To charge or not to charge? Using Prospect Theory to model the tradeoffs of electric vehicle users
Electric vehicle (EV) users who aim to become flexibility providers face a tradeoff between staying in control of charging and minimizing their electricity costs. The common practice is to charge immediately after plugging in and use more electricity than necessary. Changing this can increase the EV...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sustainability science 2024-05, Vol.19 (3), p.793-813 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 813 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 793 |
container_title | Sustainability science |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Pelka, S. Bosch, A. Chappin, E. J. L. Liesenhoff, F. Kühnbach, M. de Vries, L. J. |
description | Electric vehicle (EV) users who aim to become flexibility providers face a tradeoff between staying in control of charging and minimizing their electricity costs. The common practice is to charge immediately after plugging in and use more electricity than necessary. Changing this can increase the EV’s flexibility potential and reduce electricity costs. Our extended electricity cost optimization model systematically examines how different changes to this practice influence electricity costs. Based on the Prospect Theory and substantiated by empirical data, it captures EV users’ tradeoff between relinquishing control and reducing charging costs. Lowering the need to control charging results in disproportionally large savings in electricity costs. This finding incentivizes EV-users to relinquish even more control of charging. We analyzed changes to two charging settings that express the need for control. We found that changing only one setting offsets the other and reduces its positive effect on cost savings. Behavioral aspects, such as rebound effects and inertia that are widely documented in the literature, support this finding and underline the fit of our model extension to capture different charging behaviors. Our findings suggest that service providers should convince EV-users to relinquish control of both settings. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11625-023-01432-y |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3055251010</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3055251010</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78c31c37526de38c1e6ba5588bf140e8ebdb52aa007cdddc0990f10e129c7e4e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouH78AU8BL16qk6RJ25PI4hcs6GH3HNp0uu3SbdakFfrvzVo_wIOnGYbnHWYeQi4YXDOA5MYzpriMgIsIWCx4NB6QGUsVj2KQyeFPr-QxOfF-A6B4kqUzUiwtNXXu1kito53taf89uKUr33Rr-uqs36Hp6bJG68Y9sLUltrSvkfYuL9FWlae2otgGzDWGvmPdmBbp4NH5M3JU5a3H8696SlYP98v5U7R4eXye3y0iIzLVR0lqBDMikVyVKFLDUBW5lGlaVCwGTLEoC8nzPLxryrI0kGVQMUDGM5NgjOKUXE17d86-Deh7vW28wbbNO7SD14JJoeJMxXFAL_-gGzu4LlynBUjJJQMGgeITZYIB77DSO9dsczdqBnqvXU_addCuP7XrMYTEFPIB7tboflf_k_oAeF2F1Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3055251010</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>To charge or not to charge? Using Prospect Theory to model the tradeoffs of electric vehicle users</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Pelka, S. ; Bosch, A. ; Chappin, E. J. L. ; Liesenhoff, F. ; Kühnbach, M. ; de Vries, L. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pelka, S. ; Bosch, A. ; Chappin, E. J. L. ; Liesenhoff, F. ; Kühnbach, M. ; de Vries, L. J.</creatorcontrib><description>Electric vehicle (EV) users who aim to become flexibility providers face a tradeoff between staying in control of charging and minimizing their electricity costs. The common practice is to charge immediately after plugging in and use more electricity than necessary. Changing this can increase the EV’s flexibility potential and reduce electricity costs. Our extended electricity cost optimization model systematically examines how different changes to this practice influence electricity costs. Based on the Prospect Theory and substantiated by empirical data, it captures EV users’ tradeoff between relinquishing control and reducing charging costs. Lowering the need to control charging results in disproportionally large savings in electricity costs. This finding incentivizes EV-users to relinquish even more control of charging. We analyzed changes to two charging settings that express the need for control. We found that changing only one setting offsets the other and reduces its positive effect on cost savings. Behavioral aspects, such as rebound effects and inertia that are widely documented in the literature, support this finding and underline the fit of our model extension to capture different charging behaviors. Our findings suggest that service providers should convince EV-users to relinquish control of both