## 3 Results
### Results Regarding Energy and Distance covered by VIPV
#### 3.1.2 Available Energy from the VIPV System  
Figure 4 compares the performances of the three architectures to transfer the electricity from the solar roof to the battery of the passenger car with three values of shading share. The black column shows the annual photovoltaic energy correlated only to the solar irradiance  
Figure 3: Examples of profiles, passenger car, direct charge in HV battery, Malaga, shading 30%. at the specific locality. There are three portions in the bar graph from the left side to the right side according to the three studied architectures. The PV energies including the system's efficiency correspond to the yellow columns. They depend simply on the efficiency values given in Table 1. The other bars include the shading share influence and the effect of the thresholds (more detailed in Section 3.2.1). On these bars, two values are indicated according to including or not including the losses due to battery fullness. The battery may be full:  
* In the morning, before driving due to plugging into the grid at night;
* During rest days because there is no consumption due to driving. All the values used below are quantified on the graphs. The percentage calculated in Equation (4) compares two values _value_1 and _value_2. \[percentage=\left|\frac{value2-value1}{value1}\times 100\right| \tag{4}\]  
For example, to calculate the influence of battery saturation _value_1 without saturation (the upper values on the graph), _value_2 is with saturation (the lower values on the graph). Equation (4) yields _percentages_ between 11% and 17%, depending on the use case. For example, in Paris with 49% shading and direct charge in the main battery, _value_1 = 55 and _value_2 = 46, so Equation (4) yields _percentage_ = 16%. The columns corresponding to shading share 0% (blue ones) in Figure 4 include the additional electricity consumption to transfer PV energy, which varies with the considered architecture and with the daylight duration. The impact of this consumption is relatively high when compared to the annual energy presented in the yellow columns. It is 98 kWh (54%) in Paris and 100 kWh (29%) in Malaga with direct charge of the HV battery from the VIPV system. It is 67 kWh (34%) in Paris and 80 kWh (24%) in Malaga for architectures with a charge via an LV battery. The percentage is relative to the PV's energy with 0% shading. We can also see the following in Figure 4:  
* The difference of energies between Malaga and Paris is about 70%. The locality has a major influence;
* The shading share is the second most important effect;
* There is extra-consumption to use the PV, so the thresholds have a third-order influence (24-54%) depending on the architecture and the location;
* The battery's fullness has a fourth-order influence (11-17%);
* The architecture with transfer through a 48 V battery is more effective than transfer through a 12 V battery, which is more effective than charging the HV battery directly (except with 0% shading in Malaga). However, its impact is of fifth-order (difference between architectures is only 7%). Changing the electrical architecture of recharge has  
Figure 4: Yearly PV energy in Malaga and Paris, passenger car, 0.312 kWp solar roof. less influence than optimizing the thresholds. As indicated before, Section 3.2 will give a sensitivity study of the influence of the thresholds vs. peak power. The blue bars are for shading equal to zero, which is not realistic in the case of a passenger car. Thus, the values up to are for the green bars, which include the system effectiveness, the additional consumption to transfer PV to the battery and a representative value of shading share. Readers can refer to the graphs to obtain the values with 0% shading.