × 10 2
15.5 × 102
1.64 × 10 2
1.67 × 10 2
96 × 10 1.19 × 102
EV 1140 × 102 1.57 × 102 2.19 × 102 0.93 × 102 3.78 × 102 2.24 × 102 0.11 × 102
8 FILOTE ET AL.
mix composition or the adoption of clean energy supply
solutions for electric vehicles charging stations by capitaliz-
ing on the green energy resources available on their site.
2.2 | Environmental impact of the power
generation mix composition
The concept of “power generation mix composition”
refers to the combination of the different primary energy
sources used to meet the electricity needs of different
consumers. This includes fossil fuels (coal, natural gas
and oil), non-renewable waste, nuclear power and vari-
ous alternative energy resources (hydro, solar irradiation,
wind speed, biomass, biofuel, biogas, geothermal, heat
from heat pumps, hydrogen).67,68
According to the statistical reports published by the
specialized agencies, the European Environment Agency
(EEA),69 the Statistical Office of the European Union
(Eurostat)70 and the International Energy Agency
(IEA),71,72 at the level of the European Union, the produc-
tion of electricity based on coal and lignite recorded
decreases by 22% in 2016 compared to 1997, but a signifi-
cant percentage was replaced by natural gas, which regis-
tered large increases in 2016 compared to 1997, so that
fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy sector. In the
direction of use of alternative resources for electricity gen-
eration, significant progress has been made, in 2016 being
recorded 2.5 times higher use rate at EU28 level compared
to 1997.70-72 The reported values are shown schematically
in Figure 5. In accordance with the reported electricity
production, the chart compiled statistics of the EEA, IEA,
Eurostat agencies and the values of the carbon dioxide
emissions generated by this sector.
At the worldwide level, particularly at EU28 level, it is
critically important to decarbonize this production sector.
Since 1990, worldwide actions have been initiated in order
to reduce the costs of limiting actions and to reduce green-
house gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol (1997),73 a proto-
col to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, has made an important contribution to
establishing key principles on strategies for energy, envi-
ronment and climate policy. This protocol is also an impor-
tant step forward in the fight against global warming,
containing mandatory and quantified objectives for limit-
ing and reducing greenhouse gasses that underpin a com-
mon global energy strategy, including at European Union
level. Also, it was the basis for the adoption of the 20-20-20
target package of the 2007 European Council, which envis-
ages a 20% increase in energy efficiency, a 20% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions and a 20% increase in the share
of renewable energy in the energy mix74 and the launch in
2011 of a visionary exercise for the energy of the European
Union on the horizon of the 2050s (Roadmap for Energy
2050), with the intention of establishing intermediate
benchmarks for the year 2030.75
By value, CO2 emission intensity from public electricity
production of important pawns of the world is graphically
illustrated in Figure 6, in gCO2 for 1 kWh of electricity.
The presentation of values in a comparative way aims to
highlight the evolution of CO2 emission discharge in 2019
compared to 1990–the reference year assumed by the Kyoto
Protocol and the 20-20-20 target package. If at the EU28
and China level there have been significant improvements
F I G U R E 5 Gross electricity
generation by resources at EU28
level69-72 [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FILOTE ET AL.
F I G U R E 6 CO2 emission
intensity from public electricity
production69,71,72 [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
in terms of CO2 emission, worldwide changes in values are
modest, India being the country with the highest emissions
for 1 kWh electricity, but it has not made any progress
toward the improvement of quality of the electricity gener-
ation compared to the 1990 reference moment.69-72
The average value of carbon dioxide emissions at
EU28 (295.80 gCO2/kWh)10 and worldwide (475.00
gCO2/kWh)6 were taken into account when carrying out
the analysis and case study covered by this article.
Figure 7 shows the price of electricity for households;
prices include all items in the electricity bill, such as dis-
tribution and energy cost, various environmental taxes
and fuel costs.
In the first half of 2019, electricity prices for household
consumers in the EU28 were the highest in Germany (0.31
EUR/kWh) and the lowest in Bulgaria (0.10 EUR/kWh). In
June 2019, worldwide, the lowest electricity price is regis-
tered in Iran (0.01 EUR/kWh), and the highest in Bermuda
(0.36 EUR/kWh). In order to have a reference unit regard-
ing the Levelized Cost of Energy generated by green energy
systems, in the present work, the average value of the elec-
tricity price calculated at EU28 level (0.22 EUR/kWh) was
considered for the economic analysis.76
3 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study will focus on the intervention in the “power
generation” point of the LCT chain presented in Figure 4,
especially highlighting the low environmental impact of
the green energy systems for the power supply of the
electric vehicle charging station.
9
3.1 | Framework
This study was carried out within the complex project
“Intelligent conductive charging stations, fixed and MobiLe,
for electric propulsion transport”–(SMiLE-EV).77 The main
objective of the SMiLE-EV project is to improve the institu-
tional performance of public organizations with relaunching
possibilities by developing existing research competences
and identifying interdisciplinary competences that will
make possible the implementation of advanced theoretical
and technological solutions for the establishment of fixed
charging stations and EV-type mobile, Green-Green type,
for increasing efficiency by reducing energy consumption
and preserving the environment. The purpose of the project
is the establishment, design, achievement, testing, demon-
stration and prototyping of fixed (TRL5/TRL6) and mobile
(TRL5) charging stations for electric propulsion transport,
in order to obtain and develop clean energy applications,
such as Green-Green.77
One of the specific objectives of the project concerns
the interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary research regard-
ing the achievement of fixed and mobile EV power stations
supported energetically by new technologies based on
green, unconventional energies.77 In order to achieve this
objective, a series of energy systems for the power supply of
EV-CS have been proposed, integrating various technolo-
gies for the conversion and storage of alternative energy.
The variants of green energy systems (SeG) consid-
ered for the analysis and study have been optimally con-
figured and simulated virtually in operation so that the
stand-alone operating mode of EV-CS is ensured. The
main equipment, components of the energy systems are:
10
i. Energy conversion equipment: photovoltaic panels
(PV), wind turbines (WT), fuel cell (FC), electrolyzer
(Ely), inverter (I);
ii. Energy storage equipment: batteries (B) and hydro-
gen storage tank (H2 tank).
The configuration of each proposed SeG is presented
in Table 3.
The implementation and installation of these stand-
alone green energy systems in practical applications
depends essentially on the local availability of renewable
energy sources (solar irradiation and wind speed), but
also on site-conditioned limitations. Wind energy based
systems (SeG2, SeG3, SeG5 and SeG6) are feasible solu-
tions for isolated areas, land free of any encumbrances,
less populated and built, the positioning of wind turbines
on site being conditioned by limitations on their distance
from other objectives or the context of the natural habitat
of plants and animals. The wind turbines adopted in this
case study are indicated in agricultural area with some
buildings and preserving hedges 8 (m) high with an
approximate distance of 1250 (m). These types of systems
can be considered in planning the EV charging infra-
structure, and they could be strategically located to cover
the long-distance intercity trips. SeG1 and SeG4 are suit-
able to be located both in crowded areas of cities (super-
market, parking spaces, university campus, individual or
collective housing, etc.), and in isolated areas (near high-
ways, mountain remote area, non-electrified areas, etc.).
The feasibility of SeGs has been studied in an analysis
on energy, ecological and economic performance
(3E_Analysis). Within this article, “3E_Analysis” is pres-
ented in detail, underlining the environmental impact of
the studied green energy systems, which power EV-CS
FILOTE ET AL.
F I G U R E 7 Electricity prices for
households, June 2019 (kWh, Euro)76
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
electricity, especially the CO2 emissions embedded in these
alternative energy production systems. SeG environmental
performances were analyzed in comparison with the values
of the ecological parameters regarding the grid supplied
electricity grid supplied, reported at world level (World6)
and at the European Union level (EU2810).
3.2 | Virtual simulation environment
The optimal configuration of clean energy generation sys-
tems and the selection of alternative energy conversion
technical equipment, depending on the availability of
local renewable energy sources, is a problem that can be
solved using mathematical numerical tools, such as evo-
lutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms.
In this study, in order to optimally configure the energy
systems and to simulate the operation of the energy equip-
ment, it was chosen to perform virtual simulations using
the iHOGA PRO +2.5 version (Hybrid Optimization by
Genetic Algorithms).78 This software tool works based on
the principles of evolutionary algorithms and Pareto optimi-
zation for solving multicriteria optimization problems.79
Most of the times the optimal criteria are contradictory,
which makes it difficult to establish a technique for solving
such problems. The main disadvantage of the multicriteria
optimization problems is the incompatibility of the different
criteria and, therefore, the impossibility of comparing the
solutions. In the Pareto optimization this difficulty is elimi-
nated by defining an order relation (dominance relation)
over the solution set.80,81 Schematically, the working meth-
odology with this software tool is presented in Figure 8.
The iHOGA software78 allows the user to select
between various optimization methods: a mono-objective
FILOTE ET AL. 11

