EuclidI 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.
It's actually pretty trivial. Methods like those used for roller table sideloading alone would do it, at a measurable but not particularly high cost per unit. What they seem to be proposing is to have no 'superstructure' on the cars, rotate the boxes 90 degrees, and slide them off on holding rails adjacent to the running rails (which minimizes length of storage while permitting greater load within limited track or loading gauge). This is a bit more complex, but not rocket science.
It begins to be clear that if running speed of 19mph is to be used on the hills, you need to decouple the actual number of expensive and fairly sophisticated running 'platforms' or consists from the actual dead storage of gravitational potential energy (thought of, here, as the concrete-block equivalent of water in a pumped-storage reservoir). There are a LOT of trips going up and down with the limited number of trainsets, which may not be clear from the description given but will show up in the physics.
Remember that 'peak' requirement is more than that roughly 18-minute transit time, so it would be logical to assume that minimizing the cost of the repeated vertical trips to 'reload' the consists doing the on-peak generation -- for example, by absolutely minimizing their tare weight going up -- is a sensible part of the long-term economics. At least this is obvious to me. Even transporting safety frames or cages for the masses is going to consume additional electrical energy at a time when 'every kwh counts'.
I had not thought about this before, but distributing power across a relatively large number of axles on a very light consist is a means of controlling aggregate wheelslip. So there is another reason why you'd have them. (In practice, I'd expect the number of actual 'powered' axles to be titrated, in a sense, until you have just the right cost-to-benefit ratio justified for practical operation... again, don't look for that in promotional documentation because it just gives those who are likely to be the target audience MEGO syndrome, and those who understand the physics or operations will think about it anyway.)
RME Euclid 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. It's actually pretty trivial. Methods like those used for roller table sideloading alone would do it, at a measurable but not particularly high cost per unit. What they seem to be proposing is to have no 'superstructure' on the cars, rotate the boxes 90 degrees, and slide them off on holding rails adjacent to the running rails (which minimizes length of storage while permitting greater load within limited track or loading gauge). This is a bit more complex, but not rocket science.
Euclid 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.
I don't follow your explanation. Why is there a need to remove the weight boxes from their cars and store them until they are needed again?
Euclid ... I don't follow your explanation. Why is there a need to remove the weight boxes from their cars and store them until they are needed again?
...
During a power serge, the motors will make multiple trips: attach a weight, loaded trip down, drop off weight at bottom, light trip back up, repeat as needed. The opposite would happen during power surplus.
I have an idea. Instead of building new isolated track out in the dessert, and haul the same rotating weights up and down-- use an existing grade, like Cima, or better yet Cajon. Install catenary over the track, and construct a motor track at Summit and San Bernardino. Rent the motors to BNSF on an incentivised "power-by-the-hour" basis as helper engines during utility power surplus, and as brake motors during high power demand. The railroad would use their own engineers, save diesel fuel and ware and tare on their engines, and could earn carbon credits.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/03/gravity-train-as-energy-storage.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dyJDIP0Udo&t=26m36s
EuclidI don't follow your explanation. Why is there a need to remove the weight boxes from their cars and store them until they are needed again?
If you look at the video that goes with the promotion, this will become clearer. In fact, you need to handle the boxes both at 'top' and 'bottom' to get best utilization out of the expensive capital.
First, you won't have enough "trains" to serve the demand for a whole 'peak' period. The under-18-minute "best speed for generating efficiency" establishes this. Instead of filling the whole upper yard with standing motored consists, what they propose is to use a more limited number of them, and ferry the dead weight up the hill with repeated trips. Each time they go up, four weights are 'disconnected' at the top, rotated to maximize gravitational potential, and rested on the concrete side rails. The trainset then descends (recapturing a reasonable percentage of the electricity used to raise it in so doing, so the multiple trips are more of a 'wash') and loads more weight. Eventually all the great many weights -- much more, as noted, than a 'single' train, or all the provided "4-car consists", could hold directly are up at the top of the grade.
Now comes generation time. Each consist ascends (consuming whatever electricity is needed to get it as quickly as 'reasonable and prudent' to its loading point) and is then loaded with weight. It travels down at whatever best generating speed is moment to moment, and eventually arrives (in about 18 minutes) to the end of the forming weight stack on one track in the lower yard. Here, as quickly as practically needed, it offloads the four weights (perhaps not needing to rotate them other than as needed for the concrete-support-rail holding system) and then goes up light -- and in minimum time consistent with other efficiency factors -- to where it can be loaded to keep the power generation going. I expect in fact that the consists would run very closely spaced or even 'touching' ... perhaps in both directions where possible.
All the little consists keep doing this for the length of time peaking power is necessary; expansion of the system would involve multiple mains with at least one 'dedicated' up-track that keeps ascending traffic strictly separated from downcomers.
If all you did was to run trains up and down with weights fixed on them, like winding a giant grandfather clock, all you'd be doing was timeshifting the demand with an enormous capital expense and sunk/stranded cost. In addition you'd be using a substantial amount of the developed power merely to lift the upgoing trains -- if the losses 'scale', as I'm certain they do, you're throwing away some of the on-peak benefit just in toting the tare weight.
That doesn't happen with the multiple offloading -- you recursively lift short segments with cheap power, and minimize the cost of recursive trains, while maintaining an enormous net source of potential energy 'in the aggregate' represented by all the weights sitting on their supports, packed as close together and close to the 'top' of the gravity well as manageable.
RME,
Okay, I can see the need for that strategy. You don’t want to be investing in lifting the weights during the phase calling for generation, considering the fact that there is ample time during the sun/wind phase to do the lifting of weights; and that is the phase with the cheapest available power to do the lifting. If you left the weights on the cars, it would require a lot more cars. Since the generation is delivered over an extended period, it makes sense to use fewer cars and load/unload the weights. Thanks for the explanation.
wanswheel http://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/03/gravity-train-as-energy-storage.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dyJDIP0Udo&t=26m36s
I took a look a the video provided above, in which they discuss a 668 MW system. Based on a 7.5% grade and 19 mph, I estimated that about 500 weights (at 234 tons each) decending simultaneously are needed to generate that much power. (For simplicity, I excluded the weight of the cars and any frictional losses.)
Do these numbers make sense or am I way off?
Anthony V.
RME rotated to maximize gravitational potential
rotated to maximize gravitational potential
I thought they were rotated to conserve space, to minimize ugly footprint on beautiful hill.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TPReBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&dq=%22regenerative+braking+coming+downhill%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf56ePz8jMAhXFHxoKHVXqAgMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22regenerative%20braking%20coming%20downhill%22&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/US8593012
It's pure hokum. For 668 megawatts and 140 trains that means that each is simultaneausly developing 6396 HP and that does not include electrical , mechanical, and operational losses. B.S.
tdmidgetIt's pure hokum. For 668 megawatts and 140 trains that means that each is simultaneausly developing 6396 HP and that does not include electrical , mechanical, and operational losses. B.S.
I'm somewhat on the same page. At this point there is not enough reliable information to make a judgement, but history has shown most of these schemes to be nothing more than a means of obtaining federal subsidies followed by bankruptcy and absconding with the money. Taxpayers get fleeced.
Color me cynical.
Norm
In the grand scheme of things, wouldn't it work out better if the weights were made out of iron because it's much denser than concrete? Think of ore jennys being short.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
They say that this system has a life of 40 years. Assuming that the need continues indefinitely, what happens after 40 years? It sounds as if everything wears out after 40 years and must be completely replaced with a new plant. But surely something this complex does not just arrive at a point where it is uniformly worn out.
Instead, it will require constant maintenance and repair; and probably a lot of performance upgrades as well. It will have a daily operating cost besides the 15-20% net loss in the transaction of using energy to lift the weights and then recovering part of that energy.
I think they exaggerate the simplicity of using off the shelf components. They distinguish between that approach and one needing a "break through" development of technology as though it is one or the other. In reality, there is a lot of ground between those two extremes.
I'm just sitting here chuckling. Seems the loudest opponents on this thread are the same people that always promoted wild-pie-out-of-the-sky RR ideas/technology (like thoseintermodal self-unloading things), and accused anyone who questioned them as not being able to think "outside the box".
Apparently the box got bigger.
Back to your normally scheduled discussion.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
This Ares concept is unlike anything ever suggested here before. In the cost/benefit analysis for Ares, cost does not matter because the presumed benefit is practically infinite. What is it worth to save the planet and everything living on it? It is easy to think outside the box if cost doesn’t matter.
(Note: This piece-of-crap interface is starting to really bother me. Can't Kalmbach hire some high-school kids in an advanced STEM program to fix the few things that need to be modified to make the italics work correctly and the 'wrong' arrow keys disabled or subject to warning message if inadvertently pressed? UI and IxD on that level are not rocket science, and haven't been difficult to code for many years...)
I think the "40 years" is a financial life, for purposes of capital allocation and opportunity cost. The usual-suspects accountants on here might comment on the depreciation rules that would apply to this specialized equipment, what its fair market value ought to be, and other considerations that apply.
Likewise, general rules for AC motor maintenance, electronics servicing, etc. are pretty well established, and I'm sure were defined in the business plan long before the company applied to the BLM for the lease. I only see two major areas that might have been missed. One is wheel wear, and the other is the specialized turning mechanism for the weights.
Switches are an integral part of operation, and so hollow tread becomes a complication that a pure dedicated shuttle operation might not be as concerned with. There is plenty of 'slack' in the operating critical path of any given consist in this system, so it would not be difficult to machine the wheels on either a fixed or portable underfloor wheel lathe when necessary, or perhaps to swap out wheelsets on an expedient basis in a fixed facility or 'jig'. I presume that the 'best' bainite head-hardened rail would be used in a facility of this size, and dressing or grinding of the railhead profile ought to be fairly simple to conduct (again at the required scale and relatively small footprint of the facility)
The turning mechanism is more complicated, has more points of potential failure, and (as designed) may hang up both a consist and the entire stock of gravitational potential above the point of failure. Most of this is amenable to emergency procedures, provided the need is recognized and the procedures and equipment provided ahead of time. Since I do not think the ARES proponents are fools, I think they have ways to deal with the different types of extraordinary maintenance/repair or failure management, and would design the equipment both for maintenance and ease of emergency response.
Concerning iron weights: It does not appear to me that size reduction of the weights gives any advantage here, and the cost both to acquire and ship very large castings or fabrications would be greater than for the concrete ones. I was assuming the use of 'loaded' or heavy aggregate in the concrete or the embedding of heavy materials in the reinforcement to get the system to the desired weight.
Implicitly, the mass of the weights would be chosen to optimize the various components and operational scheduling to give lowest overall cost. That involves the required structure in the consists, the strength of the lift and turntable that handles the weights, the speed and grade involved, and the anticipated duration and rate required for actual peak power generation from the facility. Heaven knows there's enough space there for slightly larger weights!
There's also the implicit temptation to use the greatest possible mass that fits ... or use denser material to shrink the lateral measurement and thereby allow more gravitational potential per foot of K-rail. Some of this involves more than just economics -- structural safety both in operations or anomalous conditions/accidents would be important. I suspect for example that the weights as designed are provided with corner castings that allow them to be lifted and handled with slings or stretchers from above, for emergency situations and for loading; it's also possible that the external 'boxes' of the weights are designed to suit ISO dimensions that allow them to be handled in well cars for shipping. (I would certainly consider doing it that way!)
Concrete or iron, a pound is a pound. The concrete would be cheaper.
The standard life of a power plant is calculated on a 40 year span. The component manufacturers guarantee that their components, Pulverizers, feeders/ fans, boilers, turbogeerators etc will last 40 years with the specified maintenance.
The problem is that it is impossible. To deliver the claimed 668 MW ALL 140 trains have to be in downhill motion at the same time producing almost 7000 HP each. IF that could happen, (and it can't) you would only have that power for 19 minutes. A farce and a way to scam the Government, which is us, out of a fortune. Can you say "Solyndra"?
Euclid This Ares concept is unlike anything ever suggested here before. In the cost/benefit analysis for Ares, cost does not matter because the presumed benefit is practically infinite. What is it worth to save the planet and everything living on it? It is easy to think outside the box if cost doesn’t matter.
tdmidget The problem is that it is impossible. To deliver the claimed 668 MW ALL 140 trains have to be in downhill motion at the same time producing almost 7000 HP each. IF that could happen, (and it can't) you would only have that power for 19 minutes. A farce and a way to scam the Government, which is us, out of a fortune. Can you say "Solyndra"?
The numbers as presented in the video don't seem to add up.
In order to deliver 668 MW, 280 trains would be needed. One hundred forty loaded trains would be decending while 140 unloaded trains are ascending. At the rate of 560 blocks every 20 minutes or so, the 11,400 blocks would be exhausted in just under 7 hours. This does not include the time needed to load and unload the blocks.
Murphy Siding Euclid This Ares concept is unlike anything ever suggested here before. In the cost/benefit analysis for Ares, cost does not matter because the presumed benefit is practically infinite. What is it worth to save the planet and everything living on it? It is easy to think outside the box if cost doesn’t matter. Are you missing the point that the idea is to push the blocks up the hill when there's lots of juice available then push them down the hill when juice is in high demand, and therefore folks are willing to pay more for it? This operation would eliminate the need to build extra powerplants that would only be needed during peak power requirements.
