Lets see - Dept. of Energy, FRA, Penn State, top, I mean high priced talent. Too bad they didn't think to get a battery manufacturer involved. I wonder what Penn State learned.
While a battery can store energy, one must ask in any given application whether the cost of the battery is worth the particular advantage of being able to store energy. In making this determination, the useful operating life of the battery must be known and accounted for.
One must also consider the falloff in battery performance as it nears the end of its useful life. Some batteries might be rated such that the falloff begins half way through their stated operating life. The natural limitation of batteries causes them to always be hard pressed to achieve a credible performance in the first place, so any aging falloff can be immediately problematic for performance.
Battery performance falls off in cold weather. And there is no way to create heat to warm the batteries other than using battery energy to create the heat. Recently it has been discovered that the Chevy Volt’s 40-mile range falls down into the 20-30 mile range in northern winters. And even achieving that range, drivers are told they must “manage” the use of their cabin heaters.
Another problem is that batteries are heavy. They are already hard pressed to perform, and yet their own weight adds significantly to the work that needs to be done in order to haul them around. A significant portion of the energy is lost just in the effort to haul the batteries around.
What is it that NS is trying to accomplish with a battery-electric locomotive?
It was a proof of concept locomotive. It tried to see if 1) you could create a plug-in battery powered locomotive. 2) Could you successfully charge and discharge a large array of batteries in locomotive service.3) How effective could regenerative braking be in such a locomotive.
I think the answers so far are 1) yes - it exists 2) No - not yet at least and 3) not known, I think - until #2 gets resolved.
"Heavy" is just fine for locomotives. Six axle locomotives are constructed such that they have an extra 30-40 tons of steel in them to get them up to "fighting weight". Take that out plus diesel engine, generator and engine support systems and you have quite a bit of weight to spare for batteries. The tough part is finding enough space to put them.
The applications for a successful a battery powered locomotive would include: yard switcher in urban areas where diesel smoke is an environmental, social or political issue, helper locomotive and "super slug", just to name a few.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There was a press release on June 9, 2010 by Axion Power International Inc. was going to help NS with controlling the battery charge / discharge problem. Not a peep since. Rep. Schuster from Pennsylvania got $1.3M of your tax money to pay for this by the way. I wonder how much NS has in this except the loco chassis and traction motors all of which can be salvaged for future projects.
oltmannd "Heavy" is just fine for locomotives. Six axle locomotives are constructed such that they have an extra 30-40 tons of steel in them to get them up to "fighting weight". Take that out plus diesel engine, generator and engine support systems and you have quite a bit of weight to spare for batteries. The tough part is finding enough space to put them. The applications for a successful a battery powered locomotive would include: yard switcher in urban areas where diesel smoke is an environmental, social or political issue, helper locomotive and "super slug", just to name a few.
I do agree that battery weight is not an issue with locomotives as it is with the Volt. I can also see validity in the non-smoke-making objective if that is sought for some particular purpose. Although I believe that objective can be met with diesels as well, and will probably be mandated anyway.
A helper application might fit the limited range of a battery locomotive, but I don’t see the point. I would bet that the life cost of a battery locomotive will be higher than that of a diesel, so how do you justify a battery locomotive even if it is practical for short helper assignments?
No, I don’t think there is any practical motive behind the 999 other than NS jumping on the fashion bandwagon and crowing about how green they are. And for that, apparently NS thinks it is worth spending other people’s money, even if the locomotive is not practical for pulling trains.
If anything, they did prove that you can paint a GP38 to make it look like a BL2.
Bucyrus ...No, I don’t think there is any practical motive behind the 999 other than NS jumping on the fashion bandwagon and crowing about how green they are. And for that, apparently NS thinks it is worth spending other people’s money, even if the locomotive is not practical for pulling trains. If anything, they did prove that you can paint a GP38 to make it look like a BL2.
Do not know, the objectives of the 999 project and what aims they follow, but they certainly not intent just going green. It looks more, their "success" is do discover "best practices", in "cases" batteries may become an option and to be prepared about that. This certainly contains many "ifs" and "can/may be".
Though, this is a Railroad Forum, have a look to another car than the Chevrolet Volt: The MercedesSLS AMG E-Cell.Yeah, that is my dream car! Excuse me for shouting it out so loud here, but honestly, the Chevy looks like an old Steam loco compared to the TGV in this case.It is certainly a tech-study and basically shows, what could be possible:Engines: - 4 in wheels - max rpm 12000 - comb. output of the four engines: 392kw - torque : 880kn / 649 lb-ft - accel.: 0~60 mph 4sec / mass:: 2tons empty - 1 gear Battery-Compartment:: - 324 Lithium-Ion-Polymer cells - capacity: 48 kWh / 40 Ah @ 400V / max. output 480 kW - regenerative brakes - charged 85% after 8h @ 230V / high Volt ( 400V ) chargeableScale this up to locomotive size, and you get a nice booster.Big problem still remains, though, short battery-life of ~3 years.
Seeking to hear some good news about 2) + 3) in future.Cheers-lars
edit:
some updates here: AMG claims to achieve a capacity of 68 kW and the actual one ( 48 kW ) weights just 183lb. A proposed 0.82kWh per kg.
I'll have to find the link, but somewhere I read that they tested the batteries to see if they could successfully charge and discharge the large array, before they built the locomotive and installed the batteries.
Bucyrus oltmannd: "Heavy" is just fine for locomotives. Six axle locomotives are constructed such that they have an extra 30-40 tons of steel in them to get them up to "fighting weight". Take that out plus diesel engine, generator and engine support systems and you have quite a bit of weight to spare for batteries. The tough part is finding enough space to put them. The applications for a successful a battery powered locomotive would include: yard switcher in urban areas where diesel smoke is an environmental, social or political issue, helper locomotive and "super slug", just to name a few. I do agree that battery weight is not an issue with locomotives as it is with the Volt. I can also see validity in the non-smoke-making objective if that is sought for some particular purpose. Although I believe that objective can be met with diesels as well, and will probably be mandated anyway. A helper application might fit the limited range of a battery locomotive, but I don’t see the point. I would bet that the life cost of a battery locomotive will be higher than that of a diesel, so how do you justify a battery locomotive even if it is practical for short helper assignments? No, I don’t think there is any practical motive behind the 999 other than NS jumping on the fashion bandwagon and crowing about how green they are. And for that, apparently NS thinks it is worth spending other people’s money, even if the locomotive is not practical for pulling trains. If anything, they did prove that you can paint a GP38 to make it look like a BL2.
oltmannd: "Heavy" is just fine for locomotives. Six axle locomotives are constructed such that they have an extra 30-40 tons of steel in them to get them up to "fighting weight". Take that out plus diesel engine, generator and engine support systems and you have quite a bit of weight to spare for batteries. The tough part is finding enough space to put them. The applications for a successful a battery powered locomotive would include: yard switcher in urban areas where diesel smoke is an environmental, social or political issue, helper locomotive and "super slug", just to name a few.
Lars Loco Bucyrus: ...No, I don’t think there is any practical motive behind the 999 other than NS jumping on the fashion bandwagon and crowing about how green they are. And for that, apparently NS thinks it is worth spending other people’s money, even if the locomotive is not practical for pulling trains. If anything, they did prove that you can paint a GP38 to make it look like a BL2. Do not know, the objectives of the 999 project and what aims they follow, but they certainly not intent just going green. It looks more, their "success" is do discover "best practices", in "cases" batteries may become an option and to be prepared about that. This certainly contains many "ifs" and "can/may be".
Bucyrus: ...No, I don’t think there is any practical motive behind the 999 other than NS jumping on the fashion bandwagon and crowing about how green they are. And for that, apparently NS thinks it is worth spending other people’s money, even if the locomotive is not practical for pulling trains. If anything, they did prove that you can paint a GP38 to make it look like a BL2.