TABLE 3 SeG configurations

SeG Configuration Operating principle

SeG 1 PV + B The energy system uses solar irradiation as a primary renewable source of
electricity generation, and during periods of intermittent weather and/or
alternating day/night, it uses battery storage as a back-up solution.
SeG 2 WT + B The energy system uses wind speed as a primary renewable source of electricity
generation, and during periods of intermittent weather and/or alternating
day/night, it uses battery storage as a back-up solution.
SeG 3 PV + WT+ B The energy system uses both types of renewable energy resources for electricity
production and batteries storage as a back-up solution.
SeG 4 PV + FC + Ely + H2tank The energy system uses solar irradiation as a primary renewable source of
electricity generation, and as an alternative secondary resource for its use
during periods of intermittent weather and alternating day/night, it uses
hydrogen produced locally by electrolyzer and used in the generation of
electricity by the fuel cell.
SeG 5 WT + FC + Ely + H2tank The energy system uses wind speed as a primary renewable source of electricity
generation, and as an alternative secondary resource for its use during periods
of intermittent weather, it uses hydrogen produced locally by electrolyzer and
used in the generation of electricity by the fuel cell.
SeG 6 PV + WT + FC + Ely + H2tank The energy system uses both types of renewable energy resources for electricity
production, and as an alternative secondary resource for its use during periods
of intermittent weather, it uses hydrogen produced locally by electrolyzer and
used in the generation of electricity by fuel cell.

FIGURE 8 Working methodology with iHOGA software tool [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

one for which the software will output the most cost-
efficient solution (having the smallest life cycle costs)
or a multi-objective one, where the solution depends
on multiple objectives: two, three or five (total cost and
unmet load, total cost and carbon dioxide emissions, total
cost, unmet load and dioxide emissions, any other combi-
nation of objectives to be optimized). The algorithm
behind the mono objective optimization ensures elitism
by making use of an archive (secondary population),
while the one behind the multi objective optimization
relies on the principles of Strength Pareto Evolutionary
Algorithm (SPEA).82-85
In this analysis is opted for the multi-objective type
optimization, and the criteria with minimization function
by which it was achieved are the following: total system
cost, carbon dioxide emissions, unmet load, excess energy
and rated power/component equipment related to energy
demand assurance.
3.3 | 3E_analysis
Green Energy Systems for Power Supply of Electric Vehicle
Charging Station proposed for the case study were opti-
mally configured and simulated in operation, the optimal
solutions being described in Section 4. Results and were
examined from Energy, Environmental and Economic
perspectives.
12
Energy outputs: the most relevant to be presented
refers to the average annual values of the energy gener-
ated by SeG during 1 year of operation.
Environmental achievements: refer to SeG life cycle
CO2 emissions and take into account the CO2 emissions
embedded in the components of the systems during the
entire SeG lifespan (manufacturing stage, transportation
stage, installation, operation, maintenance/equipments
replacement stage, recycling stage). The results calculated
for a period of 25 years were divided, being presented in
relation to the amount of energy generated during 1 year,
respectively for 1 kWh of electricity.85,86 These results were
compared with the similar indicator calculated for the
grid electricity mix composition, highlighting the CO2
emissions avoided if these green energy generation systems
are used instead of the electricity provided by the grid.
Economic achievements: the financial-economic indi-
cators analyzed in this study refer to the following
aspects:
• Initial investment, which represents the initial expense
with the purchase of the equipment components of the
systems (photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, batteries,
hydrogen technology, auxiliary components) and the ini-
tial costs for the execution, installation, commissioning.85
• The global indicator Total Net Present Cost (NPC)
consists of operational costs, initial cost, maintenance
(service, component replacement) costs and other costs
occurring during the SeG's 25 year lifetime. The cost
related to component equipment consists of the follow-
ing costs: service, maintenance and replacement of each
system component (wind turbines, photovoltaic panels,
batteries, auxiliary components related to hydrogen tech-
nology). The remaining costs are related to interest or
inflate rates, discount rates, etc.85,86
• The term of Levelized Cost of Energy (LCE) can be com-
puted as the ratio between the 25-year total cost and the
total energy produced by the generation system.85
3.4 | Input data
The optimal sizing, design and configuration of the SeG
are based on the following particular input data:
TABLE 4 RES input data87
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6
ASDI 1.35 2.16 3.18 4.02 4.87
AMSD 66.23 77.87 131.63 120.07 202.35
AMWS 4.00 3.8 3.3 3.2 2.9
FILOTE ET AL.
• EV-CS average daily load was 16.49 kWh/day77;
• The studied site: 23.60 + E longitude and 46.7667 + N
latitude;
• The availability of renewable energy sources (RES) for
the studied site were summarized in Table 4. The values
are taken from the NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar
Energy database: RETScreen Data.87 These refer to the
Average Solar Daily Irradiation (ASDI) in (kWh/m2/
day), the Average Monthly Sunshine Duration (AMSD)
in (hours) and the Average Monthly Wind Speed
(AMWS) in (m/s) at 10 m height. This wind speed calcu-
lation data is converted to hourly values within iHOGA
PRO +2.5.78 following the procedure presented by the
software developers, Dufo-López and Bernal-Agustín in
Reference 88.
The main alternative energy storage and conversion
equipment have the parameters summarized in Table 5.
The technical, ecological, and economic characteristics
are average values of the parameters described in accor-
dance with the data provided by the manufacturers,
being available in the iHOGA PRO +2.5 library.78,85
With regard to the ecological parameters related
to the technology of generation of electrolytic hydrogen
based on RES, its storage in H2 tank and its electro-
chemical conversion into electricity by the fuel cell,
the value taken into account was 330 kg equivalent
CO2 emissions/kW rated power.85 This value represents
CO2 emissions incorporated into the system resulting
from the manufacturing of electrolyzer, fuel cell, and
H2 tank.
4 | RESULTS
The results obtained based on the methodology described
in the previous section and following the computational
simulations were synthesized in the “3E_Analysis,”
presented in tabular form, graphically illustrated and crit-
ically analyzed to highlight the energy, economic perfor-
mance, but also the carbon dioxide emissions specific to
each type of RES-based power generation system that has
been considered to power supply of electric vehicle charg-
ing station.
7 8 9 10 11 12
5.32 5.35 4.93 3.47 2.37 1.42 1.08
183.26 190.77 232.93 136.63 99.50 62.60 42.80
3.2 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.4 3.9
FILOTE ET AL. 13

TABLE 5 Parameters of the main technological equipments78,85

Equipment Parameter description Value Unit

Photovoltaic panel (PV) Nominal voltage 24 V
Shortcut current 8.39 A
Nominal power 280 Wp
Loss factor 1.2 -
Weight 24.2 kg
Dimensions 1645 × 990 × 40 mm
Area 1.63 m2
CO2 emissions during manufacturing 800 kg CO2 equiv/kWp
Expected life cycle 25 year

Operating temperature −40 to 85 C
Temperature coefficient ISC (α) 0.03 %/ C
Temperature coefficient VOC (β) −0.34 %/ C
Temperature coefficient P (γ) −0.43 %/ C
Acquisition cost 350 €
Operation and maintenance cost 52 €/year
Wind Turbine (WT) HWP-30 Output power (m/s) 3 4 6 8 10
(W) 630 1900 6500 14 100 23 900
Acquisition cost 34 000 €
Replacement cost 26 000 €
Operation and maintenance cost 680 €/year
CO2 emissions during manufacturing 12 000 kg CO2 equiv
Expected life cycle 20 year
Height 18 m
Wind Turbine (WT) B-1500 Output power (m/s) 3 4 6 8 10
(W) 100 250 600 930 1225
Acquisition cost 4875 €
Replacement cost 3675 €
Operation and maintenance cost 198 €/year
CO2 emissions during manufacturing 900 kg CO2 equiv
Expected life cycle 15 year
Height 13 m
Battery (B) Nominal Capacity 38.57 Ah
Voltage 350 V
Acquisition cost 6100 €
Operation and maintenance cost 80 €/year
Expected life cycle 15 year
CO2 emissions during manufacturing 55 kg CO2 equiv/kWh
Weight 120 kg
SOC minimum 10 %
Self discharging 2 % month
Intensity max. 14.3 A
Global efficiency 91.8 %
(Continues)
14 FILOTE ET AL.

TABLE 5 (Continued)

Equipment Parameter description Value Unit

Fuel Cell (FC) 1 kW Nominal power 1 kW
Acquisition cost 7000 €
Operation and maintenance cost 0.2 €/h
Expected life cycle 25 000 h
Pmax_ef 20 %
H2 consumption (1 kW) 0.004 kgH2/h
Fuel Cell (FC) 2 kW Nominal power 2 kW
Acquisition cost 12 000 €
Operation and maintenance cost 0.2 €/h
Expected life cycle 25 000 h
Pmax_ef 20 %
H2 consumption (2 kW) 0.008 kgH2/h
Electrolyzer (Ely) 3 kW Nominal power 3 kW
Acquisition cost 18 000 €
Operation and maintenance cost 2000 €/year
Expected life cycle 20 year
Electrolyzer (Ely) 5 kW H2 HHV 39.4 kWh/kg
Nominal H2 mass flow 0.06 kg/h
Nominal power 5 kW
Acquisition cost 24 000 €
Operation and maintenance cost 2500 €/year
Expected life cycle 20 year
H2 HHV 39.4 kWh/kg
Nominal H2 mass flow 0.1 kg/h
Hydrogen tank (H2tank) Maximum size 20 kg
Acquisition cost 1000 €/kg
Operation and maintenance cost 60 €/year
Expected life cycle 25 year
Inverter (I) Power 1800 VA
Acquisition cost 1200 €
Operation and maintenance cost 23 €/year
Expected life cycle 10 year
VDC min 42 V
VDC max 64 V
Weight 18 kg

4.1 | Energy performances
Based on the input data described in Section 3.4. Compu-
tational optimizations and simulations were performed
with the iHOGA software,78 and the optimal configura-
tion regarding the component equipment of each power
generation system is presented in Table 6.
The results obtained from the operating simulations
of each SeG are illustrated in Figure 9 and represent the
average annual values of the energy generated based on
the RES harnessing.
The condition which was initially established was
that EV-CS was 100% energetically supported by green
energy sources. The annual electricity demand for the
analyzed consumer was calculated as having the value of
6022 kWh/year. The values of the energy performance
indicators were directly influenced by the degree of local
availability of alternative energy generation resources
FILOTE ET AL. 15

TABLE 6 SeG optimal configurations

SeG PV WT FC Ely Htank B Inverter

SeG 1 no: 38; Ptotal = 10.64 kWp - - - - no: 10; Etotal = 18.5 kWh 1800 VA
SeG 2 - Ptotal = 23.90 kW - - - no: 13; Etotal = 24 kWh 1800 VA
SeG 3 no: 24; Ptotal = 6.72 kWp Ptotal = 1.225 kW - - - no: 10; Etotal = 18.5 kWh 1800 VA
SeG 4 no: 70; Ptotal = 19.60 kWp - 2 kW 5 kW 20 kg - 1800 VA
SeG 5 - Ptotal = 23.90 kW 2 kW 5 kW 20 kg - 1800 VA
SeG 6 no: 48; Ptotal = 13.44 kWp Ptotal = 1.225 kWp 1 kW 3 kW 10 kg - 1800 VA

F I G U R E 9 Average annual
values of the energy generated by
SeG during 1 year of operation
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

(sun and wind), during 1 year of operation. Besides the
useful power of EV-CS supply, a considerable amount of
excess energy is also obtained. In SeG1, SeG2 and SeG3,
the short-term excess RES storage in batteries is provided
as an energy back-up solution, so as to achieve autonomy
of 3 days in the operation of the systems. The energy
balance shows that the excess energy is the difference
between the generated energy and load energy (storage
was considered useful energy for EV-CS energy demand).
It is found that in SeG4, SeG5, and SeG6, the excess
energy is less than the difference between the generated
energy and load energy. This is due to the integration
of hydrogen technology as a medium and long-term
RES storage solution, including the fuel cell as an energy
back-up solution. By producing on-site electrolytic hydro-
gen and using it to generate useful energy for EV-CS, the
excess energy in the SeG energy balance decreases, elec-
trolysis being a clean method of hydrogen production
that has energy intensive consumption. However, the
excess power can be used in other types of practical appli-
cations, injected into the electricity distribution network
or capitalized by hydrogen obtained on-site by electro-
lytic processes.86,89-92
4.2 | Environmental impact–CO2
emissions
It is justified that the generation of electricity based on
green energy does not produce pollutant emissions for
the environment.86,89,92 However, the SeG proposed in
the project have a minor negative impact on the environ-
ment due to the CO2 emissions embedded within. For
energy systems that power EV-CS considered in this case
study, the calculated CO2 emissions values for 1 kWh
energy are shown in Figure 10.
Comparing the values recorded by SeG with the data
reported by the specialized statistical institutions regard-
ing the grid mix compositions for 1 kWh electricity, the
following are observed:
• The average CO2 emissions of Green Energy Systems
for Power Supply of Electric Vehicle Charging Station
is 88.30% lower than that of EU2810 grid mix
compositions;
• The average CO2 emission of Green Energy Systems for
Power Supply of Electric Vehicle Charging Station is
92.70% lower than that of World6 grid mix compositions.
16
By value, CO2 emissions generated by each SeG
reported at average annual values of the energy generated
by SeG for 1 year of operation are shown in Figure 11.
These values were compared with the similar indica-
tor regarding the electricity supplied through the distri-
bution network, the following aspects being concluded:
• SeG1–has an annual average CO2 emissions value of
87.72% lower than for the electricity supplied at EU28
level and 92.35% lower than the electricity supplied at
World level;
• SeG2–has an annual average CO2 emissions value of
90.38% lower than for electricity supplied at EU28 level
and 94.00% lower than the electricity supplied at
World level;
• SeG3–has an annual average CO2 emissions value of
86.96% lower than for electricity supplied at EU28 level
FILOTE ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 0 CO2 emissions/
1 kWh energy [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 1 1 CO2 emissions/
energy during 1 year [Colour figure
can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
and 91.88% lower than the electricity supplied at
World level;
• SeG4–has an annual average CO2 emissions value of
87.04% lower than for electricity supplied at EU28 level
and 91.93% lower than the electricity supplied at
World level;
• SeG5–has an annual average CO2 emissions value of
89.55% lower than for electricity supplied at EU28 level
and 93.50% lower than the electricity supplied at
World level;
• SeG6–has an annual average value of CO2 emissions
88.18% lower than in the case of electricity supplied at
EU28 level and 92.64% lower than in the case of World
electricity.
By using the RES-based power generation systems for
EV-CS power supply, it is possible to avoid generating
FILOTE ET AL.
specific annual amounts of carbon dioxide, whose value
are shown in Figure 12. The indicators presented refer to
the annually avoided amount of CO2 emissions associ-
ated with the production of electricity in the EU2810 sce-
nario and the World6 scenario.
Related to the lifetime of the SeG proposed for the
analysis, respectively 25 years of operation, the embedded
CO2 emissions presented the values calculated in
Figure 13. On average, they are lower by 88.60% com-
pared to the EU2810 scenario and by 92.90% compared to
the World6 scenario.
For a period of 25 years, at EU28 and/or World level,
a considerable amount of CO2 emissions associated with
the production of electricity can be avoided by using
green energy systems to supply electric vehicle charging
station. The values calculated in the case study conducted
in the project are illustrated in Figure 14.
F I G U R E 1 2 CO2 emissions
avoided during 1 year [Colour figure
can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 13 CO2
emissions/25 years of operation
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
17
4.3 | Economic aspects
The economic indicators specific to each power genera-
tion system were determined and calculated according
to the previous sections, being presented by value
in Table 7 and graphically illustrated in Figure 15 in
the form of percentage costs within the Total Net
Present Cost.
By analyzing the particularities of the economic-
financial indicators of each of the six energy systems
under study, it was concluded that the conversion and
storage technologies of the alternative sources of green
energy generation have relatively high costs compared to
the conventional technologies, already established for the
production and supply of electricity through the power
grid, whether it refers to the initial investment costs or
the costs generated by their operation.
18
TABLE 7 SeG–Economic performances
Cost SeG 1 SeG 2
LCE (€) 0.79 0.94
Investment (€) 78 826 124 234
NPC (€) 118 673 140 772
The average value of electricity price calculated at
EU28 level is 0.22 EUR/kWh.76 The average price of
1kWh electricity generated by the analyzed SeG is 4.3
times higher than the reference of EU28 scenario.
For 25 years of operation it is found that the largest
share of the cost diagram is held by RES storage
equipment–batteries, respectively the technology of elec-
trolytic production and on-site hydrogen storage.
However, the technologies of electricity generation
based on alternative sources, as well as the methods of elec-
tricity production, storage and distribution are constantly
undergoing research and development, and as a series of
pilot projects currently carried out in this field will be vali-
dated, it is expected that in the near future these systems,
equipment, including hydrogen technology, will record
decreasing costs,93 competitive with traditional technolo-
gies in the field of energy production and storage.
5 | DISCUSSION
For a global assessment of the specific pollutant emis-
sions related to the production of electricity through
energy systems based on alternative energies, a complete
analysis of the life cycle is required, including the equip-
ments/devices needed for the transport, the installation
on site of the SeG and their fuel supply. Finally, carbon
dioxide emissions are not the only negative criterion for
FILOTE ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 4 CO2 emissions
avoided during 25 years [Colour
figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SeG 3 SeG 4 SeG 5 SeG 6
0.8 1.13 1.09 0.91
78 250 83 634 94 446 59 333
120 386 171 910 164 405 136 548
climate change issues in relation to the production of
electricity based on alternative energy. There are other
pollutants containing greenhouse gasses that contribute
to global warming to a higher extent than CO2 and which
can have a considerable impact on the environment, but
they are difficult to assess.
However, energy generation systems based on alter-
native sources are considered sustainable–which means
ecologically, economically and socially compatible, and
clean electricity production involves a key factor, namely
the kgCO2/kWh cost savings in relation to electricity pro-
duction from classic power plants.
In this work, an example of practical application was
realized with the purpose of demonstrating the ability of
these complex systems to sustainably and independently
support an EV-CS, and the defined input elements, the
methodology, the virtual conditions created, the parame-
ters evaluated in the “3E_Analysis” framework and last,
not least the comparative analysis of the results demon-
strate their practical utility. The addressed methodology
can be applied also to other types of consumers condi-
tioned by the customization depending on the situation
that is required to be demonstrated. Depending on the sto-
chastic nature of the input data (solar irradiation, wind
speed, EV-CS demand, outside temperature, monthly sun-
shine duration), the results may vary significantly.
The analyzes carried out and the results obtained
during this study, as well as the problems, the technical
FILOTE ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 5 Percentage costs (A)
within Total Net Present Cost
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
(C)
(E)
limitations encountered allowed identifying and tracing
future directions of research in the field of the
approached topic:
• Development of a calculation model regarding the
kgCO2/kWh energy cost savings associated with elec-
tro mobility;
• Development/implementation of real-time, hardware-
in-the-loop Simulink models on PC Hardware based
on the SeG initially proposed within the project and
described in this article;
• Establishment, design, completion, testing, demonstra-
tion and prototyping of some charging stations for
19
(B)
(D)
(F)
electric propulsion transport,77,94 energetically supported
by alternative green energy sources;
• Conducting an analysis on the optimal synergies
between solar panels, wind turbine, batteries, hydro-
gen storage system, water electrolyzer, fuel cells with
the specific objective of investigating the level of each
alternative energy resource contribution in supplying
power to electric vehicle charging station;
• Development and conduct of a reliability analysis on the
green power supply mixes for each SeG that is the object
of the SMILeV project77; development of a virtual data-
base in order to create the useful prerequisites for the
elaboration of procedures, regulations and standards
20
regarding the design, execution and safe operation of
charging stations for electric vehicles powered by on-
site-generated electricity, but also related to elements of
production, storage, transmission and distribution–the
infrastructure needed to develop an economy based on
alternative energy;
• Integration of hydrogen technology into EV-CS elec-
tricity supply systems, with the purpose of increasing
and exploiting the on-site available renewable energy
sources;
• Extension of the research regarding the implementa-
tion of electricity generation solutions through hydro-
gen fuel cell for the energy support of other types of
consumers.
6 | C ON C L U S I ON S
The prospective and demonstrative studies currently con-
ducted worldwide are focusing on the large-scale develop-
ment and implementation of electro mobility as an
immediate solution to the decarburization of the transport
sector. In this regard, the present paper, with the theme
addressing the topic of “Green Energy Systems for Power
Supply of Electric Vehicle Charging Station,” made an in-
depth insight in the studies on the possibilities of
implementing green energies in this sector, by identifying
the solutions of use and applicability of the various conver-
sion equipment/storage of alternative energy sources.
Moreover, this study identified the sustainability elements
related to the eco-responsible implementation of the con-
cept of electro mobility and underlined the fact that the
decarburization of the transport sector through the large-
scale adoption of the electric vehicle depends decisively
on the quality of the “low carbon” electricity delivered
through via EV-CS. Thus, it can be conceived as a first
conclusion that electro mobility would contribute and
accentuate the reduction of CO2 emissions in this sector,
but the real contribution is lower than shown in the cur-
rent approaches described in the literature.
Also, this work provides an overview of the main ele-
ments of the Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicle and
identifies the opportunities to improve the environmental
aspects at different points of the life cycle, the intervention
being proposed at a key point, namely “power generation”
for EV-CS from the LCT chain described.
The case study conducted as part of the complex pro-
ject “Intelligent conductive charging stations, fixed and
MobiLe, for electric propulsion transport”–(SMiLE-EV)77
proposes a series of systems for generating green energy
for the power supply of EV-CS investigating them within
the “3E_Analysis.” The main findings of this research
article can be stated as follows:
FILOTE ET AL.
• SeG represents feasible solutions for energy support to EV-
CS in stand-alone mode, being able to provide electricity
based on on-site available 100% alternative energy sources;
• From SeG operation, as a rule, excess energy results,
which can be useful in various other practical applica-
tions or can be stored in the medium and long term in
the form of hydrogen obtained by electrolytic process
on-site (in which case, the autonomous regime of the
EV-CS can be extended for EV or the utility of the
charging station can be extended to supply the FCV);
• Compared to 1 kWh of electricity, CO2 emissions embed-
ded in SeG represent on average 11.40% of CO2 emissions
of the EU28 grid mix composition and on average 7.10%
of CO2 emissions of the World grid mix composition;
• Compared to the SeG life cycle proposed for analysis,
respectively 25 years of operation, if used, the average
avoided CO2 emissions would be of 88.60% compared
to the EU28 scenario and of 92.90% compared to the
World scenario;
• The average price of 1kWh of electricity generated by
the analyzed SeG is 4.3 times higher than the reference
in the EU28 scenario, but this indicator must be corre-
lated with the kgCO2/kWh cost saving, compared to
the electricity production from classic power plants.
