The pretty picture with the article shows a whole multi-track yard full of movable weights, plus another dozen or so empty tracks off a second lead. So, multiply 17 minutes PER TRAIN by X trains and you have enough stored power for several hours. That's a considerable saving in natural gas, even if it is only as efficient as the gas turbine/steam turbine plants that burn that natural gas.
I'd like to know exactly where this land lease is, and how convenient it is to the UPs LA&SL route.
It also strikes me that the immediately adjacent land might be a logical site for about a gazillion solar panels...
Chuck (Southern Nevada resident)
I still want to see this magic locomotive that can climb 8% grades by itself, much less pull significant tonnage along with it.
re: location
Look at page 8 of this document posted on the ARES site:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/siteninja/multitenant/assets/20325/files/original/141212_ARES_POD_update.pdf
It's in this area near Pahrump:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1805189,-115.8086406,12z
It looks to be in the middle of nowhere, likely chosen for the natural grade?
re: solar panels
Yes, it would make sense wouldn't it? A couple of the videos and graphics on the website show just that. It doesn't look like that's in the plan for the Nevada installation for now. I suspect that would somewhat complicate the regulation gear for injecting the power into the grid, since there would be two sources. But, what the heck - if the operator has already leased a huge chunk of land and there's little other enviro impact, why not maximize use of the lease?
mudchicken I still want to see this magic locomotive that can climb 8% grades by itself, much less pull significant tonnage along with it.
The graphic accompanying the article led me to believe that rather than a single train, there would be some number of autonomous cars that would move uphill during energy gluts and then run downhill when energy was needed.
I would suppose that the goal would be to have all of them at the top of the hill when demand rose, at which time they could be allowed to run downhill and generate power.
Keeping them running in the appropriate direction at the appropriate time would be somewhat complex, but certainly nothing a computer couldn't handle.
I think I saw mention of using some to power the others. That would seem to indicate that if there was reserve left when demand dropped that the top cars could be sent back to the top using power generated by the lower cars that were still generating. Thus power drawn from the grid to reposition the cars would be lessened.
On the face of it, this sounds like a workable idea, but the devil is always in the details, and I'm no expert on those details. Given the locale, it would seem like adding solar to the mix would be a no-brainer. Maybe even wind.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
According to the website the railcars themselves will be constructed from retired locomotives so all wheels have traction motors. Presumable there will be a third rail system to power the strings of cars uphill and, via regenerative braking, extract power as they roll downhill.
Note I am not arguing about the practicality of this proposal just repeating what it says on their site...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Rube, Goldberg & Western Railroad?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68 mudchicken I still want to see this magic locomotive that can climb 8% grades by itself, much less pull significant tonnage along with it. The graphic accompanying the article led me to believe that rather than a single train, there would be some number of autonomous cars that would move uphill during energy gluts and then run downhill when energy was needed. I would suppose that the goal would be to have all of them at the top of the hill when demand rose, at which time they could be allowed to run downhill and generate power. Keeping them running in the appropriate direction at the appropriate time would be somewhat complex, but certainly nothing a computer couldn't handle. I think I saw mention of using some to power the others. That would seem to indicate that if there was reserve left when demand dropped that the top cars could be sent back to the top using power generated by the lower cars that were still generating. Thus power drawn from the grid to reposition the cars would be lessened. On the face of it, this sounds like a workable idea, but the devil is always in the details, and I'm no expert on those details. Given the locale, it would seem like adding solar to the mix would be a no-brainer. Maybe even wind.
Clearly stated in the linked document - there will be 12 trains, each with two 220-ton locomotives and seven cars loaded to 150tons/car with rock, soil and construction debris. That gives something better in loco/car weight ratio than the JNR used to have on the Usui grade, which was 6.8%.
At present there is no shortage of sites for solar panel farms, and there are a number of investors ready to build them. Near Pahrump? Good question.
