The Nuclear Battery: Implications for loco power

[Anonymous]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/personalnuclearpowernewbatterylasts12years

If this technology proves cost effective, it could render all other power sources irrelevent for locomotive power. A battery that does not need to be recharged for serveral years means no need for refueling, no fuel storage infrastructure, etc.

[chad thomas]

Interesting, but I see no indication of its use in anything beyond watch battery size applications. In other words very low current applications. There are not many details in the article on weight/size or volt/amp capacity but I suspect it will be a long time before this device could be used for locomotive applications, if ever. But it is an interesting concept.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/personalnuclearpowernewbatterylasts12years

If this technology proves cost effective, it could render all other power sources irrelevent for locomotive power. A battery that does not need to be recharged for serveral years means no need for refueling, no fuel storage infrastructure, etc.

FM -

As usual, you didn't read or pay attention to the article.

These sorts of batteries are at best useful for very low current applications. The amount of radioactive material and the density of electron discharge of the material would need to be such that much more electricity were generated on a continuous basis to power even a vacuum cleaner, much less a locomotive. Therefore, the level of radioactivity in the form of not only electrons, but also neutrons and gamma radiation (depending upon the nature of the radioactive materials used) would likely fry the operator of such a locomotive or anyone else near the source (batteries) or alternatively, require the locomotive to be so heavily shielded as to render it immobile. Lets not even get into the other MAJOR issues this could create such as safety and disposal of the used batteries, sheesh.

Another of your "brilliant" ideas that lead nowhere...

LC

[Hugh Jampton]

You should have posted this on the humour thread.

[CSXrules4eva]

OK yes this is a great start to discovering new power for locomotives but, I think I'm going to have to point out something that hasn't been mentioned yet, and that is disposial. It's excellent that the batter doesn't need to be recharged until 7years of it's life. However, after it's done it's going to have to go somewere and my guess is in a hazordous waste landfill. This means more landfills that are already crowed with conventional 12.66 V lead batteries are, going to be filled with "nuclear" batteries. Oh and I ganrentee (spelling) anyone that there is going to be that one mabe two industries that don't want to pay for or properly dispose of the battery. Um can we say Groundwater containamination??/

[Anonymous]

Did anyone notice what they are using. Tritium! Tritium does not contaminate groundwater and it is a third isotope of hydrogen. It is very low level radioactive and is used in some watches and used to be used as a night sight on the M16. It is broken down easily and isn't toxic as the particles do not penitrate the skin.
Now, besides the panic of the fact that it is "nuclear" there is no way to use it in a locomotive unless you want it in reactive paint and there are less expensive alternatives to that. The power output as stated would be too low to acount for anything the size of a loco and the input ratio could never stand up to the power a loco could put in.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Interesting, but I see no indication of its use in anything beyond watch battery size applications. In other words very low current applications. There are not many details in the article on weight/size or volt/amp capacity but I suspect it will be a long time before this device could be used for locomotive applications, if ever. But it is an interesting concept.

To quote directly from the article: "...or it might power spacecraft or deep-sea probes."

"Fauchet's team took the flat silicon surface, where the electrons are captured and converted to a current, and turned it into a three-dimensional surface by adding deep pits. Each pit is about one micron wide. That's four ten-thousandths of an inch. They're more than 40 microns deep."



Chad,

You are correct that the article doesn't give specifics on weight/size to power ratios, but if you read between the lines you can acsertain a similarity with other energy storage systems such as lead acid batteries or supercapacitors. What I gathered from this article is an inference that the energy to device size ratio would be favorable compared to lead acid batteries and supercapacitors. Only time will tell.

If you take these inferences and apply them to a current locomotive application such as the Green Goat, you can see where the advantages would be superb. You can have a Green Goat II without the need for the gas turbine for recharging, e.g. no refueling, no hydrocarbon emissions. Both batteries and supercapacitors need to be recharged. This new technology doesn't. It is more like a plug and play application, in that you install it (as part of an array) and use it until the energy creation ability is used up, then you throw it away and replace it.

If indeed it has power applications for space craft, then it's not a stretch to use it in a locomotive.

[dehusman]

The power requirements for a spacecraft are a few watts at peak, probably 99% of its life a space craft is burning milliwatts. A locomotive needs thousands of kilowatts of power and for extensive stretches. If things scaled up that easy, Eveready would be making locomotives.

Dave H.

[Overmod]

Sheesh, speaking of not paying attention to the article, etc.

LC, don't give up your day job to go into nuclear physics or materials science...

This is a very specific convergence between nanofabrication and beta decay. NOT gammas, NOT EM, not the '50s plutonium-electric battery technology I was expecting when I pulled up the article.

