WEGAWOMB™
Architecture study · informed by your six-paper brief

Recover real energy.
Lose less along the way.

A shared-DC hub brings local solar and usable braking energy to DC loads through dedicated interfaces. Compare it with an AC-coupled reference at the same delivered charging service.

Illustrative · not hardware-validated

What changed: direct power is the default. Storage is an optional side branch, not an obligatory step. The carousel is a bypassable research component on a real waste-shaft source; no magnet-generated energy is assumed.

Same useful load
—Power delivered at EV DC connectors
Input reduction from architecture
—Same local resources, same service
Proposed grid import
—Local sources are still energy inputs.
Proposed conversion + storage loss
—Cooling and controls are counted separately.

The proposed energy paths

Keep only the conversion stages each source requires. Electrical isolation, fault protection, metering, and utility interconnection remain essential—not losses to bypass.

Grid ACProtected AC/DC front end →
Solar DCControlled DC/DC interface →
Eligible recovered energyRail DC, or shaft generator + rectifier
Dedicated protected interface →
Common DC busMeter · protect · coordinateTemperature-aware controller
→ DC charging loadIsolated, regulated DC/DC output
↔ Optional storageBidirectional interface + battery
Direct path remains available
→ Cooling & controlsMeter their energy; respect thermal limits

Conceptual architecture only, not a wiring diagram. Any high-voltage implementation needs qualified electrical engineering, manufacturer limits, and an approved protection/interconnection design. Converter efficiencies below include their applicable interface losses.

Set the operating window

This is an energy-equivalent comparison, not a time-series simulation. The example delivers 1 MW while 200 kW of local solar is available. Every performance input is hypothetical—not a result quoted from the papers.

Derating limits available power, not efficiency by the same percentage. If the requested load exceeds available charger power, the service is flagged infeasible; it is never silently reduced to make input look better.

Use local energy only when available

Inputs are electrical power before the local interface, averaged over the chosen window. Braking energy must actually be accessible and otherwise wasted—not already reused by another train. Set it to zero without a measured eligible source. Shaft input must first be reduced by actual generator/rectifier losses. No credit for magnets themselves.

Compare each conversion path

The grid path is the same in both cases. The change is the route taken by local DC energy. A DC hub can be worse if its converters perform poorly; savings are not forced positive.

AC-coupled reference

Local DC → inverter → AC panel → AC/DC front end → DC bus → output converter → vehicle

Shared-DC proposal

Local DC → DC/DC interface → DC bus → output converter → vehicle

Optional storage sensitivity

Routing energy through a battery adds round-trip losses. The selected fraction of original useful bus demand completes a full charge/discharge cycle; ending charge equals starting charge in the energy accounting. Efficiency is measured from DC-bus charging input back to DC-bus discharge output, including storage interface losses. This does not calculate peak shaving, schedules, battery capacity, or charging availability.

How your papers changed the architecture

Your brief summarizes six studies with different evidence levels. The design below uses their planning lessons—not their case-study percentages as guaranteed performance. The shared-DC comparison is our engineering synthesis, supported separately by the national-lab charging architecture work.

01 · Supply

Size around local resources

Use site weather, demand, equipment life, and fuel sensitivity before choosing PV, wind, or backup. We do not assume a particular wind-turbine design will outperform alternatives.

Kermanshah hybrid station study ↗Modeled microgrid; publisher abstract/excerpts checked.
02 · Scheduling

Separate money from energy

Coordinate charging and optional storage with forecast updates. Lower bills do not necessarily mean fewer kWh. The paper's larger battery improved economics while importing more energy in its cases.

Robust station energy management ↗Computational study; accepted manuscript reviewed for this distinction.
03 · Recovery

Capture an existing waste stream

Rail braking can supply a nearby hub through a properly rated converter. Add it only with measured availability and permission to access the source. Recovery is not new magnetic energy.

Railway energy / EV charging study ↗Mathematical feasibility study; primary-source excerpts checked.
04 · Location

Choose sites before multiplying hubs

Compare road access, substations, feeder losses, connection costs, and local demand. A short practical connection can matter more than an optimistic converter percentage.

Fast-charging siting and sizing ↗2014 planning model; publisher abstract/highlights checked. Old prices are not reused.
05 · Temperature

Count cooling and derating

Track charging acceptance, auxiliary power, and storage efficiency separately. Cold or hot conditions can change throughput and losses. The calculator exposes these assumptions instead of inventing a universal temperature curve.

Temperature-aware planning ↗Network simulations; primary text and university record checked.
06 · Materials

No unproven battery uplift

Atomistic silicon-anode results are research leads, not a verified commercial pack specification. No faster charging or efficiency bonus is assigned from this paper.

Silicon-anode diffusion study ↗First-principles simulations; publisher abstract checked.
Additional architecture evidence and exact accounting

NREL / EVs@Scale high-power charging architecture work covers DC distribution, modular DC/DC conversion, protection, and site energy management. Reducing unnecessary local DC–AC–DC conversions is the hypothesis tested here, not a promised gain on the grid-only path.

  • Useful bus demand = requested EV power / output efficiency + auxiliary power.
  • Storage loss = bus demand × routed share × (1 / round-trip efficiency − 1). Bus input required = useful bus demand + storage loss.
  • Reference local path efficiency = inverter efficiency × AC/DC front-end efficiency. Proposed local path efficiency = DC/DC interface efficiency.
  • Used local bus power = min(required bus input, available local DC power × local path efficiency). Unused source availability is not counted as a conversion loss.
  • Grid import = remaining bus input / front-end efficiency. Total electrical source input = grid import + used local power before its interface.
  • Total input = EV output + auxiliaries + converter loss + storage loss. Operating-window kWh = equivalent kW × hours. Chronological coincidence and battery power/energy constraints are not validated.
  • Both comparisons have identical delivered load, available local sources, auxiliary demand, output converter, and battery cycling assumption. With no local DC power, they are identical by design. A monetary saving or peak reduction is not calculated.