NS has stated that the purpose of the 999 is to be “green” and to “reduce the carbon footprint.” I have seen no other reasons stated. Specifically, the intent is to reduce CO2 emissions for the purpose of stopping climate change. It is the same message as in their commercials about the bird in the tree five hundred miles away and the doggies with their fat tongues hanging out the window riding with the wind, yadi, yadi, yada.
Bucyrus Lars Loco: Bucyrus: ...No, I don’t think there is any practical motive behind the 999 other than NS jumping on the fashion bandwagon and crowing about how green they are. And for that, apparently NS thinks it is worth spending other people’s money, even if the locomotive is not practical for pulling trains. If anything, they did prove that you can paint a GP38 to make it look like a BL2. Do not know, the objectives of the 999 project and what aims they follow, but they certainly not intent just going green. It looks more, their "success" is do discover "best practices", in "cases" batteries may become an option and to be prepared about that. This certainly contains many "ifs" and "can/may be". NS has stated that the purpose of the 999 is to be “green” and to “reduce the carbon footprint.” I have seen no other reasons stated. Specifically, the intent is to reduce CO2 emissions for the purpose of stopping climate change. It is the same message as in their commercials about the bird in the tree five hundred miles away and the doggies with their fat tongues hanging out the window riding with the wind, yadi, yadi, yada.
Lars Loco: Bucyrus: ...No, I don’t think there is any practical motive behind the 999 other than NS jumping on the fashion bandwagon and crowing about how green they are. And for that, apparently NS thinks it is worth spending other people’s money, even if the locomotive is not practical for pulling trains. If anything, they did prove that you can paint a GP38 to make it look like a BL2. Do not know, the objectives of the 999 project and what aims they follow, but they certainly not intent just going green. It looks more, their "success" is do discover "best practices", in "cases" batteries may become an option and to be prepared about that. This certainly contains many "ifs" and "can/may be".
Yep. they should buy a fleet of ACE3000s and be done with it.
Ironically, if the unit is based in Altoona it'll be "coal fired" anyway as that is how NS's Juniata power plant is fueled...
I tend to agree that the 999 is somewhat of a publicity stunt but I don't feel the same way about the GE hybrid EVolution series project...the latter will hopefully be a fully functioning diesel electric that has the potential to save a lot of fuel during times of high diesel oil prices...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Lars Loco 2) No - not yet at least and 3) not known, I think - until #2 gets resolved. Seeking to hear some good news about 2) + 3) in future.Cheers-lars
2) No - not yet at least and 3)
#3 might work with 2 units. could DH up horseshoe behind or in front of helper and use regeneration coming back to Altoona to charge batteries? Gets back to charge rate capability of batterys. Maybe deep cycle battery better?o
to Bucyrus and Carnej1,
thanks for the news, anyway, good wishes for the 999 and going to produce at least some uselful results.
NS going green, man, this I have to swallow first. Crow-black belongs all time to NS.
Understanding, battery technology is a two-sided sword, it contains some interesting potential, yet happy to see, there is some enthusiasm about it.
Remember that the first diesels, indeed , were yard switchers, 'cause they do not scope up power as steam locos. Maybe is just the beginning for another circle, who knows.
Not going into a CO-debatte, will all know, fossil-energies are limited, whenever they end.
A clever step to prevent revolutions, is to act evolutionary.
A better distribution of power may help to strech the resources and battery-technology is one of them. Spoken with my POV, very ( blindfolded? ), but am sure about that.
--What do you think?
Cheers
-lars
blue streak 1 Lars Loco: 2) No - not yet at least and 3) not known, I think - until #2 gets resolved. Seeking to hear some good news about 2) + 3) in future.Cheers-lars #3 might work with 2 units. could DH up horseshoe behind or in front of helper and use regeneration coming back to Altoona to charge batteries? Gets back to charge rate capability of batterys. Maybe deep cycle battery better?o
Lars Loco: 2) No - not yet at least and 3) not known, I think - until #2 gets resolved. Seeking to hear some good news about 2) + 3) in future.Cheers-lars
This sounds worthy idea for helper tricks. Imagine an SD-40 without D-engine but instead a full battery-compartment. How many tons, does a typical Diesel-engine weights?