Addressing the issue of ensuring the energy demand
for the transport/electro mobility sector in conditions
of protecting the natural environment and satisfying
economic and social restrictions in the context of the
multidisciplinary and complex concept of sustainable
development is of great complexity. The next generations
of energy systems and technologies for the energy sup-
port of the EV-CS infrastructure, respectively electricity
generation systems based on alternative energies, have
significant potential to reduce the environmental impact
of the transport sector, implicitly having a significant
impact on the decrease in pollutant emissions and green-
house gas effect associated with classical technologies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian
Ministery of Research and Innovation, CCCDI-UEFISCDI,
project number PN-III-P1-1.2-PCCDI-2017-0776/No. 36 PCCDI/
15.03.2018, within PNCDI III.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization, Raluca-Andreea Felseghi and Ioan
Aşchilean; methodology, Maria Simona Raboaca and
Raluca-Andreea Felseghi; software, Constantin Filote
and Maria Simona Raboaca; validation, Raluca-Andreea
Felseghi and Ioan Aşchilean; formal analysis, Constantin
Filote, Raluca-Andreea Felseghi, Maria Simona Raboaca
and Ioan Aşchilean; investigation, Maria Simona Raboaca;
FILOTE ET AL.
resources, Raluca-Andreea Felseghi; data curation, Maria
Simona Raboaca and Raluca-Andreea Felseghi; writing—
original draft preparation, Raluca-Andreea Felseghi;
writing—review and editing, Raluca-Andreea Felseghi and
Ioan Aşchilean; visualization, Maria Simona Raboaca;
supervision, Constantin Filote; project administration, Con-
stantin Filote All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
ORCID
Constantin Filote https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6640-
5308
Raluca-Andreea Felseghi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-
6310-5932
Maria Simona Raboaca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7277-4377
Ioan Aşchilean https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3632-5600
R EF E RE N C E S
1. European Environment Agency. About climate change.
Retrieved on 12 February 2020 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/
downloads/8895e35f9c590c054a12d42d933b05f2/1464919354/
about-climate-change.pdf. 2020.
2. European Parliament. Greenhouse gas emissions by countries and
sectors. Retrieved on 12 February 2020 from https://www.
europarl.europa.eu/news/ro/headlines/society/20180301STO98928/
emisiile-de-gaze-cu-efect-de-sera-pe-tari-si-pe-sectoare-infografic.
2020.
3. World Meteorological Organization. 2019 concludes a decade
of exceptional global heat and high-impact weather. Retrieved
on 16 February 2020 from https://public.wmo.int/en/media/
press-release/2019-concludes-decade-of-exceptional-global-heat-
and-high-impact-weather. 2020.
4. Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Retrieved on 16 February
2020 from http://www.investenergy.ro/acordul-de-la-paris-
privind-schimbarile-climatice-intrat-vigoare/. 2020.
5. United Nations Climate Change. GHG data from UNFCCC.
Retrieved on 16 February 2020 from https://unfccc.int/process-
and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/reporting-and-review-
under-the-convention/greenhouse-gas-inventories-annex-i-parties/
national-inventory-submissions-2019. 2020.
6. International Energy Agency–IEA, Global Energy & CO2 Sta-
tus Report 2019, IEA, Paris, France. Retrieved on 29 January
2020 from https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-co2-
status-report-2019. 2020.
7. Energy Security Strategy and Energy Policy. Current
Approaches in the European Union and Internationally.
Retrieved on 20 July 2019 from http://www.fnme.ro/. 2019.
8. European Parliament, Directive 2009/28/EC on the Promotion
of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources. Retrieved on
22 July 2020 from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF. 2019.
9. Ministry of Energy. The National Market Policy Framework for
Alternative Fuels in the Transport Sector and the Installation of
Relevant Infrastructure in Romania. Retrieved on 21 December
2019 from http://www.mmediu.ro/app/webroot/uploads/files/
21
Cadrul-National-de-Politica_Combustibilii-Alternativi-in-Sectorul
%20Transporturilor%281%29.pdf. 2019.
10. European Environment Agency–EEA, Overview of electricity
production and use in Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, Retrieved
on 26 January 2020 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-
and-maps/indicators/overview-of-the-electricity-production-2/
assessment-4. 2019.
11. Aschilean I, Varlam M, Culcer M, et al. Hybrid electric
powertrain with fuel cells for a series vehicle. Energies. 2018;11:
1294.
12. Lin W-Y, Hsiao M-C, Wu P-C, Fu JS, Lai L-W, Lai H-C. Analy-
sis of air quality and health co-benefits regarding electric vehi-
cle promotion coupled with power plant emissions. J Cleaner
Prod. 2020;247:119152.
13. Ala G, Di Filippo G, Viola F, et al. Different scenarios of elec-
tric mobility: current situation and possible future develop-
ments of fuel cell vehicles in Italy. Sustainability. 2020;12:564.
14. Deb S, Tammi K, Kalita K, Mahanta P. Impact of electric vehi-
cle Charging Station load on distribution network. Energies.
2018;11:178.
15. Badea G, Felseghi R-A, Varlam M, et al. Design and simulation
of Romanian solar energy Charging Station for electric vehi-
cles. Energies. 2019;12:74.
16. International Energy Agency–IEA, EV growth around the
world. Retrieved on 28 January 2020 from https://www.iea.
org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2019. 2019.
17. International Energy Agency–IEA, Global EV Outlook 2019.
Scaling-up the Transition to Electric Mobility, IEA, Paris,
France. Retrieved on 30 January 2020 from https://webstore.
iea.org/download/direct/2807?fileName=Global_EV_Outlook_
2019.pdf. 2019.
18. International Energy Agency–IEA, Electric vehicle stock in the
EV30@30 scenario, 2018–2030, IEA, Paris, France. Retrieved
on 30 January 2020 from https://www.iea.org/data-and-
statistics/charts/electric-vehicle-stock-in-the-ev3030-scenario-2018-
2030. 2020.
19. Skjølsvold TM, Ryghaug M. Temporal echoes and cross-
geography policy effects: multiple levels of transition governance
and the electric vehicle breakthrough. Environ Innov Soc Trans.
2019;35:232-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.06.004.
20. Nilsson M, Nykvist B. Governing the electric vehicle
transition–Near term interventions to support a green energy
economy. Appl Energy. 2016;179:1360-1371.
21. Bhatti AR, Salam Z, Aziz MJBA, Yee KP. A critical review of
electric vehicle charging using solar photovoltaic. Int J Energy
Res. 2016;40(4):439-461.
22. Ashique RH, Salam Z, Aziz MJBA, Bhatti AR. Integrated
photovoltaic-grid dc fast charging system for electric vehicle: a
review of the architecture and control. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev. 2017;69:1243-1257.
23. Bhatti AR, Salam Z, Sultana B, et al. Optimized sizing of photo-
voltaic grid-connected electric vehicle charging system using par-
ticle swarm optimization. Int J Energy Res. 2019;43(1):500-522.
24. Domínguez-Navarro JA, Dufo-López R, Yusta-Loyo JM, Artal-
Sevil JS, Bernal-Agustín JL. Design of an electric vehicle fast-
