• Energy Research
• 2025-2025close
• DE close
• ES close
• NL close
• SDSN Greece close

We present a modeling and optimization framework to design powertrains for a family of electric vehicles, focusing on the concurrent sizing of their motors and batteries. Whilst tailoring these component modules to each individual vehicle type can minimize energy consumption, it can result in high production costs due to the variety of component modules to be realized for the family of vehicles, driving the Total Costs of Ownership (TCO) high. Against this backdrop, we explore modularity and standardization strategies whereby we jointly design unique motor and battery modules to be installed in all the vehicles in the family, using a different number of these modules when needed. Such an approach results in higher production volumes of the same component module, entailing significantly lower manufacturing costs due to Economy-of-Scale (EoS) effects, and hence a potentially lower TCO for the family of vehicles. To solve the resulting one-size-fits-all problem, we instantiate a nested framework consisting of an inner convex optimization routine which jointly optimizes the modules' sizes and the powertrain operation of the entire family, for given driving cycles and modules' multiplicities. Likewise, we devise an outer loop comparing each configuration to identify the minimum-TCO solution with global optimality guarantees. Finally, we showcase our framework on a case study for the Tesla vehicle family in a benchmark design problem, considering the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y. Our results show that, compared to an individually tailored design, the application of our concurrent design optimization framework achieves a significant reduction of the production costs for a minimal increase in operational costs, ultimately lowering the family TCO in the benchmark design problem by 3.5\%. 17 pages, 17 figures, 7 tables

While the operating cost of electricity grids based on thermal generation was largely driven by the cost of fuel, as renewable penetration increases, ancillary services represent an increasingly large proportion of the running costs. Electric frequency is an important magnitude in highly renewable grids, as it becomes more volatile and therefore the cost related to maintaining it within safe bounds has significantly increased. So far, costs for frequency-containment ancillary services have been socialised in most countries, but it has become relevant to rethink this regulatory arrangement. In this paper, we discuss the issue of cost allocation for these services, highlighting the need to evolve towards a causation-based regulatory framework. We argue that parties responsible for creating the need for ancillary services should bear these costs. However, this would imply an important change in electricity market policy, therefore it is necessary to understand the impact on current and future investments on generation, as well as on electricity tariffs. Here we provide a mostly qualitative analysis of this issue, defining guidelines for practical implementation and further study. Published in journal Energy Policy

In the last decade, the manufacturing capacity of silicon, the dominant PV technology, has increasingly been concentrated in China. This has led to PV cost reduction of approximately 80%, while, at the same time, posing risks to PV supply chain security. Recent advancements of novel perovskite tandem PV technologies as an alternative to traditional silicon-based PV provide opportunities for diversification of the PV manufacturing capacity and for increasing the GHG emission benefit of solar PV. Against this background, we estimate the current and future cost-competitiveness and GHG emissions of a set of already commercialized as well as emerging PV technologies for different production locations (China, USA, EU), both at residential and utility-scale. We find EU and USA-manufactured thin-film tandems to have 2 to 4% and 0.5 to 2% higher costs per kWh and 37 to 40%and 32 to 35% less GHG emissions per kWh at residential and utility-scale, respectively. Our projections indicate that they will also retain competitive costs (up to 2% higher)and a 20% GHG emissions advantage per kWh in 2050.