settings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1862-4065</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1862-4057</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11625-023-01432-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Tokyo: Springer Japan</publisher><subject>Charging ; Climate Change Management and Policy ; Cost control ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Electric vehicles ; Electricity ; electricity costs ; Empirical analysis ; Energy costs ; Environment ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental Management ; Flexibility ; Landscape Ecology ; Optimization models ; Public Health ; Special Feature: Individuals within the Larger System to Support the Energy Transition ; Special Feature: Original Article ; Sustainable Development ; Tradeoffs</subject><ispartof>Sustainability science, 2024-05, Vol.19 (3), p.793-813</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78c31c37526de38c1e6ba5588bf140e8ebdb52aa007cdddc0990f10e129c7e4e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78c31c37526de38c1e6ba5588bf140e8ebdb52aa007cdddc0990f10e129c7e4e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7450-9796</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11625-023-01432-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11625-023-01432-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pelka, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosch, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chappin, E. J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liesenhoff, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kühnbach, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, L. J.</creatorcontrib><title>To charge or not to charge? Using Prospect Theory to model the tradeoffs of electric vehicle users</title><title>Sustainability science</title><addtitle>Sustain Sci</addtitle><description>Electric vehicle (EV) users who aim to become flexibility providers face a tradeoff between staying in control of charging and minimizing their electricity costs. The common practice is to charge immediately after plugging in and use more electricity than necessary. Changing this can increase the EV’s flexibility potential and reduce electricity costs. Our extended electricity cost optimization model systematically examines how different changes to this practice influence electricity costs. Based on the Prospect Theory and substantiated by empirical data, it captures EV users’ tradeoff between relinquishing control and reducing charging costs. Lowering the need to control charging results in disproportionally large savings in electricity costs. This finding incentivizes EV-users to relinquish even more control of charging. We analyzed changes to two charging settings that express the need for control. We found that changing only one setting offsets the other and reduces its positive effect on cost savings. Behavioral aspects, such as rebound effects and inertia that are widely documented in the literature, support this finding and underline the fit of our model extension to capture different charging behaviors. Our findings suggest that service providers should convince EV-users to relinquish control of both settings.</description><subject>Charging</subject><subject>Climate Change Management and Policy</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Electric vehicles</subject><subject>Electricity</subject><subject>electricity costs</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Energy costs</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Landscape Ecology</subject><subject>Optimization models</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Special Feature: Individuals within the Larger System to Support the Energy Transition</subject><subject>Special Feature: Original Article</subject><subject>Sustainable Development</subject><subject>Tradeoffs</subject><issn>1862-4065</issn><issn>1862-4057</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouH78AU8BL16qk6RJ25PI4hcs6GH3HNp0uu3SbdakFfrvzVo_wIOnGYbnHWYeQi4YXDOA5MYzpriMgIsIWCx4NB6QGUsVj2KQyeFPr-QxOfF-A6B4kqUzUiwtNXXu1kito53taf89uKUr33Rr-uqs36Hp6bJG68Y9sLUltrSvkfYuL9FWlae2otgGzDWGvmPdmBbp4NH5M3JU5a3H8696SlYP98v5U7R4eXye3y0iIzLVR0lqBDMikVyVKFLDUBW5lGlaVCwGTLEoC8nzPLxryrI0kGVQMUDGM5NgjOKUXE17d86-Deh7vW28wbbNO7SD14JJoeJMxXFAL_-gGzu4LlynBUjJJQMGgeITZYIB77DSO9dsczdqBnqvXU_addCuP7XrMYTEFPIB7tboflf_k_oAeF2F1Q</recordid><startdate>20240501</startdate><enddate>20240501</enddate><creator>Pelka, S.</creator><creator>Bosch, A.</creator><creator>Chappin, E. J. L.</creator><creator>Liesenhoff, F.</creator><creator>Kühnbach, M.</creator><creator>de Vries, L. J.</creator><general>Springer Japan</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7450-9796</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240501</creationdate><title>To charge or not to charge? Using Prospect Theory to model the tradeoffs of electric vehicle users</title><author>Pelka, S. ; Bosch, A. ; Chappin, E. J. L. ; Liesenhoff, F. ; Kühnbach, M. ; de Vries, L. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-78c31c37526de38c1e6ba5588bf140e8ebdb52aa007cdddc0990f10e129c7e4e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Charging</topic><topic>Climate Change Management and Policy</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Electric vehicles</topic><topic>Electricity</topic><topic>electricity costs</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Energy costs</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Landscape Ecology</topic><topic>Optimization models</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Special Feature: Individuals within the Larger System to Support the Energy Transition</topic><topic>Special Feature: Original Article</topic><topic>Sustainable Development</topic><topic>Tradeoffs</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pelka, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosch, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chappin, E. J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liesenhoff, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kühnbach, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, L. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Sustainability science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pelka, S.</au><au>Bosch, A.</au><au>Chappin, E. J. L.</au><au>Liesenhoff, F.</au><au>Kühnbach, M.</au><au>de Vries, L. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>To charge or not to charge? Using Prospect Theory to model the tradeoffs of electric vehicle users</atitle><jtitle>Sustainability science</jtitle><stitle>Sustain Sci</stitle><date>2024-05-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>793</spage><epage>813</epage><pages>793-813</pages><issn>1862-4065</issn><eissn>1862-4057</eissn><abstract>Electric vehicle (EV) users who aim to become flexibility providers face a tradeoff between staying in control of charging and minimizing their electricity costs. The common practice is to charge immediately after plugging in and use more electricity than necessary. Changing this can increase the EV’s flexibility potential and reduce electricity costs. Our extended electricity cost optimization model systematically examines how different changes to this practice influence electricity costs. Based on the Prospect Theory and substantiated by empirical data, it captures EV users’ tradeoff between relinquishing control and reducing charging costs. Lowering the need to control charging results in disproportionally large savings in electricity costs. This finding incentivizes EV-users to relinquish even more control of charging. We analyzed changes to two charging settings that express the need for control. We found that changing only one setting offsets the other and reduces its positive effect on cost savings. Behavioral aspects, such as rebound effects and inertia that are widely documented in the literature, support this finding and underline the fit of our model extension to capture different charging behaviors. Our findings suggest that service providers should convince EV-users to relinquish control of both settings.</abstract><cop>Tokyo</cop><pub>Springer Japan</pub><doi>10.1007/s11625-023-01432-y</doi><tpages>21</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7450-9796</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1862-4065 |
ispartof | Sustainability science, 2024-05, Vol.19 (3), p.793-813 |
issn | 1862-4065 1862-4057 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3055251010 |
source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Charging Climate Change Management and Policy Cost control Earth and Environmental Science Electric vehicles Electricity electricity costs Empirical analysis Energy costs Environment Environmental Economics Environmental Management Flexibility Landscape Ecology Optimization models Public Health Special Feature: Individuals within the Larger System to Support the Energy Transition Special Feature: Original Article Sustainable Development Tradeoffs |
title | To charge or not to charge? Using Prospect Theory to model the tradeoffs of electric vehicle users |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T09%3A16%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=To%20charge%20or%20not%20to%20charge?%20Using%20Prospect%20Theory%20to%20model%20the%20tradeoffs%20of%20electric%20vehicle%20users&rft.jtitle=Sustainability%20science&rft.au=Pelka,%20S.&rft.date=2024-05-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=793&rft.epage=813&rft.pages=793-813&rft.issn=1862-4065&rft.eissn=1862-4057&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11625-023-01432-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3055251010%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3055251010&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |