Katholieke

Universiteit
Leuven

Department of
Electrical Engineering

Reviews of papers related to electromobility

Electromobility (H04C8a)

Venstermans Ewout (r0829914)

Academic year 2024–2025
Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Optimal Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations in a Coupled Transportation and

Electrical Power Distribution Network 2
2.1 Subject scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 Critical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3.1 Comparison with previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3.2 Unconsidered objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3.3 Algorithms and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.4 Errors in variable selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Electrification of airports and air transport: Airports becoming integrated energy

systems 7
3.1 Subject scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Critical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1 relevancy of the paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2 Similarity of the airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.3 Net total cost as objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.4 Applicability of hydrogen-based solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5 Final words and Use of AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

References 12

1
1 Introduction

In this paper two papers will be discussed and critically reviewed. The first paper is titled ”Op-
timal Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations in a Coupled Transportation and Electrical Power
Distribution Network”. The second paper is titled ”Electrification of airports and air transport: Air-
ports becoming integrated energy systems”. Both papers discuss an energy related topic and will be
discussed on their contribution as well as methodology.

2 Optimal Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations in a Coupled Transportation

and Electrical Power Distribution Network

2.1 Subject scope

In this first section, the paper, titled ”Optimal Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations in a Coupled
Transportation and Electrical Power Distribution Network” will be discussed [11]. It was published
in IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, volume 21, number 3 on 21 July
2023. The authors, namely A. Kapoor, V. S. Patel, A. Sharma and A. Mohapatra are with the
Department of Electrical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, India. They
are all members of the IEEE group, with S. Patel being a student member and A. Sharma a senior
member. After reviewing the authors’ academic background, no conflicts of interest were discovered
that could be of influence when researching this subject. In the paper itself no note of possible
competing interests was made. The main individual responsible for this publication is A. Kapoor.
The paper proposes a new research methodology for electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). The
findings from this paper are useful for fields of application such as urban planning, distribution and
transmission system expansion and maintenance, and transportation engineering. It can be used by
district officials to optimally plan and place EVCS to reduce costs, minimize strain on the electrical
system, maximize EV satisfaction and sustain the future development of electric transportation.
By implementing the methodology proposed in the paper EVCSs can be placed in a way to reduce
losses in the electrical network, minimize voltage deviations and maximize coverage of transportation,
taking into account waiting times and the cost of the electric vehicle charging stations.

2.2 Summary
As EV ownership increases thanks to their reduced carbon emissions and government incentives
there is a growing need for adequate charging infrastructure, such as fast charging stations for public
consumption. This paper proposes a new methodology to optimally locate new electric vehicle
charging stations on intra-city corridors connecting multiple suburbs. New methods taking into
account multiple criteria need to be researched to find the optimal placement and sizing of such EVCS.
Such criteria include minimizing losses and voltage fluctuations in the electrical power distribution
network as well as charging stations’ establishment cost. Transportation network requirements, such
as charging requirements, driving range constraints and maximization of captured traffic flow are also
taken into account. The methodology implements a distance-based mapping between transportation
and electrical power distribution networks to measure the impact of electric vehicle charging stations
on the distribution network.
The paper implements five different objectives into an optimization problem, each having equal
weight. The first objective aims at maximizing the captured traffic flow, taking into account the
ability of nodes to attract traffic. Each EV enters the transportation network with a certain state of
charge (SOC) and expects a certain amount of energy when leaving the charging station and when
leaving the destination, where no charging station has to be present. The objective is based on a
sum of EV satisfaction ratios, where a ratio of 1 means an EV driver is satisfied and able to reach
a charging station, while 0 represents unsatisfied EV. The second objective minimizes waiting time

2
for a charging point and the third objective minimizes losses in the distribution network, due to the
increased load of charging stations. In the fourth objective voltage deviations are minimized to 5%,
while in objective five the cost of the charging station is taken into account. Some objectives are
subject to constraints. For example while minimizing time, the number of charging points per station
is limited. All objectives are normalized to prevent some objectives overshadowing others.
To solve this multi-objective problem the paper proposes three different variations of the particle
swarm optimization (PSO). Swarm particle optimization makes use of a population of particles,
possessing a position and velocity. These particles are updated to find the best position, satisfying
the objectives. In this problem, a particle represents a vector of charging station locations. Each
algorithm differentiates itself in the way these particles are generated and updated. The results
of standard PSO algorithm are compared with a PSO algorithm using constraints to ensure con-
vergence(PSO CS) and MPSPSO which uses a mean differential mutation strategy to update the
coefficients used to update the position of the particles.
Next, a case-study is performed using a 30-bus distribution network, based on the IEEE-30 bus
coupled with a 25-node transportation network. The traffic flow is estimated using a forecasting
model on historical hourly traffic flow data, taking into account weather conditions. The prediction
period is 5 years, taking into account a growth factor of 4%. The EV-battery data was randomly
generated, considering SOC constraints. The case study is then performed on the forecasted rush
hour period and it was found that the PSO CF method found the best results while following the
constraints. Finally, this algorithm was further used to test the robustness of the approach, by varying
the growing factor of EV population and the initial SOC of the vehicles entering the network. The
algorithm proved to be robust, achieving high transport coverage while maintaining low effects on
the distribution system.

2.3 Critical Review

2.3.1 Comparison with previous work
Previous works that have been done on the subject of EVCS placement can be categorized into three
categories. The first one is an electrical approach, minimizing the investment cost of charging stations
and distribution network upgrades. Next, a transportation approach, where strategies used for fuel
charging stations are reimplemented for electric charging stations. The aim is to optimally and cost-
efficiently meet the traffic flow and demand. The final approach then combines both the electrical and
transportation approach. However, none have taken into account the traffic flow, voltage deviations
and losses in the electrical network and EV charging requirements simultaneously. Examples of
multi-objective optimization studies include a paper from S. Muthukannan and D. Karthikaikannan.
It was published in 2022 and discusses a multi-objective method to maximize coverage and minimize
power losses and voltage deviations. While also using a distance-based mapping, the paper leaves
out other objectives such as waiting time and economic cost [16]. In another work from A. Pal, A.
Bhattacharya and A.K. Chakraborty, published in 2019, the EVCS placement is optimized following
the purely electrical approach. It aimed at minimizing power losses taking voltage and current limits
into account [17]. Other papers found also proved to lack a full coupling between transportation and
electrical networks. Hence, this paper is unique in the number of objectives it takes into account,
showing a mapping between both the transportation and electrical networks has to be made to find
the optimal placement and creating a valuable contribution for future research and improvement.

2.3.2 Unconsidered objectives

As the title of the paper suggests, the main use of this paper lies on the optimal placement taking
into consideration the transportation network and electrical system. The paper uses 5 objectives for
this: maximizing captured traffic flow, minimizing waiting time, minimizing losses in the distribution

3
network, minimizing voltage deviations and minimizing the cost of the charging station. These are
all very important for the placement of EVCS as they will have a considerable influence on both
systems, but other considerations and objectives should be taken into account as well.
One significant aspect of EVCS placement is the economic effects they have on their environment.
The paper takes into account the total cost of the charging station, even taking into account the
cost of land. However, it fails in acknowledging possible revenue flows that come from these stations.
For example, the following paper by A. Rehman et al. discusses the optimal placement taking into
account charging costs. Furthermore, the paper discusses the possibility of customer involvement.
Allowing the customer to contribute to the energy production of the charging station. This not
only results in fewer costs towards the electricity provider, but also allows for a local and a greener
solution [18]. Finally, using a variable charging cost could also be beneficial and help reducing the
load on the electrical grid by spreading the demand throughout the day [10].
The environmental effects also play a pivotal role in the placement of EVCS and are not discussed in
the paper. Placement of a new EVCS will require land and concrete, which can be straining on the
surrounding flora and fauna. By only considering the placement of charging stations at large intra-
city corridors these effects don’t play a role. But the environmental impact of electricity generation
to accommodate the extra load can not be neglected. In this regard renewables should be considered.
The paper by A. Rehman et al. also highlights these points and proposes customer involvement to
create local renewable generation alternatives. The paper found that these do not only draw down
the cost but also result in less consumption from the electricity provider, driving down the emissions
as well [18].
In this regard the impact of renewables should be considered further. These will consist mainly of
PV. The paper, however, does not consider any renewables, while performing the case study in an
urban environment. This offers the possibility of local cooperation, as renewable generation on the
EVCS site itself will prove to be strongly insufficient [5]. This is also further investigated in the paper
written by Yao et al. Here the possibility of local interaction between the PV prosumers and EVCS
are investigated for the IEEE-33 distribution system, taking into account charging costs and grid
loading. The paper clearly shows that the effects of local PV-generation cannot be neglected [26].
The following paper by T. Shiramagond and W. Lee also discusses the possible benefits of having
storage elements, such as batteries. This drives emissions and costs down even further as it allows
for bridging the mismatch between generation and demand [19].
All these objectives are not considered in the paper, which could have easily been done by expanding
the objective function. Instead the paper focuses only on the electrical and transportation system.

2.3.3 Algorithms and methodology

This paper uses three different PSO algorithms to solve the multi-objective problem. In this way it
aims at finding the most optimal placement of EVCS, as each algorithm has slight differences during
computation resulting in different outcomes. The methods discussed are a standard PSO algorithm,
a PSO algorithm with constraints and a MPSPSO algorithm. MPSPSO stands for mean-differential-
mutation-strategy embedded P-SPSO [14]. The methods are all variations of heuristic algorithms
as the problem statement is complex and computationally expensive [3]. Details discussing the
parameters used for the algorithms are also provided.
A first aspect to note when using these algorithms is their optimization of one single objective. When
multiple objectives should be achieved, the objectives should be combined together into an objective
function with weight factors. This is implemented in the paper, where each objective is given equal
weight. However, such an approach is very subjective and different weighting factors lead to different
results. Therefore careful consideration should be taken when choosing them. The paper, however,
does not do this and simply assigns equal weights to the five objectives. A Pareto-optimal approach

4
could help reduce this dependency [10]. Furthermore, when using a weighted sum approach, the
objectives should be normalized to prevent dominance of one objective [11]. This is explained and
executed well in the paper.
The algorithms are tested and then compared using as a base-case study. However, while PSO is a
well-established algorithm, in some cases it strikes local optima [16]. The paper mitigates this by
using constriction factors. Nevertheless, the use of other algorithms is interesting to further prove
the robustness of the solution and possibly improve it [3]. As PSO is also very time-consuming, using
other methods could improve computation time allowing for larger scale cases [1].
The paper by A. Pal, A. Bhattacharya and A.K. Chakraborty uses a Grey wolf optimization and a
Whale optimization algorithm to solve the EVCS problem. These algorithms were inspired by natural
behaviors, but can equally be used in the context of EVCS. Their operation is similar to that of OPF,
with the main difference being the way the solution vector is updated and positions are explored [17].
In a paper by V. Babu et al. also implements a PSO algorithm to find the most optimal charging
station placement. However, the paper differentiates itself by using Pareto-optimal solutions, using
a (non)-dominant approach to achieve multiple possible solutions. The best solution is then picked
using a fuzzy-membership function. Furthermore, to prevent the algorithm from finding local optima,
the stopping criterion was adapted to include multiple runs of the same algorithm [10]. The stopping
criterium for the PSO-algorithm is based on the number of times the same solution is repeated. A
final example is the paper by S. Deb et al. in which a novel Chicken Swarm algorithm is implemented.
approach proved successful compared to other state-of-the-art algorithms [3].
Finally, as PSO is dependent on its parameters the use of constriction factors does not allow for less
efficient solutions to be considered [1]. This means that results with less beneficial effects are ignored
and other important aspects of the placement problem, such as the environmental effect or the effect
on traffic in these intra-city corridors. Aspects that could be minimized with a less efficient solution.
A solution using Pareto-optima is also very useful in this regard [10].

2.3.4 Errors in variable selection

While testing the proposed algorithm, the paper assumes cerrtain parameters, but does not explain
on what grounds these are based on. Hence, no strong conclusion can be drawn from the results
found in this paper, as the parameters might be adapted to benefit these results. Fortunately, the
main aim of the paper is to show the methodology and benefits of using a PSO algorithm when
taking into account the electrical and transportation system. Hence, assumptions are possible as the
overall working principal can still be shown. However they should always be explained. Some of the
key parameters used in the paper will be discussed here.
The first parameter discussed is the derivation of the EV traffic flow in this paper. From a historical
dataset the traffic flow is scaled down to 15-20%, based on the transportation scale studied. This
is a good approach as it allows for accurate data. A similar approach is taken for weather features.
Next, the data is used to predict the traffic flow in an hour, using a 5-year prediction period (from
2018 to 2023). To take into account the increase in electric vehicles during those years a growth rate
of 4% was taken. This however is on the conservative side as a publication by IEA shows an annual
average global increase in EV stock by 30% [8]. More recently these numbers have gone down to 23%
which is still considerably larger than the growth rate taken in the paper [9].
To estimate non-EV load, a similar approach was taken. Here the grid is modeled using the IEEE-30
bus system. No information about the loads or generation in this system is given, but also here a five
year planning period with a growth rate of 3% was used to predict the non-EV load consumption. No
sources for this derivation or growth rate are given, which is an important drawback of this paper.
Other papers, such as the one from V. Babu et al. extract this information from historical hourly
data. However, a growth rate of 3% seems acceptable based on a publication by Ember [6].

5
Finally, all EVs considered in the paper have the same characteristics. This is not very realistic and
an approach such as the one used in the paper by V. Babu et al. should be taken. In this paper
multiple models, such as Nissan Leaf or Tesla model 3 are considered [10]. This not only affects the
battery capacity but also the charging power, hence also affecting charging time. Furthermore, the
charging power is assumed to remain a constant 50 kW during charging. This, of course, is not the
case in reality as EV charges will often ramp down the charging power when nearing battery capacity,
but the assumption is acceptable. However, 50 kW is also on the low end of the range in which DC
fast charging can occur [5]. This can also be seen by looking at the specifications of a Tesla model 3,
which has a maximal charging power of 250 kW [22].

2.4 Conclusion
The paper ’Optimal Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations in a Coupled Transportation and Elec-
trical Power Distribution Network’ by A. Kapoor et al. is a valuable contribution to the field of
EVCS placement. While the paper does not consider aspects such as environmental, economical
or renewable impact, it is the first to consider transportation networks and electrical distribution
systems in a large case study. By doing so, the importance of these two aspects is highlighted. The
paper also clearly proves that they can and should be combined in order to find optimal placement
of the charging stations.
However, in performing the case studies, to prove robustness of the algorithms used the researchers
should have been more careful in considering not only optimization algorithms, but also the pa-
rameters used in the simulations. More and different optimization algorithms should have been
considered to show robustness and test the effectiveness between different algorithms for this prob-
lem statement. The paper only discusses three similar algorithms and hence, in my opinion, lacks
in this regard. Nevertheless, interesting results were found, showing the importance of combining
multiple objectives.
An important negative point is that the parameters used during the case studies seemed to be chosen
at random. Very little information about how they were obtained was available, and this leads to
doubts about the results found. The authors should take more consideration in this regard as some
of the parameters used seemed to differ significantly from the ones used other sources.
In this paper, no significant contribution has been done in regards of novel algorithms, but a new
approach for optimal EVCS placement has been highlighted and tested. Taking all these points into
consideration, I found the paper to be an important step towards a better development of electric
vehicle infrastructure, while minimizing strain on the electricity system and consumer satisfaction.

6
3 Electrification of airports and air transport: Airports becoming integrated
energy systems

3.1 Subject scope

In the following sections the paper: ’Electrification of airports and air transport: Airports becoming
integrated energy systems’ will be discussed [15]. The paper was written by A. Morch, L. Laveneziana,
I. Erga, G. Restaldo, M. Odisio and D. Chiaramonti and was presented at the 20th International
Conference on the European Energy Market on 10-12 June 2024, after which it was published by
IEEE. The conference was held in Istanbul, Turkey. The publication is the result of a collaboration
between different organizations. A. Morch is a research scientist at the SINTEF Energy Research
Department of Energy Systems in Trondheim, Norway. SINTEF is a non-profit applied research
institute, focused on energy systems in Europe [20]. A. Morch is also the main author of the paper
discussed here. Gabriele Restaldo and Mauro Odisio are both currently under employment at the
Aeroporto di Torino in Italy in the Operations, Development and Maintenance Department (SAGAT).
Lorenzo Laveneziana and David Chiaramonti are both affiliated with the Department of Energy
(DENERG) at Politecnico di Torino, which is a university in Torino. The final author Ingvald Erga
is part of the Department for Airside Operations Avinor in Sola, Norway. Avinor is a Norwegian
state-owned company responsible for operating the country’s airports [2].
The paper presents the results of comparing two modeling tools for configuration of two airports.
The Torino (Italy) and Stavanger (Norway) airports respectively. It is thus a research paper in which
the modeling tools will be used to optimize different investment options for these airports as they
strive to reduce their carbon emissions and create multi-energy systems. This is needed to guarantee
a sustainable expansion, as airports have become critically important targets for decarbonization.
This decarbonization has to be done both in flights and on ground-operations. The focus of this paper
however rests on ground operations. The paper will provide an important contribution in showing
the importance of selecting the right modeling tool to accelerate decarbonization and development
at airports, based on the specific airports future plans.
Some possible conflicts of interest were found in this paper. The work is supported by Tulips, which
in turn is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme via
a Grant agreement. Tulips is a group of organizations dedicated to advancing low-carbon mobility
and enhancing sustainability at airports. Furthermore the paper was written by G. Restaldo and M.
Odisio, who are both currently employed by the Torino airport.

3.2 Summary
The EU has, in recent years, invested strongly in decarbonization of transport. This is in line with
their goal to reduce carbon emissions and create a sustainable and green Europe. Such goals were
set out by the Paris agreement and further improved by green deals, such as ’fit for 55’. This has
inspired new initiatives, such as the EU GD project Tulips, Stargate, OLGA and ALIGHT. These
projects focus on reducing the emissions in airports, both in ground and flight operations.
Transport hubs such as airports have become increasingly important targets in the decarbonization
process. There is a growing need to transform them into multi-energy systems, to minimize costs,
while allowing for growth and sustainability. This is a difficult task as modern airports represent
extremely complicated energy systems with high operational reliability and critical infrastructure.
Hence, this paper will focus two airports cases and provide a methodology for comparative analysis
of different scenarios, without the need of accurate investment analysis. The two airports studied are
the Torino airport in Italy and the Stavanger airport in Norway. While both airports have different
decarbonization plans, they are said to have similar characteristics in their energy consumption and
mix. For each airport a different optimization tool was used from the family of energy system opti-

7
mization models, highlighting the need for tools optimized for your future goals. These models aim at
minimizing an objective function, typically net total cost. More precisely, the models are ’Integrate’
and OSeMOSYS. Integrate combines linear and dynamic programming to create a development plan
as well as an hour by hour operation model. OSeMOSYS is a widespread open-source framework to
generate energy system models. A Key feature is the ability to represent the evolution of key input
parameters along the modelled horizon, making it ideal for future energy scenarios.
The Stavanger airport is one of the principal airports in Norway with 3.6 million passengers in 2022.
It is part of the Avinor group and has also participated in Elnett21. Its initial consumption mix
was as follows: electricity from the grid, local PV generation, biomass district heating and a 560
kW battery energy storage system (BESS) to shave peak load. The airport wants to investigate the
implementation of regional electric aircrafts, while further electrifying the airport’s overall operation.
This will lead to a strong increase in energy demand and hence the airport is searching for possibilities
to increase local electricity generation and or replace a part of it with other green energy sources.
Three separate periods are considered: 2022-2025, 2025-2027, 2027-2030. Photovoltaic and wind
power, combined heat and power (CHP), BESS and extension of the grid are considered as possible
investment options. These are combined by the Integrate tool to find the most cost-effective solution,
which was found to be a combination of 2 PV plants, wind power and CHP.
The Torino airport has the ambition to obtain net zero emissions from its scope 1 and 2 activities
in 2050. This by decreasing its primary energy consumption and increasing the renewable energy
production. The airport is also expected to increase its air traffic, leading to more demand. OSe-
MOSYS is used to find the optimal energy mix to accommodate these goals. At the of the energy
system lies a PV-plant, storage technologies and a trigeneration unit based on solid-oxide fuel cells
(SOFC). SOFC can run on different blends of natural gas/biomethane or hydrogen. The renewable
energy can furthermore be coupled with heat pumps for space-heating. Three different scenarios are
considered here: a hydrogen based scenario, a hydrogen base scenario with external hydrogen supply
and a pure electrification scenario. In all three scenarios the most optimal solution consisted of a
combination of PV, storage, SOFC and electricity from the grid.

3.3 Critical Review

3.3.1 relevancy of the paper
One of the large drawbacks in this paper is the lack of literature study. The paper discusses the
importance of a multi-energy system (MES) and the European initiatives driving these developments,
but fails to provide a comprehensive review of previous work on this subject. Such a comprehensive
review is needed to place the study in the right context, critically review it against similar works
and highlights its contributions. A literature study, such as the one provided in the paper by M.
Khalil and I. Dincer is a clear example of these benefits. Here the reader is first introduced to a
very comprehensive overview of the current researches and their contribution done on PV, hydrogen,
geothermal and biomass, before the contribution of the paper is highlighted and the methodology
is discussed [12]. Another example can be found in the paper by Z. Guo et al. A shorter overview
of previous works highlight the research gap still present in the integration of electric aircrafts and
electric vehicles into the airport infrastructure, before discussing the aims and contributions of the
paper [7].
After looking into the relevant literature however, this paper was found to be relevant. Previous
papers tend to focus on discussion of different scenarios of a predefined energy mix or provide an
in depth analysis of a certain energy mix in an airport. Furthermore usually only one airport is
discussed, which makes it difficult to assess the importance of aligning the algorithms with the future
goals of the airport. Some papers proving these points are discussed in the next paragraphs. The
contribution of this paper mainly lies in showing the importance of the right modeling tool for the

8
future goals of the airport as well as providing a novel methodology for comparison of different energy
mixes in each airport.
Examples of discussion of different scenarios can be found in the paper by Z. Guo et al. Here
the authors discuss the possibility using V2G from EV to assist in the sustainability and power
requirements of the airport as the electric aircrafts (EA) increase. This in combination with electricity
coming from the grid as well as PV, hydrogen fuel cells and wind power. Five cases in which different
control mechanisms of battery swapping/charging are investigated for the East Midland Airport.
The paper showed that V2G improves economic and operational performance of airports for both
battery swapping or plug-in charging of EAs. Furthermore it highlights the importance of hydrogen
cells to operational performance if V2G is not present [7]. Another example is given by B. Yadav et
al. Here 2 cases are considered to decarbonize the Biratnagar airport in Nepal. The first case is fully
PV-based, while the second case is wind power based in combination with grid-import. The study
found that Biratnagar could become the first fully green airport of Nepal using the PV-based scenario.
However, the wind power scenario was only cost-effective under certain wind-speed conditions and
does not fully decrease the net grid-import [25]. A final example comes from Y. Xiang et al. In this
paper five scenarios are once again considered to charge EVs and EAs. Each scenario has different
energy mixes going from fully supplied by the grid to supplied by a combination of PV, hydrogen
production and storage, BESS and grid-import. This final combination was found to be the most
cost-effective and sustainable solution over the project lifecycle. Ground operations were not taken
into account in this paper [24].
Examples where an in depth analysis is done for an energy mix can be found in the paper by M.
Khalil et al. There a thorough analysis is done of energetic and exergetic thermodynamic behavior of
the system and the reliability and robustness is tested under different climate conditions. The paper
proposed a novel multi-energy system to meet the demand only using renewable resources, such
as geothermal and biomass energy or PV in combination with hydrogen and kerosene production
and carbon capture technologies. Furthermore it proved this by performing a case study for the
Vancouver airport in Canada [12]. Another example is in the paper by S. Sukumaran and K. Sudhakar
an analytical study is done to analyze the fully solar powered Cochin airport in India. The paper
showed clear reduction in air pollutants as well as the viability of this system, as it returned a positive
net present value [21].

3.3.2 Similarity of the airports

The paper states there are strong similarities in energy mix and consumption for the Stavanger and
Torino airport, despite their difference in geographical location. The energy consumption of both
airports are shown in figure 1. Looking at this graph, however, no clear similarities between the
airports can be found. Not only do the airports show a significant difference in size and energy con-
sumption, the energy consumption mix is also clearly different. The Stavanger airport consumption
consists almost purely of electricity, further accompanied by district heating and auxiliary power.
The Torino airport, however, while also having a significant electricity consumption, also has a larger
contribution of natural gas and diesel consumption [15].

9
Figure 1: Energy mix of the Stavanger and Torino Figure 2: Results of the multi-objective optimiza-
airport [15] tion for the airport [23]
Furthermore, when looking at the energy supply strong differences can be noted. The configuration
of the Stavanger airport was initially a combination of two main energy carriers: electricity and heat.
This energy was provided by the grid, local PV generation, biomass-fired heating and a BESS for
peak shaving and energy storage. The configuration of the Torino airport on the other hand consists
of PV, storage technologies (hydrogen and battery) and a SOFC unit [15]. In conclusion however,
while the airports are significantly different, they both aim for a more sustainable future. As the
main conclusions of this paper is not based on the comparison of the airports, but rather on the
difference in modeling tools used at the airports, the differences in energy consumption does not
impact the credibility of the results.

3.3.3 Net total cost as objective function

The main metric used in this paper is the net total cost. This is a common metric used in energy
system optimization models, as it allows for a clear comparison between different scenarios. However,
other metrics should be taken into account, such as environmental impact and reliability or robustness
of the chosen energy mix, as renewables are not deterministic power supplies. The added benefit
of an environmental objective is proven by Y. Tian et al. In their paper a multi-objective particle
swarm optimization is used to minimize the economic and environmental costs of the airport. The
economic cost includes costs such as fuel costs, system operation and maintenance cost, interaction
cost between microgrid and power grid, and battery degradation cost. The environmental cost
includes the environmental value of pollutants in the power industry and the fine of pollutants
discharged during the operation of microgrid. The paper found that economic costs are inversely
proportional to environmental costs, showing that an optimum should be found between both which
is not an extreme point on the solution range. Figure 2 shows the results of the optimizations [23].
Such metrics are not taken into account in this paper.
The net total cost should also be further analysed as it could greatly improve the insight into the
results found. This paper provides a split into annual investment and operational costs, but provides
no further analysis as to how much each supply source contributes to these costs. A better analysis of
this cost metric is done by Y. Xiang et al. The authors not only provide the decomposed annual costs,
showing the importance of each supply source, but they also further analyse this by performing a
lifecycle analysis over 25 years [24]. A similar analysis is done by B. Yadav. Here the authors provide
full cash flows for the study horizon as well as take into account the revenue gains due to tax reduction
or selling of excess energy [25].