We also have a pair of hot tower solar mirror facilities south of Las Vegas, so there's plenty of power when the sun shines.
zugmann Euclid Remember, this railcar system does not produce any energy. It is just another component in the production of renewable energy. Actually this storage system itself will use energy that would not be used without this storage system. When it stores energy and returns it later, it consumes 15% of what it stores, and then return only 85% of what it started with.
Euclid Remember, this railcar system does not produce any energy. It is just another component in the production of renewable energy. Actually this storage system itself will use energy that would not be used without this storage system. When it stores energy and returns it later, it consumes 15% of what it stores, and then return only 85% of what it started with.
I did not mean to suggest that this railcar idea serves no purpose. These are the points I was making in the post that you quoted from:
There may be an implication in this news that some might infer to mean that this railcar system produces free energy to add to the free energy produced by the wind and solar plants. The railcar system does not produce any energy. It only stores energy produced by the wind and solar plants.
There may be an implication in this news that some might infer to mean that this railcar system returns all of the energy that it stores. But it actually consumes 15% of the energy that is put into it for storage, and returns 85% of it.
There are two possible reasons why the energy produced does not match the energy demand. One is that demand varies, and the other is that production varies. Fossil fuel energy must address only a variation of demand, and do so by intentionally increasing or decreasing production. Renewable energy must address a variation of demand as well as a natural variation of production. So to address that dual variation of renewable energy, it must be intentionally stored in times of low demand when excess is available for storage.
Renewable energy is not a free market system that lowers consumer cost. It is a mandate that raises consumer cost.
I live in a state that has passed a robust renewable energy mandate. The people who voted for it insist that it will dramatically reduce the cost of electricity, and create many jobs and economic growth. But they offered nothing concrete or even an explanation of how this would happen. I think they are delusional.
Not to say there's no cost to this. A bit OT, but germane to the discussion is this article that tabulates the overall energy cost of wind turbines.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil
Seems self-evident that you need energy and industrial prowess to build energy-generation infrastucture, but it's not often analyze din such detail.
This rail system seems "better" in that the literally "big iron" part of the system, the locomotives, cars and rail infrastructure are relatively low-tech, relatively "portable" (don't need special transport equipment to tranport any giant turbine blades to the site), etc. so the fossil fuel "carbon footprint" needed to get it up and running and continue running is much less. . It's the control equipment that's "high tech", but computing power is cheap and rugged these days, and the system is meant to respond to demand in an agile fashion.
Reading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary?
I can see it now... there will be 20 total cars in the system... at any one point there might be 10 at the bottom of the hill, waiting for a surplus of energy in the grid to enable them to be sent to the top; and 10 at the top waiting for a deficit of energy in the grid to cause them to be sent to the bottom to replenish that deficit.
At some point there will be a surplus, so a car is engaged to move to the top, but the energy required will cause a deficit, which will cause one at the top to be released to make up for it.
That in turn will produce a surplus, so another car at the bottom will be engaged to move to the top, which, you guessed it, causes a deficit to make another one at the top to be released to make up for that deficit.
Which, you guessed it again, will cause a surplus that allows another one to be engaged to move to the top, which will ... well, you get the idea.
10 cars going up and 10 cars going down in a never-ending drain on the overall energy in the grid.
Just be sure there is a computer involved so that no people are around to see the debacle.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo I can see it now... there will be 20 total cars in the system... at any one point there might be 10 at the bottom of the hill, waiting for a surplus of energy in the grid to enable them to be sent to the top; and 10 at the top waiting for a deficit of energy in the grid to cause them to be sent to the bottom to replenish that deficit. At some point there will be a surplus, so a car is engaged to move to the top, but the energy required will cause a deficit, which will cause one at the top to be released to make up for it. That in turn will produce a surplus, so another car at the bottom will be engaged to move to the top, which, you guessed it, causes a deficit to make another one at the top to be released to make up for that deficit. Which, you guessed it again, will cause a surplus that allows another one to be engaged to move to the top, which will ... well, you get the idea. 10 cars going up and 10 cars going down in a never-ending drain on the overall energy in the grid. Just be sure there is a computer involved so that no people are around to see the debacle.
Johnny
Murphy SidingReading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary?
34 mi. track @ $1M = $34M
34 mi. catenary @ $0.5M = $17M
140 locos @ $2M (biggest unknown) = $280M
140 cars @ $0.1M = $14M
Total: $345M
Even if the locos were half the cost of current diesels, they alone would be $70M.
- Paul North.
Euclid ... ... There are two possible reasons why the energy produced does not match the energy demand. One is that demand varies, and the other is that production varies. Fossil fuel energy must address only a variation of demand, and do so by intentionally increasing or decreasing production. Renewable energy must address a variation of demand as well as a natural variation of production. So to address that dual variation of renewable energy, it must be intentionally stored in times of low demand when excess is available for storage. ...
...
Without storage, you have to build enough fossil fuel plants to cover peak demand. At times of slack demand, they are operating less efficently, and are a waste of assets. As it has been pointed out before, some conventional electric generating companies have operated storage facilities for decades. Furthermore, peak demand is during daylight, which is optimal for solar generation, especially when there are demand spikes cause by air conditioning.
Semper Vaporo I can see it now... there will be 20 total cars in the system... at any one point there might be 10 at the bottom of the hill, waiting for a surplus of energy in the grid to enable them to be sent to the top; and 10 at the top waiting for a deficit of energy in the grid to cause them to be sent to the bottom to replenish that deficit. At some point there will be a surplus, so a car is engaged to move to the top, but the energy required will cause a deficit, which will cause one at the top to be released to make up for it. ...
A train at the bottom would not be sent up to the top unless thre was enough surplus power to do so on its own.
First, I want to say that to use a downward train to move another train upward is not rational. It is like a dog chasing its tail. A waste. Secondly the locomotives are relatively basic. Nowhere nearly as complex as Amtraks sprinters. If you look at page 23 of the document,
you will see that they are proposing three phase locomotives. Not quite sure how that works in the end yards but otherwise, makes sence since this is what the power grid is.
The Ludington Pumped Storage Plant is a hydroelectric plant and reservoir in Ludington, Michigan. It was built between 1969 and 1973 at a cost of $315 million At night, during low demand for electricity, the turbines run in reverse to pump water 363 feet (111 m) uphill from Lake Michigan into the reservoir.The power plant consists of six reversible turbines that can each generate 312 megawatts of electricity for a total output of 1,872 megawatts. As the power grid in the area of Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois had a lot of base load Nuclear Generation, and base load coal generation, it made economic sense to use the capacity of the base load generation to fill the reservoir at night and then meet part of the daytime peak with the stored energy in the reservoir. I believe it had an efficiency of about 70%.
The ARES plan is small in comparison (50 MW) for an estimated cost of 55 mil. But pumped hydro storage is not feasable in the desert. I do like that they are "thinking outside the box" here and wish them well.
Paul_D_North_Jr Murphy Siding Reading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary? No way. Recognizing that this will be low-speed and hence the track and catenary need not be too sophisticated, here's a WAG estimate: 34 mi. track @ $1M = $34M 34 mi. catenary @ $0.5M = $17M 140 locos @ $2M (biggest unknown) = $280M 140 cars @ $0.1M = $14M Total: $345M Even if the locos were half the cost of current diesels, they alone would be $70M. - Paul North.
Murphy Siding Reading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary?
No way. Recognizing that this will be low-speed and hence the track and catenary need not be too sophisticated, here's a WAG estimate:
What is the purpose of removing the weight boxes from their cars and storing them in that rack?
Near as I can tell, it's to make the animation look more interesting than just rail cars rolling down a hill and coming to a stop.
Logic question: The article says that each of the 70 trainsets would be made of of two powered and two non-powered cars. Why would you want non-powered cars in the mix? They're not producing power to put back in the grid. Wouldn't having 4 powered cars be exactly twice as efficent? (And twice the cost?)
Why would they want any powered cars? The non-powered cars will produce power by exerting their gravitational force on the locomotive.