Are you missing the point that the idea is to push the blocks up the hill when there's lots of juice available then push them down the hill when juice is in high demand, and therefore folks are willing to pay more for it? This operation would eliminate the need to build extra powerplants that would only be needed during peak power requirements.
No, I think the purpose energy storage valid, and essential for renewable energy production.
I was referring to renewable energy as a whole and the presumed need to replace fossil fuel energy with it. This energy storage concept is just an essential facet of renewable energy.
There is no need for renewable energy to be cost effective because the definition of the term is constantly shifting regarding renewable energy. There are sources that say that renewable energy is more costly than fossil fuel energy and sources that say otherwise. But both parties to the debate disagree with the terms of each other’s position. So there is no proof for either position. One has to come to their own conclusion based on the evidence that they see. One piece of evidence is that the free market will always develop and deliver a fulfillment of a need if it is cost effective. A government mandate is not needed for cost effective solutions. Mandates are needed for regulatory solutions that add cost.
In the case of Ares, cost is irrelevant because cost is irrelevant in the production of renewable energy. The reason is that renewable proponents claim that the externalities cost of fossil fuel energy include the complete destruction of the planet and all life on it. For all practical purposes, that means that the cost in infinitely high. Therefore the cost of renewable energy is free to rise almost to that point. So it always wins the cost/benefit analysis in those terms. Of course the terms of that self-annihilation are just a theory embraced by believers.
What this really accomplishes in the big picture is conservation. Renewable energy is deemed virtuous, and will be mandated no matter what it costs. If it turns out that the cost prices it out of the market, then the market will have to choice but to conserve it. So if we don’t save the planet by using green energy, we will save it by using less energy. Price rationing always reduces demand. It is not a far leap in thinking. Everyone that I know who is on this bandwagon believes that we consume far too much.
Any method of power storage has to be cost effective, because it is competing against other forms of power storage such as pumped storage.
Very interesting video about what the Danish are doing to go all renewable fuel. IE, wind, solar, biomass. Conversion of biomass to liquid and gas. Energy storage and peaking are covered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBiB4DaYOM
I await your comments.
MidlandMike Any method of power storage has to be cost effective, because it is competing against other forms of power storage such as pumped storage.
The fact that storage systems compete against each other is beside the point.
No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
EuclidNo storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
You missed your calling writing political speeches. Unless that is what you did for a living?
zugmann Euclid No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high. You missed your calling writing political speeches. Unless that is what you did for a living?
Euclid No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
Well, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to diminish on the grounds that is political.
EuclidWell, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to dimish on the grounds of it being political.
I was talking about your style of writing - not the subject. And don't take it as an insult, for it was not meant as such. If anything, it was a compliment.
zugmann Euclid Well, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to dimish on the grounds of it being political. I was talking about your style of writing - not the subject. And don't take it as an insult, for it was not meant as such. If anything, it was a compliment.
Euclid Well, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to dimish on the grounds of it being political.
Oh, okay, I see. Thanks for the compliment. I am glad that my comment was understandable.
Euclid MidlandMike Any method of power storage has to be cost effective, because it is competing against other forms of power storage such as pumped storage. The fact that storage systems compete against each other is beside the point. No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
Euclid,
I may be way off in left field here, but there are two definitions of political speech and neither is very complimentary.
[new topic]
Once again, an idea that uses rail is pooh-poohed by the denizens of a railFAN web-site. Maybe I am confused on the definition of a fan. I think an operation like this would be interesting. The doom and gloom GW crowd gets help when the wind dies down and I get a railroad to observe.
rrnut282Once again, an idea that uses rail is pooh-poohed by the denizens of a railFAN web-site. Maybe I am confused on the definition of a fan. I think an operation like this would be interesting. The doom and gloom GW crowd gets help when the wind dies down and I get a railroad to observe.
I think the "pooh-poohing" goes beyond the railroading aspect. I suspect any of us would sit and marvel if we were to watch this system in operation.
The questions all have to do with whether this is a technically viable solution, and chiefly whether this idea can generate sufficient power for a sufficient period of time to make it worthwhile.
There have been some questions as to functional complexity (ie, the turning weights) as well.
A key question is how long this system is expected to produce power each day, and at what times. If it is expected to generate power for, say, four hours straight hours each day, how many "trainsets" will be required? How many will have to headed down the "hill" at one time in order to generate the expected capacity? Can they all be moved to the top of the hill (with enough room to hold them there) in time for the next surge request?
I know that such information can usually be computed - some here have already done so in one way or another. But all of the information we're working on is pretty much based on a press release. It remains to be seen what the engineers actually envision.
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.