## 3 Results
### Charging of EVs from FSPVS  
In this work, three types of electric vehicles were considered: electric scooters, electric bikes and electric cars. The annual CO2 emission savings are tabulated in Table 3.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Value**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Annual distance covered} & \(D_{1}\) & \(302.3\times 10^{6}\) km \\  & \(D_{2}\) & \(77.8\times 10^{6}\) km \\  & \(D_{3}\) & \(15.8\times 10^{6}\) km \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Percentage km covered more} & \(Dmore_{1}\) & \(289\) \\  & \(Dmore_{2}\) & \(392\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CO2 emissions (g/psngr/km)} & \(CE_{1}\) & \(16.1\) g/psngr/km \\  & \(CE_{2}\) & \(29.8\) g/psngr/km \\  & \(CE_{3}\) & \(92.4\) g/psngr/km \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Annual CO2 emissions} & \(ACE_{1}\) & \(4866.5\) Ton/psngr \\  & \(ACE_{2}\) & \(2317.9\) Ton/psngr \\  & \(ACE_{3}\) & \(1461.2\) Ton/psngr \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CO2 emissions from plants} & Coal based plants & \(1000\) g/kWh \\  & PV based plant & \(40\) g/kWh \\ \hline Savings in CO2 emissions & & \(960\) g/unit \\ \hline Total CO2 emission savings & TCE & \(2292.38\) Ton \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Annual emission savings} & Electric bike & \(-2574.1\) Ton \\  & Electric scooter & \(-25.5\) Ton \\ \cline{1-1}  & Electric car & \(831.2\) Ton \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Net Zero CO2 emission time period (months)} & Electric bike & \(25.5\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Electric scooter & \(12.1\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Electric car & \(7.7\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Annual CO2 emission savings for different types of EVs when charged from FSPVS.  
The annual CO\({}_{2}\) emission was also measured by assuming a fixed coverage distance of 10 \(\times 10^{5}\) km. The annual CO\({}_{2}\) emission of bike, scooter, and car was obtained by the equations mentioned above. Finally, the emission saving when PV is used along with electric bike, scooter and car was calculated and compared. Table 4 presents the CO\({}_{2}\) emission parameters assuming constant distance coverage.  
It can be seen that the CO\({}_{2}\) emission savings was positive in the case of the E-car, but it turned out to be negative in the case of the E-bike and E-scooter. According to the research, when charged by floating PV, the net CO\({}_{2}\) emission for an e-bike, e-scooter, and e-car, respectively, was zero in just 25.5 months, 12.1 months, and 7.7 months. All three types of electrical cars were zero emission vehicles after the aforementioned time periods. The analysis also took into account the predetermined distance (10 \(\times 10^{5}\) km) that each of the three types of vehicles must travel in order to charge. When using a floating PV system to charge electric vehicles, carbon emissions were reported to be positively reduced for electric vehicles but not for electric scooters or cycles. In such situation, it was estimated that using an electric bike, scooter, or automobile would result in CO\({}_{2}\) emission reductions of \(-85.16\) Ton, \(-3.28\) Ton, and 525.6 Ton, respectively. For countries that rely on renewable energy generation, analysis reveals that all three types of electric vehicles are successful in lowering CO\({}_{2}\) emissions, but when a set distance travelled is taken into account, only electric automobiles reduce carbon emissions. The electric car is the best option for reducing CO\({}_{2}\) emissions out of all the electric vehicles that have been taken into consideration.