Would the technology scale to 'locomotive' size? Probably. Look at supercapacitor maximum voltage, and that hasn't stopped any of us from using supercaps for traction application development. If we make the assumption that a production-scale facility to generate the 'micropitted' substrate is constructed, it's a simple matter to work out the economics of a large series/parallel bank of substrate cells, with the cross-connects, etc. to make a workable battery (remember that a 'battery' is by definition a group of cells in the first place) capable of adequate voltage and current together. (And to maintain working power as cells fail and lose power for various reasons, including the nominal 8.7-year half-life of the tritium, but that's another story...) I haven't run the numbers, but many betavoltaics have high nominal "voltage" (it's related to the energy the beta 'electron' has) with the actual electrical voltage being more related to characteristics of electron capture and current in the substrate -- but still quite high compared to electrochemical batteries. For anyone interested in some of the tech aspects, a popularized account is here

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Beta_voltaic

which addresses some of the concerns expressed so far, and might help direct some others in more fruitful directions.

imho, the 'kicker' in this design of battery for locomotive applications is something else again, and I'm surprised nobody else has caught it... the cost of the 'active ingredient'. Tritium is not exactly cheap, and the tech used to produce it in "industrial" quantities is largely gone -- dismantled at great cost even before the end of the strategic nuclear weapons era. I would not sit around waiting for market forces to develop a cost-effective heavy-hydrogen production economy!

Furthermore, the battery is not reversible -- it can't be used as a 'sink' for dynamic braking, a buffer for charge in the supercapacitor banks, etc. This is actually a drawback for use in a typical vehicle application. It's a nifty source of primary electricity, and there are certainly advantages in having batteries that 'never need charging' -- one might consider their use for starting other kinds of engines, pre-heating reversible batteries (sodium-sulfur, etc.) or providing APU power for energy cycles that need it. But, again, I strongly suspect there are better and more cost-effective... MUCH more cost-effective... alternative energy cycles available to do this job.

[tree68]

What's the weight per watt, as well as the cubes per watt, and how do they compare with existing technologies?

[jchnhtfd]

Railroads, perhaps more than any other transportation technology, benefit greatly from the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid. (no reference to any of the posters, please!!!). There are, at the present time, three nice simple tecnologies for powering rail transportation: where it is available, electric traction. Where it is not, and the power demand is peaky and widely varied (for instance, switching service, local freight, possibly commuter rail or transit if for some reason electric traction isn't available), internal combustion/hybrid (the Green Goat, for instance) and, where the above doesn't apply, internal combustion (diesel).

It would be very interesting to me, at least, to see a good cost-benefit (including environmental costs) analysis of adding more electric traction mileage vs. implementation of exotic technologies. As for internal combustion or hybrid internal combustion, the question -- and it's a good question -- arises as to the fuel source. There are many difficulties to be resolved, but it is possible that hydrogen may be usable at some point in the rather near term. Hydrogen must be created, however, so it is a variant of electric traction with the energy transmission medium being hydrogen rather than wire.

At which point one can legitimately ask, where does the electricity come from, and at what environmental cost? Non-hysterical, sound engineering analyses show increasingly clearly that the answer to that question is nuclear power. Even one of the most prominent environmental activists, and a very fine scientist, James Lovelock, has declared that declared that nuclear energy was the only practical answer to the challenges of global warming. Interesting...

[dldance]

At one point in the 1950's there was an experimental application of a nuclear battery for railroad use. Any decaying radioactive source also generates heat as a function of the decay. The heavily shielded battery used this heat to power a thermo-electric generator for recharging lead-acid batteries used to power very remote railroad signal lights. Simlar nuclear batteries are also used to power deep space probes, where solar cells are unworkable.

dd

[domefoamer]

This topic, God love it, pops up over and over again here like some theoretical Whack-a-Mole, and I repeat my stock challenge to it, to the point that even I'm tired of it all (but oddly comforted by the ritual of debunking it). So far, no one has responded to my key question regarding these hypothetical loco-nukes: Why?

Proponents of this dream usually tout the extended range nuclear reactors can be run between refuelings. It's obvious why that's essential in a deep space probe, which can't be refueled even once (though you should note that Pu reactors and such are used only when a probe is sent to the outer planets, where solar energy becomes weak and diffuse.)

But what does that unique and exotic craft have in common with a train's mission in life? Trains don't boldly go where no one has gone before, at least since Gold Rush days. Today, trains roll past the back gates of industrial districts, both drinking diesel fuel and delivering it to tanks at trackside. And trains don't travel infnite distances without stopping. The unions won't allow more than a few hundred miles to go by without a crew stop. What's the added value of getting 1000 times more crew changes per tankful? And unlike submarines, trains don't travel in stealthy secret. They publish schedules, and only achieve stealth by letting them slip. (Though on 5/3, Amtrak did tell those waiting for the #6 CZ that they "didn't know where the rain is and hadnt heard from it for a while," as we cautiously inched by a fresh rockslide on the most vertiginous slope of the Moffat Road route.)