10
3.3.4 Applicability of hydrogen-based solutions
When discussing the future energy mix for the Torino airport the paper discusses three different
scenarios. A hydrogen-based scenario, a hydrogen-based scenario with external hydrogen supply
and a pure electrification scenario. While Y. Xiang et al. showed the importance of hydrogen as
an energy carrier and storage application to reduce the dependency on volatile electricity prices or
intermittent PV generation, it also states integrating such hydrogen based energy systems leads to
high investment costs. The paper does not consider the possibility of hydrogen import[24]. Due to
this high initial cost a better cost-analysis is needed than the one provided by A. Morch et al.
While local hydrogen production with excess energy is a clean source of energy, importing hydrogen,
such as considered in the second scenario, is not necessarily green. As discussed by X. Li et al.
most production of hydrogen today comes from natural gas. Hence, importing hydrogen would not
lead to a lower environmental impact. Furthermore, as the paper by A. Morch et al. assumes a
strong decrease in hydrogen price in 15 years, significant investments will be needed in the hydrogen
production system [13]. Currently hydrogen production and transportation is still very expensive.
Utilizing outdated systems also leads to high losses during both processes [4]. For the cost of hydrogen
to decrease electrolyzers need a higher utilization rate, currently incompatible with the cost volatility
of the power grid. The need for a new, dedicated distribution system will also further drive up the
price, making local generation the only option for import. If hydrogen is to be used as a viable import
source a strong reduction of cost is needed [13]. These effects and considerations however were not
taken into account in the paper by A. Morch et al. and would reduce the benefit of the imported
hydrogen system.

3.4 Conclusion
The paper: ’Electrification of airports and air transport: Airports becoming integrated energy sys-
tems’ by A. Morch et al. is a valuable contribution to the field of airport energy systems. The
main findings of the paper, showing the importance of multi-energy systems to achieve a sustainable
growth in airports as well as highlighting the importance of selecting the right modeling tool for the
future goals of the airport, are unique and valuable insights for future works.
However, the paper would benefit from a literature study, as well as a more in-depth analysis of
the total costs and the risks, as demonstrated by Y. Xiang [24] and B. Yadav [25]. Furthermore, it
should also consider the environmental impact of the chosen energy mix, as shown by Y. Tian [23].
By doing this, the study would not lead to a solution where either cost or environment are optimized,
but rather one where the social welfare is optimized. Other energy sources, such as the integration
of V2G, as shown by Z. Guo [7] could further optimize the solution. Finally, the assumption made in
the paper regarding to the import of hydrogen, namely the strong decrease in price and availability
of a local generation and distribution system, should be more carefully considered as the current
costs of hydrogen energy and infrastructure do not support this assumption [13].

3.5 Final words and Use of AI

In this paper the two papers: ’Optimal Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations in a Coupled Trans-
portation and Electrical Power Distribution Network’ and ’Electrification of airports and air trans-
port: Airports becoming integrated energy systems’ are critically reviewed. Subjects such as scope,
methodology, impact and other considerations are discussed. In writing of this paper AI, namely
ChatGPT 4.0, was used as a writing assistant by checking spelling errors and highlighting wrong
sentence structuring.

11
References

[1] Laith Abualigah et al. “1 - Particle swarm optimization algorithm: review and applications”.
In: Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms. Ed. by Laith Abualigah. Morgan Kaufmann, 2024,
pp. 1–14. url: [Link]
[2] Avinor. Role in Society [Online]. url: [Link]
in-society/role-in-society.
[3] Sanchari Deb et al. “A novel chicken swarm and teaching learning based algorithm for electric
vehicle charging station placement problem”. In: Energy 220 (2021), p. 119645. issn: 0360-
5442. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . energy . 2020 . 119645. url: https : / / www .
[Link]/science/article/pii/S0360544220327523.
[4] Hursit Degirmenci et al. “Challenges, prospects and potential future orientation of hydro-
gen aviation and the airport hydrogen supply network: A state-of-art review”. In: Progress in
Aerospace Sciences 141 (2023). Special Issue on Green Aviation, p. 100923. issn: 0376-0421. doi:
[Link] url: [Link]
com/science/article/pii/S0376042123000398.
[5] Johan Driesen. Electric Vehicle Charging Integration.
[6] Ember. European electricity Review 2024. 2025. url: https : / / ember - energy . org / app /
uploads/2024/10/[Link].
[7] Zekun Guo et al. “Infrastructure planning for airport microgrid integrated with electric aircraft
and parking lot electric vehicles”. In: eTransportation 17 (2023), p. 100257. issn: 2590-1168.
doi: [Link] url: [Link]
com/science/article/pii/S2590116823000322.
[8] IEA. Global EV Outlook 2021. Tech. rep. IEA, 2022. url: [Link]
global-ev-outlook-2021.
[9] IEA. Global EV Outlook 2024. Tech. rep. IEA, 2025. url: [Link]
global-ev-outlook-2024.
[10] Victor Sam Moses Babu K., Pratyush Chakraborty, and Mayukha Pal. “Planning of fast charg-
ing infrastructure for electric vehicles in a distribution system and prediction of dynamic price”.
In: International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 155 (2024), p. 109502. issn:
0142-0615. doi: [Link] url: [Link]
[Link]/science/article/pii/S0142061523005598.
[11] Aastha Kapoor et al. “Optimal Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations in a Coupled Trans-
portation and Electrical Power Distribution Network”. In: IEEE Transactions on Automation
Science and Engineering 21.3 (2024), pp. 4261–4271. doi: 10.1109/TASE.2023.3293955.
[12] Muarij Khalil and Ibrahim Dincer. “Investigation of a new holistic energy system for a sus-
tainable airport with green fuels”. In: Sustainable Cities and Society 113 (2024), p. 105624.
issn: 2210-6707. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . scs . 2024 . 105624. url: https :
//[Link]/science/article/pii/S2210670724004499.
[13] Xiaona Li et al. “Latest approaches on green hydrogen as a potential source of renewable
energy towards sustainable energy: Spotlighting of recent innovations, challenges, and future
insights”. In: Fuel 334 (2023), p. 126684. issn: 0016-2361. doi: [Link]
j . fuel . 2022 . 126684. url: https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii /
S0016236122035086.
[14] Meijin Lin et al. “Improved Simplified Particle Swarm Optimization Based on Piecewise Non-
linear Acceleration Coefficients and Mean Differential Mutation Strategy”. In: IEEE Access 8
(2020), pp. 92842–92860.

12
[15] Andrei Morch et al. “Electrification of airports and air transport: Airports becoming inte-
grated energy systems”. In: 2024 20th International Conference on the European Energy Market
(EEM). 2024, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/EEM60825.2024.10608967.
[16] S. Muthukannan and D. Karthikaikannan. “Multiobjective Planning Strategy for the Placement
of Electric-Vehicle Charging Stations Using Hybrid Optimization Algorithm”. In: IEEE Access
10 (2022), pp. 48088–48101. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3168830.
[17] Arnab Pal, Aniruddha Bhattacharya, and Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty. “Allocation of EV Fast
Charging Station with V2G Facility in Distribution Network”. In: 2019 8th International Con-
ference on Power Systems (ICPS). 2019, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICPS48983.2019.9067574.
[18] Anis Ur Rehman et al. “Load management, energy economics, and environmental protection
nexus considering PV-based EV charging stations”. In: Energy 281 (2023), p. 128332. issn:
0360-5442. doi: [Link] url: [Link]
[Link]/science/article/pii/S0360544223017267.
[19] Tanya Shiramagond and Wei-Jen Lee. “Integration of Renewable Energy into Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure”. In: 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2). 2018,
pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1109/ISC2.2018.8656981.
[20] SINTEF. SINTEF Energy Research [Online]. url: [Link]
energy/.
[21] Sreenath Sukumaran and K. Sudhakar. “Fully solar powered airport: A case study of Cochin
International airport”. In: Journal of Air Transport Management 62 (2017), pp. 176–188. issn:
0969-6997. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . jairtraman . 2017 . 04 . 004. url: https :
//[Link]/science/article/pii/S0969699717300297.
[22] Tesla. Tesla model 3 [Online]. Last accessed 12-01-2025. 2020. url: [Link]
model3.
[23] Y. Tian, X. Zhang, and N. Balta-Ozkan. “MULTI-ENERGY SYSTEMS IN GREEN AIR-
PORTS”. In: CIRED 2021 - The 26th International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity
Distribution. Vol. 2021. 2021, pp. 2043–2047. doi: 10.1049/icp.2021.1561.
[24] Yue Xiang et al. “Techno-economic design of energy systems for airport electrification: A
hydrogen-solar-storage integrated microgrid solution”. In: Applied Energy 283 (2021), p. 116374.
issn: 0306-2619. doi: [Link] url: https:
//[Link]/science/article/pii/S0306261920317505.
[25] Bharosh Kumar Yadav et al. “Decarbonizing airport using solar and wind farm: A case of
Biratnagar, Nepal”. In: e-Prime - Advances in Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Energy
8 (2024), p. 100583. issn: 2772-6711. doi: [Link]
url: [Link]
[26] Haotian Yao et al. “Optimal Planning of Distribution Systems and Charging Stations Consid-
ering PV-Grid-EV Transactions”. In: IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 16.1 (2025), pp. 691–
703. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2024.3429371.

13