Results Overview

A thematic summary of the scenario set in this dashboard, drawn from a full year of MILES simulation output for Scotland's HGV fleet.

Heriot-Watt University

Launch Tool

What's in the Dataset

Scenario cells

Out of 64 possible combinations

Simulation horizon

1 year

Full-year MILES run per cell

Seasons

Summer and winter

Network variants

All / Core, Depot / No depot

Eight of the 64 possible cells are not yet populated and will be added as MILES output becomes available. Picking a missing combination in the dashboard returns "no data found" rather than an estimate.

Scenario Dimensions

Each cell is one combination of the parameters below.

Dimension	Values	What it represents
Season	Summer Winter	Captures the seasonal swing in energy consumption per kilometre.
Charger network	All Core	All public corridor chargers, or a reduced core subset of strategic sites.
Depot variant	With / Without	Whether fleet depots are equipped to charge their own vehicles overnight.
Battery capacity	500 kWh, 1000 kWh	Smaller batteries trigger more en-route stops; larger ones make most journeys without charging.
Charger power	350 kW, 500 kW	Faster chargers reduce dwell time but demand higher peak grid headroom.
Energy intensity	Season-dependent	Summer is around 1.0 to 1.7 kWh/km, winter is around 1.26 to 2.15 kWh/km.

What the Data Shows

Rather than reporting headline numbers that change with each scenario picked, the dashboard is best read through a few recurring themes that hold across the full set.

Theme 1

Battery size dominates infrastructure need

Across every season and network, jumping from 500 kWh to 1000 kWh batteries roughly quarters the daily energy delivered to corridor chargers and cuts the number of trucks needing en-route stops by around half. Most of the residual energy in 1000 kWh scenarios comes from depot top-ups, not corridor charging.

Theme 2

Winter is heavier than summer

Winter pulls roughly half again as much MWh as summer for the same network and battery, driven by higher energy intensity from cabin heating, denser cold air and battery efficiency losses. Some sites that are clearly feasible in summer become grid-constrained in winter.

Theme 3

Adding depot charging multiplies sites, not total load

Switching from no-depot to with-depot operations roughly triples the number of charger sites that see any use, but typically only adds 20 to 40 percent to total daily energy. Depot chargers shoulder more local fleet activity but lower per-site throughput.

Theme 4

Grid feasibility is highly local

The same scenario can show 80 to 90 percent of chargers as feasible at one substation and the remaining 10 to 20 percent flagged red at another. Feasibility is not a single number for Scotland: it depends on which substation each site is matched to and how much headroom that substation has after existing demand.

Theme 5

Peak simultaneous use is what drives bay count

Daily totals can look modest while still requiring large bay counts at the busiest sites. The Bay Sizing tab applies Erlang B queueing to the visit profile so the size of each site reflects peak simultaneous demand, not average throughput.

How to Use This Dashboard

Start with a scenario you know. Pick the season, network, depot variant, and battery size that match your question, then load it.
Compare to a counterfactual. Hold all other parameters constant and flip one (e.g. switch from 500 to 1000 kWh, or from no-depot to with-depot). The difference between the two maps tells you how much that single lever moves the answer.
Drill into a site. Click any circle on either map to see usage, energy demand, and which substation it is matched to. Red circles flag sites where the local grid can't currently support the load.
Cross-check with Bay Sizing. A site that looks fine on the Charging tab might still need a large physical bay count if peak simultaneous use is high.
Read the Assumptions tab if you want to understand the methodology, vehicle assumptions, and limitations behind the numbers.

Indicative only. The figures shown reflect MILES simulation output against the current grid, without scheduled reinforcement. They support exploration and comparison, not investment commitments. Refer to the Phase 2 Technical Report for the full methodology and caveats.