So why, other than the thrill of imagining it, would anyone ever WANT a nuclear-powered locomotive? I'd see as much potential use from a steam-powered rocket. Help me, please, all you A-Hoggers out there: pretend you have a working design for a real "hot" freight, and tell your board of directors why it's an efficient and appropriate and practical investment...I dare ya!

[Anonymous]

Why? How about zero emissions? I'm not sure about the heat generating aspects of this technology, but if you can glide through a long tunnel without the need for time consuming ventilators, you can increase the capacity of that tunnel. Like has been stated by others, until someone can construct a reasonable cost/benefit analysis for using this technology in locomotives, it is fooli***o diss it out of hand.

If indeed there is a limited supply of world crude oil supplies, what other than nuclear power are you going to use to keep the trains running? Micronized energy production onboard may be preferable to using nuclear power to either (1. create hydrogen as the onboard fuel supply, or (2. to supply the energy via overhead catenary.

[Overmod]

At the risk of popping up another rodent head:

A significant point with respect to most betavoltaics is that the "active ingredient", in the present case tritium, is sealed into the battery structure 'for life'. (This is particularly important for hydrogen, which just loves to seep out of anything you try to seal it in with.) This means in turn that you can't modulate the 'nuclear' output power of the battery: all the cells produce electrical potential (voltage) all the time, and you save nothing in fuel by not consuming the electricity -- by connecting the captured electrons through a load -- as it is generated.

The reason this is important has to do with required battery size, and thence cost. In a nuclear-battery locomotive *with no other power source*, you'd need to incorporate a battery adequate to provide continuous "Run 8" power. That means a whole lot of cells, and a whole lot of tritium, that have to be 'paid for' up front (at enormous cost) but that don't contribute to the bottom line when the locomotive is at part load -- for example, going downgrade. The economics of locomotives that don't scale well off full power has been amply explored over the past 75 years, with the PRR 6200 and the UP turbines being two relatively good examples.

A "better" solution, technically, is to use the constant output from the betavoltaic as all or part of the 'genset' input to a hybrid locomotive. This allows you to keep the regenerative energy from dynamic braking, permits external recharge of the cells in the traction battery in parallel and at high rate (from the utility grid) at required stops, etc. Now, I'll be among the first to note that the typical 'missions' for small-engined hybrid locomotives are not exactly the major profitability drivers for railroad capital, even if massively government-subsidized... but, perhaps, there is a certain inherent security in keeping the "nuclear" battery within yard limits (and yard-limit speed, and momentum, rules) most of the time. It might also be useful to have the ability to 'stretch' fossil-fuel consumption by starting or regulating conventional fuel engines for peak or heavy load, and use the betavoltaic for baseline running ... but I'd hesitate to discuss what the cost and packaging of this might be, let alone the clever marketing methodologies that would be needed to sell the, ah, marks (and I don't mean the Hemphills of the industry, nudge nudge wink wink) in the railroad and the equipment-trust fields on the "idea".

I'll let someone like Randy comment on the fun involved in maintaining a locomotive that ALWAYS has thousands of amps available for the taking at its battery terminals; thousands of amps that can only be shut off by venting radioactive gas...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM needs to remember that zero emissions does not really exist. An electric locomotive, be it battery-powered or drawing its power from catenary, may not generate any emissions by itself, but you can be sure that the initial source of the electric energy did indeed generate emissions of some sort, only somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

FM needs to remember that zero emissions does not really exist. An electric locomotive, be it battery-powered or drawing its power from catenary, may not generate any emissions by itself, but you can be sure that the initial source of the electric energy did indeed generate emissions of some sort, only somewhere else.

CSSHEGEWISCH needs to remember that the reference to zero emissions is specific to the locomotive, not the energy source manufacturing facility(s), and like all "zero emission" claims is probably a bit of an exaggeration on the part of "green energy" promoters. I also was one of the folks that brought up the point that the manufacture of hydrogen takes more energy than is produced, and fuel cell contraptions, thought they produce emissions of mostly heat and water, will by proxy be part and parcel of whatever process was used to manufacture the hydrogen, ergo, I'm on top of it. I do not know what is involved in producing "useful" tritium, and whether the cost in energy to produce useful tritium is more, equal, or less than the energy derived from this new technology.

[domefoamer]

Thanks, FM, for attempting to pose an operational benefit for this concept. I'm not aware that the time spent ventilating tunnels is a major bottleneck for the RR industry, but I admit that I'm not part of that industry myself. I'd suggest that increased use of biodiesel would greatly reduce the sulfur load of diesel exhaust, somewhat simplifying vent requirements perhaps while requiring no significant capital expenses or operating changes.

