Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Techno-economic comparison and cost-effective design of robust charging infrastructures for large industrial sites

Al-Hysam, Abdullah LU orcid ; Frank, Bobbie LU ; Overmaat, Reinier and Alaküla, Mats LU orcid (2026) In Energy Conversion and Management: X 30.
Abstract
Electrifying heavy-duty vehicles at large sites requires charging infrastructure designs that balance cost and robustness. This article quantitatively compares six different charging infrastructures, spanning centralized vs. decentralized layouts and AC vs. DC distribution through a case study of a 50-charger site (≈15  MW total). Capital costs (cables, converters, transformers) are modeled, and each design is evaluated under varied spatial layouts, fleet sizes (50–100 chargers), and power-electronics prices in an apples-to-apples comparison. Results show that a decentralized AC architecture with multiple distributed 12/0.4 kV transformers has the lowest cost (€1.77 M), which is 48% lower than the traditional single-transformer AC system... (More)
Electrifying heavy-duty vehicles at large sites requires charging infrastructure designs that balance cost and robustness. This article quantitatively compares six different charging infrastructures, spanning centralized vs. decentralized layouts and AC vs. DC distribution through a case study of a 50-charger site (≈15  MW total). Capital costs (cables, converters, transformers) are modeled, and each design is evaluated under varied spatial layouts, fleet sizes (50–100 chargers), and power-electronics prices in an apples-to-apples comparison. Results show that a decentralized AC architecture with multiple distributed 12/0.4 kV transformers has the lowest cost (€1.77 M), which is 48% lower than the traditional single-transformer AC system (€3.39 M). It is also among the least sensitive to variations in distribution layout. A centralized DC architecture using a conventional transformer (€2.87 M) also outperforms the single-transformer AC design by 15.3%. However, power-electronics-intensive DC architectures (€2.92 M to €3.92 M) are 65% to 121% more expensive than decentralized AC infrastructure. Cost trends, as the fleet grows to 100 chargers, still favor the decentralized AC and centralized DC with a passive transformer. Sensitivity analysis indicates that even with a 50% reduction in converter costs, the decentralized AC solution (€1.36 M) remains the cheapest. That said, two decentralized DC variants (€1.74 M and €1.84 M) emerge as the clear second and third-cheapest options, significantly undercutting the traditional centralized AC design (€2.95 M). These findings underscore that while today’s least-cost design is a decentralized AC network, future large-scale sites may gravitate toward DC-centric or hybrid infrastructures if converter prices fall and on-site renewables/storage rise. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Transportation electrification, AC vs. DC distribution, Centralized vs. decentralized distribution, Heavy-duty vehicles, Renewable energy integration
in
Energy Conversion and Management: X
volume
30
article number
101822
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:105035069758
ISSN
2590-1745
DOI
10.1016/j.ecmx.2026.101822
project
Cost-effective and robust charging infrastructure from a site perspective
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
e5c5a407-c2fc-40a2-88b2-897230cf9c14
date added to LUP
2026-04-08 12:06:59
date last changed
2026-05-23 04:01:43
@article{e5c5a407-c2fc-40a2-88b2-897230cf9c14,
  abstract     = {{Electrifying heavy-duty vehicles at large sites requires charging infrastructure designs that balance cost and robustness. This article quantitatively compares six different charging infrastructures, spanning centralized vs. decentralized layouts and AC vs. DC distribution through a case study of a 50-charger site (≈15  MW total). Capital costs (cables, converters, transformers) are modeled, and each design is evaluated under varied spatial layouts, fleet sizes (50–100 chargers), and power-electronics prices in an apples-to-apples comparison. Results show that a decentralized AC architecture with multiple distributed 12/0.4 kV transformers has the lowest cost (€1.77 M), which is 48% lower than the traditional single-transformer AC system (€3.39 M). It is also among the least sensitive to variations in distribution layout. A centralized DC architecture using a conventional transformer (€2.87 M) also outperforms the single-transformer AC design by 15.3%. However, power-electronics-intensive DC architectures (€2.92 M to €3.92 M) are 65% to 121% more expensive than decentralized AC infrastructure. Cost trends, as the fleet grows to 100 chargers, still favor the decentralized AC and centralized DC with a passive transformer. Sensitivity analysis indicates that even with a 50% reduction in converter costs, the decentralized AC solution (€1.36 M) remains the cheapest. That said, two decentralized DC variants (€1.74 M and €1.84 M) emerge as the clear second and third-cheapest options, significantly undercutting the traditional centralized AC design (€2.95 M). These findings underscore that while today’s least-cost design is a decentralized AC network, future large-scale sites may gravitate toward DC-centric or hybrid infrastructures if converter prices fall and on-site renewables/storage rise.}},
  author       = {{Al-Hysam, Abdullah and Frank, Bobbie and Overmaat, Reinier and Alaküla, Mats}},
  issn         = {{2590-1745}},
  keywords     = {{Transportation electrification; AC vs. DC distribution; Centralized vs. decentralized distribution; Heavy-duty vehicles; Renewable energy integration}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{04}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{Energy Conversion and Management: X}},
  title        = {{Techno-economic comparison and cost-effective design of robust charging infrastructures for large industrial sites}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2026.101822}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.ecmx.2026.101822}},
  volume       = {{30}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}