Euclid Why would they want any powered cars? The non-powered cars will produce power by exerting their gravitational force on the locomotive. In re-reading the article, I am not sure I understand their description of this.
In re-reading the article, I am not sure I understand their description of this.
The energy stored is proportional to the total mass times the change in elevation. How would the number of powered cars affect this?
Anthony V.
In re-reading the article, I am not sure I understand their description of this. These are two bullet points from the article:
That amounts to 81 concrete masses per train. Does this mean that each train is composed of two locomotives, two braking slugs, and 81 cars?
Are these really 24,300-ton trains being pulled up a 7.5% grade with two locomotives?
EuclidAre these really 24,300-ton trains being pulled up a 7.5% grade with two locomotives?
In other versions of this idea, the locomotives pull some of the available mass in 'trips', essentially parking the gravitational potential energy of each cut at the top and then descending (with appropriate dynamic-braking recovery) to get the next one. The practical 'train' size limit going down is of course not the same as that going up...
AnthonyV Euclid Why would they want any powered cars? The non-powered cars will produce power by exerting their gravitational force on the locomotive. In re-reading the article, I am not sure I understand their description of this. The energy stored is proportional to the total mass times the change in elevation. How would the number of powered cars affect this? Anthony V.
Murphy Siding AnthonyV Euclid Why would they want any powered cars? The non-powered cars will produce power by exerting their gravitational force on the locomotive. In re-reading the article, I am not sure I understand their description of this. The energy stored is proportional to the total mass times the change in elevation. How would the number of powered cars affect this? Anthony V. Help me out with the physics please. I understand that a locomotive rolling down the hill can use regenetive braking to send power back into the grid. If the locomotive is coupled to a car that is the same weight, does that double the amount of juice being sent to the grid?
Help me out with the physics please. I understand that a locomotive rolling down the hill can use regenetive braking to send power back into the grid. If the locomotive is coupled to a car that is the same weight, does that double the amount of juice being sent to the grid?
I would say the answer to your question is that an unpowered car that also has no onboard ability to generate power from dynamic braking against the downhill load;—that car will generate its full potential of power as a falling weight simply by being coupled to the locomotive. So the locomotive and all of the non-dynamic- braking cars will channel all of their kinetic energy to the locomotive, which will use its dynamic braking to convert the total combined energy back into electricity to add to the grid.
Your question also raises this point. As these falling trains reach the bottom, do they simply stop because their locomotives have converted all of the kinetic energy into electricity as the train enters flat terminal region? I would think that the answer to that is no. It seems that one would want to extract just the right amount of the available kinetic energy of the falling train, and then bring the train to a stop with its conventional air brakes. The effectiveness of dynamic brakes fall off at the slower speeds.
One thing to consider is that the purpose of this system is to capture all of the kinetic energy available in the raised mass. Whereas with dynamic braking, the purpose is to only capture some of it to produce a certain amount of slowdown or retardation.
So with this storage system, one would want to make sure that the braking effort is applied hard enough to capture all of the energy before the train stops at the bottom.
My take is that the closer you look the more confusing this is. My major problem is that they describe at least three systems and show three 'pictures'.
The 50 MW 'starter set', my term obviously, is described in the first part of the article. Its AVERAGE grade is 10.48%, 3000 foot rise over 5.5 miles. I did not get a train configuration. I am confident they could get a workable power to weight ratio to get up the hill, and am confident that they can hold 19 MPH coming down, but I strongly question their ability to stop on that grade with any locational precision. If I were doing this I would have a flat spot to stop at least at the bottom.
The larger set, 333 MW, has the three track main line plus storage for 5700 concrete blocks in yards at both the top and bottom. Clearly they plan to load and unload a lot of blocks. The company video show loading and unloading being done magically as the train is moving. They are going to have to invent a way to do that, including getting the 'locomotives' past the blocks which end up at 90 degree angle to the track and over the track.
Another artist's rendition shows two electric locos pulling what appear to be covered hopper cars filled with rock and dirt. That would work with existing technology, unlike the magic blocks, but storing the cars at the top and running back lite would require a relatively complex yard and a switcher at each end.
They need a practical railroader to help design this thing. Hope they get one!
Mac
Yes I understand that fossil fuel power plants are complex and expensive. Both fossil fuel plants and solar/wind plants benefit from storage, which is also complex and expensive. However solar/wind plants fundamentally require more storage than fossil fuel plants. I do find the railroad based storage idea interesting and would love to be involved with the development work on it.
I suspect that the ultimate embodiment will be quite different than the prototype concept presented at this time. Right now, they have a business and a design concept that is valid, but I don’t think the execution is ready for prime time. There is a huge amount of engineering and design that has yet to be done. This plant will operate like a giant vending machine. I doubt that it will be made from “off the shelf” components to the extent that they currently expect.
I do not understand the need for unloading and storing the weight boxes, and then taking them out of storage and reloading them on the cars. IF that is really necessary for some unexplained reason, building a reliable, trouble-free, automatic system for accomplishing that task will be an enormous exercise in engineering, design, testing, and development.
Inventors often embellish their inventions with unnecessary features in an attempt to enhance the credibility of the invention. It is a natural inclination. The first thing that is needed is a clearly explained operational concept. On the face of it, I would expect semi-permanently connected trainsets with rolling stock that permanently carries the load boxes. So I don’t understand the need for all the yard trackage, switches, etc.
The operation will have to contend with the effects of wind force advancing or retarding the downhill run. It will also have to be able to extract all of the energy out of that run before the run ends. There will have to be full control of the automatic air brake system, and some type of detectors to make sure that the system is operating properly.
Rain and snow will decrease adhesion for both the uphill pull and the downhill dynamic braking. These variations imply the need to reduce the train tonnage and/or increase the motive power accordingly. It might be more cost effective to just roof over the entire trackwork. Perhaps complete enclosure in a building might be the most practical approach.
I am not an electrical engineer so I cannot comment how this is accomplished in practice. Maybe Erik or others can weigh in on this.
AnthonyVIf the train is lowered at a constant speed regardless of the number of cars attached to the locomotive, then the retarding force produced by the regenerative braking (i.e., the dynamics) would have to be proportional to the number of cars. This requires adjusting the brake so that the electric motor torque (and the power generated) increases in the same proportion. I am not an electrical engineer so I cannot comment how this is accomplished in practice. Maybe Erik or others can weigh in on this.
The situation is a little complicated by the (almost certain) use of AC motors, but not enough to keep this question from having some common-sense answers.
There is no need for 'constant-speed' braking, and the only operational consideration of speed vs. torque that I can see is that for economic reasons you want to keep the train 'up the grade' (to maximize the remaining gravitational potential energy as much as possible at any time) so you would operate it as slowly as needed to produce the demanded power. With AC there is little or no effective rotational speed consideration or hourly/instantaneous analogue for temperature rise in motor windings.
Slide control (the DB analogue of wheelslip) is easily handled in most situations where it might occur, and I would presume that any 'spots' of low adhesion would be flagged in the 'computer' system for attention.
There are several reasons why "powered cars" might be used other than the obvious (the advantages of slugs/MATEs without the drawback of changing adhesive load). One is to change the effective train resistance more quickly or 'steplessly' by using a larger number of motors, although the economics here would require the equivalent of an inverter setup for each axle. With the loads being discussed, I'd much rather use "MU" distributed powered axles for dynamic rather than concentrating the load on a few expensive wheels, particularly since there is much more opportunity for high peak loading of the electrical gear in generation than in motoring, particularly if there are any 'anomalous conditions'. (Not to make a direct comparison, but it should be remembered that the other direct reason the N&W TE-1 turbine was retired was that its motors ... Westinghouse hexapole motors ... were essentially burned out in just those several years of service. It takes a special kind of trying to do that to those. This application promises to stress electrical components in some very interesting ways when, not if, something in the control system or its software is 'misconfigured', and some discussions of this, while obviously not revealed in promotional pieces, have no doubt been conducted.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.