"Zero emissions" is a noble goal, but you need to consider the total life-cycle emissions of a technology, from manufacturing to ultimate disposal. Don't forget to include the energy used in the separation and enrichment of nuclear fuel, and the creation and fabrication of exotic alloys and structures. Even the jet fuel burned by attorneys and experts en route to the inevitable court challenges must be counted on the loco nuke accounts. Remember the old days when steam boiler explosions were a common occurance, and one of the public's chief nightmares regarding an emerging technology? At least they didn't cause fallout when they blew...

Some folks really have bonded with the dream of nuclear energy. That's proven by the way some people here are struggling to apply it to the railroads. Dream on, it's harmless fun-- but please remember just what a hidebound, tradition-led industry this is. Todays' railroads are an extremely efficient user of a readily available fuel, and with biodisel, it can become a cleaner and more renewable fuel. That's enough progress for me.

[Overmod]

Hate to say it, but sulfur-dioxide emissions are a trivial part of why tunnels need rapid ventilation. Moreover, I doubt that too many of the engine-design improvements that low-sulfur fuel would make possible (improving the quality of the emissions far beyond just eliminating SOx) would help matters much.

There is a problem with both heat and combustion byproducts that's related to the sheer mass flow of exhaust from the engines (and complicated by the heat dumped by the radiator systems). Even if you sealed up and insulated the cabs and used bottled oxygen or compressed air from the brake system to help with the HVAC, you'd still have severe loss of power to following trains if the hot vitiated air isn't purged.

Keep in mind also that current biodiesel is not suitable for use in most existing diesel engines 'straight' -- and requires admixture of additives which must be refined or synthesized (at present) from non-biological sources. I think we can expect a significant pu***oward mass production of low-sulfur diesel by 2007, although I expect much of that production to go toward road-vehicle consumption in 'targeted' air-quality areas (or where politicians are active in requiring it).

BTW, one of the interesting things about the betavoltaic under consideration is that it doesn't require particularly special alloys, and the fabrication methods are either common to current fab technology or would have alternative uses that would almost certainly bring down the amortized cost per unit. I would note, with a touch of wistfulness, that in a world of constant nuclear alert we HAD a production methodology for tritium, and at least a plausible excuse for the (very, very substantial) capitalization, operation, and security costs needed to make and "distribute" it. With Savannah River shut down, I don't really know where we'd get it in "appropriate" quantities... or what excuse we might need to make.

Accidents involving betavoltaics wouldn't cause 'fallout' in the normal sense, as they can't possibly involve nuclear explosions of any sort. Unfortunately, what you can get is a small fire involving the tritium (which is chemically hydrogen) with the result being tritiated water... which then behaves like any other water; one would like to think that this would swiftly be diluted to meaningfully-insignificant levels in the environment, but YMMV...

[Anonymous]

domefoamer,

If you read the latest TRAINS regarding MRL's operations with the SD45's acting as helpers through Mullan Tunnel, you'll get a good description of why tunnels need to be adaquately ventilated before another train can pass through. The crew of the helper engines dons oxygen masks before entering the tunnel, and the article gives a graphic account of how the engines begin to get starved for oxygen while operating through the tunnel. It doesn't matter if it's diesel or biodiesel, the product of combustion is heavy on CO, CO2, and other emissions which reduce oxygen availability for a time through tunnels. And combustion engines can't run without adaquate oxygen.

Also, the time lost ventilating BNSF's Cascade Tunnel is the primary reason that line is only rated for 20 to 30 trains a day, necessetating the current talks invloving expanding capacity over the old Stampede Pass route. If somehow emisisons could be significantly reduced or eliminated through Cascade Tunnel, BNSF could theoretically abandon the Stampede Pass line.

Overmod's idea for using these nuclear batteries in conjunction with rechargable batteries aka a nuclear Green Goat, is probably the best use of this new energy source. That way you still get the benefits of recharging batteries via dynamic braking.

But since this energy source is still years off, I believe the best combintation of energy technologies for locomotion is using a small coal fired steam turbine in conjunction with a rechargable battery array, aka the Gray Goat. This is a tech combo that can be instituted right away, and takes advantage of coal's perpetual low cost and domestic plentitude while utitlizing the efficiencies of hybrid propulsion. You could also use this technology while running through tunnels, with the fire temporarily snuffed while in the tunnel and the batteries supplying the electricity until daylight is hit and the fire can be restarted. Modern technolgy will allow relatively short duration (20 minutes or so) restart of coal fires and subsequent steam production, not the 10 hours it used to take to fire up the old steam locomotives.