A 16 cylinder 645 turbo-diesel prime mover weighs 36,425 pounds, plus the generator. If that copuld be replaced with lithium-ion batteries, then the engine in the SD-40 could run at a very limited range where it is most effeceint to keep the batteries recharged when the dynamics didnt have the necessary engergy to charge them.
This is my first thread on this forum and Im very impressed with both the knowledge and civility compared to other forums.
In addition to the 36,000 lb's of bare prime mover, add 10,000 lb (WAG on my part) for the alternator, maybe another 10,000 lb for the cooling system (WAG) and say 30,000 lb for the fuel (assuming 4,000 gal tank). Total comes to 86,000 lb - round it up to 88,000 lb to get 40,000 kg. We want the maximum range, so pick Li-S batteries at 450 Whr/kg and 40,000 kg will give us 18 MWhr of energy. The 3,000 hp on the SD-40 translates to roughly 2.25 MW, so the batteries would be good for about 8 hours of run 8 equivalent. That's probably not enough for EB on Donner Summit, but good for most of the major grades requiring helpers.
Note that technical feasibility is not the same as economic feasibility.
- Erik
erikem Note that technical feasibility is not the same as economic feasibility. - Erik
Acknowledged.
Those li-ion 18650 batteries ( 3,7V, 2400mAh ) in the tesla have an output of ~8,88Wh, each one costs ~6$.
About 2 million of them have a potential output of 18MWh. But Tesla's battery-compartment with 6831cells weights already 450kg, a full car load of 150tons.
Otherwise: IF you cut the total output down to 9MWh, 4h running time AND use the 3600mAh cells ( 25$ per unit ), 750000 units may be capable enough and weight just 50tons.
Yet, so far, such a battery compartment would cost 10 - 20Million $ alone.
Still, far away of being economic.
Lars,
Note that I wrote "Li-S" and not "Li-ion". The former has about twice the specific energy of Li-ion and undoubtedly is even more expensive than Li-ion. Apparently there is still a lot of room to grow with the Li-S technology, so by the end of the decade it might be possible to have a battery loco capable of hauling a train EB over Donner Pass. I'm not as sure about the cost of batteries coming down to where they would be economically feasible.
Speaking of economics, the low price of natural gas is making electrification a bit more feasible (it still may have a long ways to go). With the latest combined cycle plants having heat rates around 5700 BTU/kWhr, and with gas running around $4 per million BTU, the resulting fuel cost per kWhr would be less than 2.5 cents. With diesel fuel running about $2.70/gal on the futures market and assuming an s.f.c. of 0.3 pounds per hp-hr, the fuel cost would come out to be 14 cents per kWhr. I may be a bit off on the natural gas prices, but even a factor of two underestimation would still be substantially cheaper than diesel.
Erik,
yes you are right, I read over the little "-S", but was so impressed about the following number: its output of 450Whr/kg, that is a powerful one.
"so by the end of the decade it might be possible to have a battery loco capable of hauling a train EB over Donner Pass"
and for a battery loco, this would have an been an very ambitious goal to accomplish.
"the low price of natural gas is making electrification a bit more feasible"
pretty sure too, not just electrification but gas will substitute diesel first ways. Yet, it can be still combined with batteries.
Managing large array battery charging and discharging is not new technology, the Navy mastered it over 60 years ago for submarines.
Replacing battery containers on a locomotive is also not new technology. Mancha accomplished this on a small scale years ago for underground mine locomotives.
The main problem is the huge amount of energy needed by a locomotive hauling a heavy train up even a moderate grade. Batteries just don't have the energy density needed to give a practical range, even at the extreme weight capacity of a locomotive.
I wonder then exactly what the result was when they tested #999. There were sure high hopes in the beginning. With nothing being said about the trial, I must assume it did not go well. Somebody mentioned problems with charging and discharging the batteries, but I have not found any reference to that on the web.
It is hard to believe that there would have been surprises in performance with all the talent involved in the design concept, especially considering how long the basic concept has been around.
Bucyrus I wonder then exactly what the result was when they tested #999. There were sure high hopes in the beginning. With nothing being said about the trial, I must assume it did not go well. Somebody mentioned problems with charging and discharging the batteries, but I have not found any reference to that on the web. It is hard to believe that there would have been surprises in performance with all the talent involved in the design concept, especially considering how long the basic concept has been around.
Check interviews with Wick Moorman. He stated that uniform charge/discharge rates were an issue.
You are over estimating the level of talent that went into the design. This is Juniata we're talking about, not Erie or LaGrange.
We discussed this before: it involves the Dept. of Energy, FRA, and Penn State. No mention of NS engineering. I think it looks like a senior year class project.
I don't know the details, but my impression was that 999 was a collaboration effort that involved more than just the railroad shop forces. Is the project dead or what? Was it deemed a failure or are they continuing to work on it?
IIRC, Penn State/The Fed's/NS all had their fingers in this. I suspect NS's contribution was the engine 'hulk'. And I think 999 was really just aa 'proof of concept' at the beginning. I suspected not everyone involved had their feet planted in reality - A TV interview with a Penn State person talked about using the batteries to push up Horseshoe Curve, and the regenerative braking would have it all recharged by the time it got back down the hill. A 'red light' went off in my head - This is not prepetual motion - there is no way you push uphill for 10 miles, and get it fully recharged on the trip back down the hill! There are energy losses(as my physics instructor at the U of M explained back in 1968).
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
The 999 has been sitting at the Altoona shops for several month's now, waiting for new batteries !?!
creepycrank The 999 has been sitting at the Altoona shops for several month's now, waiting for new batteries !?!
It doesn't sound like the batteries lasted very long.
Link to article in Science Daily about this, specifically:
Penn State (2013, January 4). Researchers seek longer battery life for electric locomotive. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143654.htm
Introductory/ summary paragraph:
"Jan. 4, 2013 — Norfolk Southern Railway No. 999 is the first all-electric, battery-powered locomotive in the United States. But when one of the thousand lead-acid batteries that power it dies, the locomotive shuts down. To combat this problem, a team of Penn State researchers is developing more cost-effective ways to prolong battery life."
- Paul North.
Where's GE with their molten salt battery. After all they built a factory in NY state with other peoples money for use in their hybrid locomotive that nobody ordered. I think that NS charged the batteries from their Altoona plants coal fired steam plant.
Good question.
Last I heard from an acquaintance at GE's research center, the plant was supposed to be shipping batteries by now. Keep in mind that there are other applications besides locomotives, utility level back-up power comes to mind.
Something that's rarely brought up when discussing the hybrid locomotives is operating in long tunnels, clearing bores such as Cascade or Moffat would be faster if the prime movers could run at half power and the other half coming from batteries. How much would it be worth the the RR's if the capacity of those bores could be significantly increased?
Paul_D_North_Jr Link to article in Science Daily about this, specifically: Penn State (2013, January 4). Researchers seek longer battery life for electric locomotive. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143654.htm Introductory/ summary paragraph: "Jan. 4, 2013 — Norfolk Southern Railway No. 999 is the first all-electric, battery-powered locomotive in the United States. But when one of the thousand lead-acid batteries that power it dies, the locomotive shuts down. To combat this problem, a team of Penn State researchers is developing more cost-effective ways to prolong battery life." - Paul North.
The article linked by Paul North, and the comments by Jim Bernier pretty succinctly nail down the problems with the Battery Powered NS 999 . It would seem that an explanation might be attributed to the fact that there were "too many cooks in the kitchen." With all the politics and different agendas, the deal was a gonner from the git go. I would guess that with the NS Altoona Shop guys building it, it would have come off better. But that Green and Black Paint job made #999 look pretty sexy; But then so was the Edsel!
COME ON, Folks this whole deal sounded like an episode of the "Rocket City Rednecks".
Maybe they should have gotten Auto Shack, and Interstate Batteries involved ???
jim Bernier SAID IN HIS POST:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.