charging station with integration of renewable energy and storage
systems. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst. 2019;105:46-58.
25. Karmaker AK, Ahmed MR, Hossain MA, Sikder MM. Feasibil-
ity assessment & design of hybrid renewable energy based
22
electric vehicle charging station in Bangladesh. Sustainable Cit-
ies Soc. 2018;39:189-202.
26. Hafez O, Bhattacharya K. Optimal design of electric vehicle
charging stations considering various energy resources. Renew-
able Energy. 2017;107:576-589.
27. Khan NA, Sidhu GAS, Awan AB, Ali Z, Mahmood A. Modeling
and operation optimization of RE integrated microgrids consid-
ering economic, energy, and environmental aspects. Int J
Energy Res. 2019;43(13):6721-6739.
28. Mehrjerdi H, Hemmati R. Electric vehicle charging station with
multilevel charging infrastructure and hybrid solar-battery-
diesel generation incorporating comfort of drivers. J Energy Stor-
age. 2019;26:100924.
29. Suganya S, Charles Raja S, Srinivasan D, Venkatesh P. Smart
utilization of renewable energy sources in a microgrid system
integrated with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Int J Energy
Res. 2018;42(3):1210-1224.
30. Basit MA, Dilshad S, Badar R, Sami ur Rehman SM. Limita-
tions, challenges, and solution approaches in grid-connected
renewable energy systems. Int J Energy Res. 2020;44(6):
4132-4162.
31. Moradi MH, Abedini M, Tousi SR, Hosseinian SM. Optimal sit-
ing and sizing of renewable energy sources and charging sta-
tions simultaneously based on differential evolution algorithm.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst. 2015;73:1015-1024.
32. Good C, Shepero M, Munkhammar J, Boström T. Scenario-
based modelling of the potential for solar energy charging of
electric vehicles in two Scandinavian cities. Energy. 2019;168:
111-125.
33. Kurien C, Srivastava AK, Molere E. Emission control strategies
for automotive engines with scope for deployment of solar
based e-vehicle charging infrastructure. Environ Prog Sustain-
able Energy. 2019;39:e13267.
34. Sierra Rodriguez A, de Santana T, MacGill I, Ekins-Daukes NJ,
Reinders A. A feasibility study of solar PV-powered electric cars
using an interdisciplinary modeling approach for the electricity
balance, CO2 emissions, and economic aspects: the cases of the
Netherlands, Norway, Brazil, and Australia. Prog Photovoltaics:
Res Appl. 2020;28:517-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3202.
35. Esfandyari A, Norton B, Conlon M, McCormack SJ. Perfor-
mance of a campus photovoltaic electric vehicle charging sta-
tion in a temperate climate. Solar Energy. 2019;177:762-771.
36. Fathabadi H. Novel stand-alone, completely autonomous and
renewable energy based charging station for charging plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Appl Energy. 2020;260:
114194.
37. He F, Fathabadi H. Novel stand-alone plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle charging station fed by solar energy in presence of a
fuel cell system used as supporting power source. Renewable
Energy. 2020;156:964-974.
38. Constantinescu M, Bucura F, Ionete RE, et al. Comparative
study on plastic materials as a new source of energy. Mater
Plast. 2019;56(1):41.
39. Xu X, Hu W, Cao D, et al. Optimal operational strategy for an
offgrid hybrid hydrogen/electricity refueling station powered
by solar photovoltaics. J Power Sources. 2020;451:227810.
40. Mehrjerdi H. Off-grid solar powered charging station for elec-
tric and hydrogen vehicles including fuel cell and hydrogen
storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2019;44(23):11574–11583.
FILOTE ET AL.
41. Al Wahedi A, Bicer Y. Assessment of a stand-alone hybrid solar
and wind energy-based electric vehicle charging station with
battery, hydrogen, and ammonia energy storages. Energy Stor-
age. 2019;1(5):e84.
42. Nienhueser IA, Qiu Y. Economic and environmental impacts
of providing renewable energy for electric vehicle charging–a
choice experiment study. Appl Energy. 2016;180:256-268.
43. Araújo K, Boucher JL, Aphale O. A clean energy assessment of
early adopters in electric vehicle and solar photovoltaic tech-
nology: geospatial, political and socio-demographic trends in
New York. J Clean Prod. 2019;216:99-116.
44. Eser P, Chokani N, Abhari RS. Impacts of battery electric vehi-
cles on renewable integration within the 2030 European power
system. Int J Energy Res. 2018;42(13):4142-4156.
45. Betancourt-Torcat A, Poddar T, Almansoori A. A realistic
framework to a greener supply chain for electric vehicles. Int J
Energy Res. 2019;43(6):2369-2390.
46. Luca de Tena D, Pregger T. Impact of electric vehicles on a
future renewable energy-based power system in Europe with a
focus on Germany. Int J Energy Res. 2018;42(8):2670-2685.
47. ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life cycle
assessment — Principles and framework, Retrieved on
16 December 2019 from https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.
html. 2019.
48. Mascale C, Zhao HP. Integrating environmental consciousness
in product/process development based on life-cycle thinking.
Int J Prod Econ. 2008;112(1):15-17.
49. Maier D. Product and process innovation: a new perspective on
the organizational development. Int J Adv Eng Manage Res.
2018;3(6):132-138.
50. Felseghi RA, Papp A. Considerations regarding hybrid systems
of power generator from renewable energy sources. Studia
Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Ambientum. 2014;59(1/2):27-40.
51. Maier D, Sven-Joachim I, Fortmüller A, Maier A. Development
and operationalization of a model of innovation management
system as part of an integrated quality-environment-safety sys-
tem. Amfiteatru Econ. 2017;19:302-314.
52. Petrauskienė K, Skvarnaviči utė M, Dvarionienė J. Comparative
environmental life cycle assessment of electric and conven-
tional vehicles in Lithuania. J Clean Prod. 2020;246:119042.
53. Fernández RA. A more realistic approach to electric vehicle
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in the city. J Clean
Prod. 2018;172:949-959.
54. Wu J, Liao H, Wang J-W, Chen T. The role of environmental
concern in the public acceptance of autonomous electric vehi-
cles: a survey from China. Transp Res Part F. 2019;60:37-46.
55. Ahmadi P. Environmental impacts and behavioral drivers of
deep decarbonization for transportation through electric vehi-
cles. J Clean Prod. 2019;225:1209-1219.
56. Qiao Q, Zhao F, Liu Z, He X, Hao H. Life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions of electric vehicles in China: combining the vehicle
cycle and fuel cycle. Energy. 2019;177:222-233.
57. Onata NC, Kucukvar M, Aboushaqrah NNM, Jabbar R. How
sustainable is electric mobility? A comprehensive sustainability
assessment approach for the case of Qatar. Appl Energy. 2019;
250:461-477.
58. Salah WA, Alsayid B, Albreem MAM, et al. Electric vehicle
technology impacts on energy. Int J Power Electron Drive Syst.
2019;10(1):1-9.
FILOTE ET AL.
59. Thiel C, Julea A, Acosta Iborra B, et al. Assessing the impacts
of electric vehicle recharging infrastructure deployment efforts
in the European Union. Energies. 2019;12:2409.
60. Milligan R, Etxebarria S, Muneer T, Jadraque Gago E. Driven
performance of electric vehicles in Edinburgh and its environs.
