## 4 Results
### Results of Estimated PV Potential from a Commuter's Solar EV According to the Operation Scenario  
The results of the daily generation potential of solar EVs for the four scenarios are presented in Table 7. Comparing the results of Scenarios 1 and 2, the potential during commuting hours (8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) is the same (owing to the same driving conditions and different shading conditions when the EV is parked), whereas the potential during working hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) is different. Comparing the results of Scenarios 1 and 3, the potential during commuting hours is different (owing to the different conditions of EV transportation and the same shading environment when parking), whereas the potential during working hours is the same.  
Figure 7 shows the sum and ratio of the generation potential for each scenario for commuting (traveling) and working (parking) hours and the daily ratio of electricity production (charging) to electricity consumption for each scenario. In all scenarios, the parking time (8 h) exceeded the travel time (1 or 2 h) and the time for the prevailing insolation conditions; thus, the ratio of the generation potential during parking was approximately 7-9 times higher than that during travel. The generation potential of commuters depending on their travel times (Scenarios 1 and 2 versus Scenarios 3 and 4) was compared. The PV potential for a 2 h round trip is approximately 1.06 times that of a 1 h round trip, indicating a slight difference in terms of potential because this value corresponds to the difference in power generation in a 1 h commute time when insolation is low. However, a significant difference is observed in terms of the electricity consumption-to-charge ratio because the electricity consumption is approximately twice as much when the driving time is doubled.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Time** \\ **(hour)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**PV Potential (kWh)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 4**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Section A** & **Section B1** & **Section A** & **Section B1** & **Section A** & **Section B1** \\ \hline
08:00 & 0.059 & 0.011 & 0.059 & 0.011 & 0.013  & & 0.013  \\
09:00 & & 0.062 & & 0.043 & 0.062 & 0.043 \\
10:00 & & 0.087 & & 0.069 & 0.087 & 0.069 \\
11:00 & & 0.152 & & 0.137 & 0.152 & 0.137 \\
12:00 & & 0.217 & & 0.217 & 0.217 & 0.217 \\
13:00 & & 0.239 & & 0.215 & 0.239 & 0.215 \\
14:00 & & 0.228 & & 0.183 & 0.228 & 0.183 \\
15:00 & & 0.161 & & 0.113 & 0.161 & 0.113 \\
16:00 & & 0.160 & & 0.096 & 0.160 & 0.096 \\
17:00 & 0.031 & 0.043 & 0.031 & 0.043 & 0.054  & & 0.054  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Estimated hourly PV potential of the solar car of a commuter on the summer solstice according to four scenarios.  
In the case of a 2 h round trip, the maximum charge-to-electricity consumption ratio is 6.8%, and the maximum charge-to-electricity consumption ratio is 12.8% for a 1 h round trip. When comparing the potential of different shading conditions during parking, the potential of Scenarios 2 and 4 (assuming realistic shading conditions) was approximately 84% that of Scenarios 1 and 3 (assuming no shading conditions). In other words, the difference in potential is significant depending on the degree of shading during parking; therefore, the shading conditions should be precisely and practically evaluated.