Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adapt interpretation of minimum SOC for EVCS #1096

Open
sebastian-peter opened this issue Jan 9, 2025 · 5 comments
Open

Adapt interpretation of minimum SOC for EVCS #1096

sebastian-peter opened this issue Jan 9, 2025 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@sebastian-peter
Copy link
Member

Currently, we're forcing EVs to charge until they reached some minimum SOC, and above that level EMs are free to do whatever they want, which leads to large differences in charged energy compared to non-em-controlled behavior.

What we want instead is something like this:
EVCS is free to do what it wants with EVs (charge, discharge if v2g is enabled, do nothing). At some point in time though, we force charging before the EV leaves (we know the departure time). This point in time is exactly the last moment where charging with full power leads to an EV with minimum SOC.

To have a somewhat energy-equivalent behavior when not em-controlling the EVCS, maybe the regular (non-em-controlled) behavior would be to charge until minimum SOC as well, and then stop charging.

Discovered by @danielfeismann.

@sebastian-peter sebastian-peter self-assigned this Jan 9, 2025
@danielfeismann
Copy link
Member

I couldn't have described it better. Thank you for creating this issue @sebastian-peter. In order to be flexible for further developments, maybe we should give a target SoC that the car could give optionally, otherwise the target SoC would be 100% I guess, right?

@sebastian-peter
Copy link
Member Author

@danielfeismann Yes, sounds right.

And just to spell it out: For discharging with v2g, the target SOC should not be relevant, right? So there should not be a necessity to discharge an EV with 100% SOC because the target is 80%?

@danielfeismann
Copy link
Member

No, I don't think so. But we may should think about some minimum level that never should be touched in case v2g takes place?

But we should be careful not over engineering this...

@sebastian-peter
Copy link
Member Author

In that case we'd have the minSOC as it is now, and additionally a targetSOC. Makes logical sense, I'll think about if this would be too cumbersome to implement

@danielfeismann
Copy link
Member

I would like to adapt this as well so we have the possibility either to provide a global upper and lower limit as well as get individual ones for each vehicle. So it would be possible that the MobilitySim provide e.g. the distance of the next trip which would allow to estimate a minimum SoC. But imho this is not a must feature...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants