## 4 Results and Discussion
### Economic Results  
In the study presented, a 1047.35 kWp PV system, encompassing both carrot and roof-mounted configurations, was evaluated for its capacity to charge EVs. The system primarily relies on solar energy during sunlit hours, while the local grid supplements power during the evening or night-time hours. Excess solar energy, generated when EVs are not being charged during the daytime, is fed back into the electricity grid. Various EV chargers, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Shortest Distance (km)** & **Shortest Period (hr)** \\ \hline North to North & 16.00 & 0.335 \\ \hline North to Middle & 24.73 & 0.444 \\ \hline Middle to Middle & 9.581 & 0.164 \\ \hline Southern to Northern & 37.77 & 0.564 \\ \hline Southern to Middle & 16.00 & 0.324 \\ \hline Southern to Southern & 19.35 & 0.291 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Summary of trip lengths and time for possible common driving scenarios in Hail City. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mismatch (configuration/shading)} & \(-\)809.77 & kWh & \(-\)0.04\% \\ \hline PV energy (DC) without inverter down-regulation & 2,140,035.33 & kWh & \\ \hline Down-regulation on account of the max. AC power/cos phi & \(-\)37,060.38 & kWh & \(-\)1.73\% \\ \hline MPP matching & \(-\)3182.46 & kWh & \(-\)0.15\% \\ \hline PV energy (DC) & 2,099,792.42 & kWh & \\ \hline Energy at the inverter input & 2,099,792.42 & kWh & \\ \hline Input voltage deviates from the rated voltage & \(-\)5852.06 & kWh & \(-\)0.28\% \\ \hline DC/AC conversion & \(-\)39,911.35 & kWh & \(-\)1.91\% \\ \hline Standby consumption (inverter) & \(-\)141.66 & kWh & \(-\)0.01\% \\ \hline PV energy (AC) minus standby use & 2,053,887.35 & kWh & \\ \hline PV generator energy (AC grid) & 2,054,029.01 & kWh & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: _Cont._with capacities ranging from 22 kW to 220 kW, were considered in the analysis. The range of chargers was selected to accommodate different categories of EVs. The solar PV modules employed in the system are Tier 1, offering an efficiency of 22% and compatibility with local weather conditions, including potential induced degradation resistance. Economic parameters such as the return on assets, accrued cash flow, PBT, and electricity production costs are meticulously outlined to provide a comprehensive understanding of the financial viability of the project. Table 14 shows the cost of consuming electricity from the national grid and the financial cost of feeding the grid in the event of a surplus of energy from the system. The results show that the PBT is 11.69 years and the LCOE is 0.085 SR/kWh. Table 15 details the specific investment costs, including the breakdown of the investment in the solar PV system and EVCSs, as well as the operational and maintenance costs. The impact of the system on electricity savings, and other revenues or savings is quantitatively assessed. This is complemented by a summary of the remuneration and savings, including the total payments from utilities and first-year savings. Moreover, the feed-in tariff and energy tariff information, along with their respective validity periods and rates, are presented to provide a complete financial perspective on the project. These tables are crucial for understanding the economic aspects of the system and its potential for reducing travel costs and contributing to environmental sustainability. Figure 7 provides a detailed breakdown of the cash flow analysis for the grid-connected PV system with EV charging capabilities, spanning 30 years. This comprehensive financial projection includes yearly data on investments, revenues from feed-in/export tariffs, electricity savings (both from solar energy and grid), operational and maintenance costs, EV charging tariffs, and warranty performance. Key metrics such as the annual and accrued cash flow are meticulously calculated for each year, presenting a thorough understanding of the system's economic performance over time.