*3.2. 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.


**Table 3.** Annual CO2 emission savings for different types of EVs when charged from FSPVS.

The annual CO2 emission was also measured by assuming a fixed coverage distance of 10 ×10<sup>5</sup> km. The annual CO2 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 CO2 emission parameters assuming constant distance coverage.


**Table 4.** CO2 emission parameters assuming constant distance coverage.

It can be seen that the CO2 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 CO2 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 ×10<sup>5</sup> 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 emissions out of all the electric vehicles that have been taken into consideration.

#### **4. Conclusions**

In this article the performance of a 1.5 MWP floating PV system using Helioscope software has been simulated and performance of the same has been analyzed to charge different types of EVs, such as the E-bike, E-scooter and E-car. The annual energy generation from the 1.5 MWp floating PV plant is of 2387.89 MWh. The analysis shows that the charging of EV using a floating PV system is more efficient from the point of view of CO2 emission. The findings indicate that an E-bike, E-scooter, or E-car will be a net zero CO2 emission vehicle in 25.5 months, 12.1 months, and 7.7 months, respectively, when charged from floating PV plant. When the floating PV system is used to charge various types of electric vehicles for a fixed distance coverage of 10 ×105 km, it has been observed that the CO2 emission savings for the E-bike, E-scooter, and E-car are −85.16 Ton, −3.28 Ton, and 525.6 Ton, respectively. According to the findings of the analysis, all three types of electric vehicles are effective in reducing CO2 emissions for nations that rely on renewable energy generation; however, when considered for a fixed distance covered, only electric cars save carbon emissions. It can be seen that, among the various types of electric vehicles that have been considered, the E-car is the most effective choice in terms of the reduction in CO2 emission. Additionally, 37,125 kL of water will be saved annually from evaporation owe to the installation of the floating PV plant.

**Author Contributions:** Data curation, methodology, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, A.R.; Conceptualization, software, formal analysis, investigation, validation, S.C.; writing review and editing, supervision, D.E.; writing—review and editing, resources, data curation, supervision, funding acquisition, H.K.; resources, data curation, K.M.A., resources, data curation, methodology, visualization, N.C.G.; supervision, project administration, E.B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data sources employed for analysis are presented in the text.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