Energies. 2019;12:3074.
61. Li Y, Ha N, Li T. Research on carbon emissions of electric vehi-
cles throughout the life cycle assessment taking into vehicle
weight and grid mix composition. Energies. 2019;12:3612.
62. Bicer Y, Dincer I. Life cycle environmental impact assessments
and comparisons of alternative fuels for clean vehicles. Resour,
Conserv Recycl. 2018;132:141-157.
63. Kawamoto R, Mochizuki H, Moriguchi Y, et al. Estimation of
CO2 emissions of internal combustion engine vehicle and bat-
tery electric vehicle using LCA. Sustainability. 2019;11:2690.
64. Skrúcaný T, Kendra M, Stopka O, Milojevic S, Figlus T,
Csiszár C. Impact of the electric mobility implementation on
the greenhouse gases production in central European coun-
tries. Sustainability. 2019;11:4948.
65. Baumann M, Salzinger M, Remppis S, Schober B, Held M, Graf R.
Reducing the environmental impacts of electric vehicles and elec-
tricity supply: how hourly defined life cycle assessment and smart
charging can contribute. World Electr Veh J. 2019;10:13.
66. Xiao P, Wen Q. Environmental impact analysis of the whole
life cycle of pure electric vehicles. IOP Publishing Conf Ser
Earth Environ Sci. 2019;300:032053. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1755-1315/300/3/032053.
67. Bishop J, Amaratunga G, Cuauhtemoc R. Linking energy policy,
electricity generation and transmission using strong sustainability
and co-optimization. Electr Pow Syst res. 2010;80:633-641.
68. Zhang S, Zhao T, Xie BC. Analysis of power generation mix in
China: an evaluation based on portfolio theory. Energy
Procedia. 2018;145:163-168.
69. European Environment Agency. Overview of electricity pro-
duction and use in Europe. Retrieved on 22 February 2020
from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/
overview-of-the-electricity-production-2/assessment-4. 2020.
70. Eurostat–Statistical Office of the European Union. Retrieved
on 2 April 2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/
organisation/eurostat-statistical-office-eu_en. 2020.
71. International Energy Agency–IEA (2019). Decoupling between
electricity generation and related CO2 emissions, and key con-
tributing factors. Retrieved on 24 February 2020 from https://
www.iea.org/commentaries/tracking-the-decoupling-of-electricity-
demand-and-associated-co2-emissions. 2020.
72. International Energy Agency–IEA (2019). Average CO2 emis-
sions intensity of hourly electricity supply in India, 2018, and
by scenario, 2040. Retrieved on 24 February 2020 from https://
www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-co2-emissions-
intensity-of-hourly-electricity-supply-in-india-2018-and-by-scenario-
2040. 2020.
73. UNFCCC. Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework
convention on climate change. Retrieved on 14 February 2020
from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf. 2020.
74. European Commission, EU climate action. 2020 climate &
energy package. Retrieved on 14 February 2020 from https://
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020_en. 2009.
75. European Commission, EU climate action. Roadmap for build-
ing a competitive low-carbon Europe by 2050. Retrieved on
23
14 February 2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/
presscorner/detail/en/IP_11_272. 2011.
76. GlobalPetrolPrices.com. Electricity prices for households. Retrieved
on 15 February 2020 from https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/
electricity_prices/#hl48https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics/ro. 2020.
77. UEFISCDI, Project Number PN-III-P1-1.2-PCCDI-
2017-0776/No. 36 PCCDI/March 15, 2018, within PNCDI III,
Grant from the Romanian Ministry of Research and Innova-
tion, CCCDI. Retrieved on 12 December 2019 from www.smile-
ev.usv.ro. 2019.
78. Dufo-López, R, Bernal-Agustín JL. iHOGA PRO+ Software
Version 2.5, Electrical Engineering Department, University of
Zaragoza, Spain. 2017.
79. Dufo-López, R. Dimensionado y control optimos de sistemas
hibridos aplicando algoritmos evolutivos–PhD Thesis, Electrical
Engineering Department, University of Zaragoza, Spain. 2007.
80. Coello-Coello CA, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA. Evolu-
tionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems. In:
Goldberg DE, Koza JR, eds. Genetic and Evolutionary Com-
putation Series. 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag;
2007.
81. Rachmawati L, Srinivasan D. Multiobjective evolutionary algo-
rithm with controllable focus on the knees of the pareto front.
IEEE Trans Evol Comput. 2009;13(4):810-824.
82. Bernal-Augustin JL, Dufo-López R. Simulation and optimiza-
tion of stand-alone hybrid renewable enrgy systems. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev. 2009;13:2111-2118.
83. Dufo-López R, Bernal-Augustin JL. Multi-objective design of
PV-wind-diesel-hydrogen-battery systems. J Renewable Energy.
2008;33:2559-2572.
84. Badea G, Felseghi RA, Aşchilean I, et al. Energen System for
Power Supply of Passive House: Case Study, IEEE Xplore.
Paper presented at: Proc. 2nd MCSI International Conference
on Mathematics and Computers in Sciences and in Industry,
Sliema, Malta, pp. 24–31, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSI.
2015.31.
85. Dufo-López R. iHOGA Software Version 2.5.–User's manual,
Electrical Engineering Department, University of Zaragoza,
Spain. 2019.
86. Felseghi RA. (2015). Contributions Regarding the Application of
Fuel Cells in the Passive House Domain (Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation). Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
87. NASA Surface meteorology and solar energy: RETScreen data.
Retrieved on 14 December 2019 from https://eosweb.larc.nasa.
gov/sse/. 2019.
88. Dufo-López R, Bernal-Agustín JL. New methodology for the gen-
eration of hourly wind speed data applied to the optimization of
stand-alone systems. Energy Procedia. 2012;2012(14):1973-1978.
89. Corsiuc G, Mârza C, Ceuca E, Felseghi R-A, Şoimoşan T.
Hybrid solar-wind stand-alone energy system: a case study.
Appl Mech Mater. 2015;772:536-540. https://doi.org/10.4028/
www.scientific.net/amm.772.536.
90. Aschilean I, Rasoi G, Raboaca MS, Filote C, Culcer M. Design
and concept of an energy system based on renewable sources
for greenhouse sustainable agriculture. Energies. 2018;11:1201.
91. Maier D, Maier A, Aşchilean I, Anastasiu L, Gavriş O. The rela-
tionship between innovation and sustainability: a bibliometric
review of the literature. Sustainability. 2020;12:4083.
24 FILOTE ET AL.

92. Felseghi RA, Carcadea E, Raboaca MS, Trufin CN, Filote C.

Hydrogen fuel cell Technology for the Sustainable Future of
stationary applications. Energies. 2019;12(23):4593.
93. Maier D, Maftei M, Maier A, Bitan GE. A review of product inno-
vation management literature in the context of organization sus-
tainable development. Amfiteatru Econ. 2019;21:816-829.
94. Rata M, Rata G, Filote C, et al. The ElectricalVehicle simulator
for Charging Station in mode 3 of IEC 61851-1 standard. Ener-
gies. 2020;13:176.
How to cite this article: Filote C, Felseghi R-A,
Raboaca MS, Aşchilean I. Environmental impact
assessment of green energy systems for power
supply of electric vehicle charging station. Int
J Energy Res. 2020;1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.5678