Randomized trial evaluates an optimization strategy for electric vehicles, aiming to reduce carbon emissions and battery degradation.
Uncoordinated charging and discharging of large-scale electric vehicles (EVs) exacerbates grid peak–valley fluctuations, while deep discharging accelerates battery degradation. To address these challenges, this study proposes a coordinated charging–discharging optimization strategy integrating dynamic discharge restraint and a three-dimensional weighted comprehensive objective covering electricity price signals, grid operational constraints and battery health state. First, an EV travel behavior model is established to characterize spatiotemporal availability. Subsequently, a coupled battery aging model is developed by combining a power-law-based cycle aging formulation with a square-root calendar aging model, based on which an adaptive linkage mechanism between the depth-of-discharge upper bound and a net-revenue threshold is introduced. Building on these components, this model is constructed to jointly optimize three sub-objectives: charging station revenue maximization, battery lifetime cost minimization, and load fluctuation suppression, thereby mitigating grid peak–valley differences while reducing battery degradation and discharge costs. Multi-scenario simulations demonstrate that the proposed strategy, by coupling discharge restraint with spatiotemporal dynamic pricing, enables precise peak shaving of discharge power. For a fleet of 50 EVs, the charging station revenue reaches 1073.7 CNY, the grid peak–valley difference is reduced by 9.8%, and the battery degradation cost decreases by 23.1% compared with conventional strategies, corresponding to a carbon emission reduction of 386.4 tCO2. When scaled to 100 EVs, the revenue increases by 101.9%, while the peak–valley difference is further reduced by 0.6%, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed strategy in enhancing economic performance, extending battery lifetime, and supporting grid stability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: