Visit brilliant.org/EngineeringwithRosie/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
8:20 "the world's most efficient battery-electric locomotive" Strictly, it's that part of the SYSTEM which is so efficient, not the locomotive. I note that Australia gets lots of sunlight, which is jolly useful. I also wonder about the electrical power needed for mining operations.
@@richardcowley4087 A HEAVY object going down releases energy. This can be used to generate electricity. Then a miracle occurs: *YOU UNLOAD THE TRUCKS* !!! Then you need *MUCH LESS ENERGY* to push the *LIGHTER* trucks back uphill, where they came from. Doh!
@@richardcowley4087 LARGE mass dropping distance X yields energy E2 *THEN* when we come back up, with an EMPTY train, it is: SMALL mass being raised (same distance X) requires a SMALLER energy E1. E2 is *GREATER* than E1. Going downhill with *HEAVY* train yields *MORE ENERGY* and only some of that is needed to push the *EMPTY, LIGHTER* train back up the hill.
The iron ore train running from Kiruna to Luleå in Northern Sweden has been recovering energy on its downward slope (500m vertical over 350km) for a long time. The ore company calls it the green train, each one is 6000t heavier going downhill than going up.
I used to go to Luleå a couple of times a year for work (I was working on one of the windfarms nearby), but I never heard of that train! I am hoping to do a trip to northern Sweden next year as they have a lot of interesting energy transition projects (e.g. Hybrit green steel, Northvolt batteries etc) so perhaps I can check it out while I'm there.
There are two other large-scale electrification of industry projects under way in that area, if you get there: the H2 Green Steel project (competitor to Hybrit, already ordered 800MW of electrolysers, and signed a power purchase agreement for 14TWh - this project is from the same group behind Northvolt) and the Fertiberia project for 300MW green ammonia production.
All electric trains in Sweden use regen for breaking and as the whole country is one power grid for all trains there is no need for batteries, there is always another train that needs the power. The more modern electric locomotives features a ”trip computer” that monitors and gives statistics for each route, and also helps the driver predict the driving to minimize energy consumption.
Same but not. I installed a 60" troughing conveyor on a salt mine about 10 years ago. It consumed no power. It actually made about 20 horsepower, because the material was going downhill and the electric motor just regenerated 100% of the time, primarily to slow the material down. But in that particular case the motor was never used to contribute mechanical work to the system. I dunno. I thought it was neat.
The Milwaukee Road railway through the Cascade Mountains of Washington state in the U.S. was electrified in 1917. It used regenerative power from descending electric locomotives to help power ascending trains, but they did not have large batteries to store power if no ascending train was scheduled concurrent with a descending train. Cool idea though!
The Pilbura area of Western Australia has no power grid othe than small local grids for the few cities,towns really there. So the mining companies which are hundreds of kilometers apart have to use their own systems with storage batteries on trains.
Welsh slate mines used a water balance to send trucks of slate down steep, straight inclines. A steel cable connected the descending truck to the ascending tank of water via several turns around a massive wooden drum which had a simple band and lever brake. I think the water could be allowed to leak out of the tank and replenished when necessary. Similar in concept on a much smaller scale. Water trucks could also be used to raise slate trucks out of deeper pits if there was a water supply (which in Wales there usually is).
The infinity train might be more generally applicable as I guess most mines will be shipping their ores to the sea, which will normally be downhill. But the eDumper I think will not be that successful since most of those are used for transporting the ore out of the mine to the surface so that's uphill.
Battery electric dumpers will require some charging, but will still be far more efficient than diesel-powered dumpers, with very low emissions and much lower maintenance costs. The Pilbara miners are aiming to be fully electrified diesel-free operations by mid-2030s or sooner.
Interesting idea that seems very well suited to the specific application. I saw the Tom Scott video about the ore system and was impressed with what a clever idea it was.
The fact that the truck isn’t 100% recharged via gravity just makes it _more_ exciting in a way, because it highlights how it doesn’t need to be 100% to be worth doing. A bit like how the Australian grid can get to _almost_ 100% renewable energy with just 5 hours of storage, is a likely far more achievable and cheaper short term goal than 100%.
Precisely, modern gas boilers etc are 96% efficient, that is great but if the effort to get 50-70% efficiency or recovery doesn't cost any extra or is minimal then this is how we will solve the issue quicker..... Here's a little insight for you..... dynamos were invented back in the day that ran on the water flow from your kitchen tap..... we also had electric cars over 100 years ago.....
also with the biggest energy drain on AC and refrigeration we can cut lots on energy by getting better at insulating and instead of go full 24h cooling we go full cooling/ heating at peak renewable production and regulate the cool distribution later at lower energy cost.
Plus, even though it requires charging, we can charge the truck from renewable sources attached to a diversified grid. Still a win for some circumstances (but wouldn’t want to have to recharge every second run for example)
The truck doesn't need to be 100% charged to every time. Also, it's okay that you only get 80% of the energy out because you're also doubling the weight on the way down. It only uses half the energy to get back up so you still have left over and you still don't have to charge.
@@stephenvelden295 That is true for getting the ore out of the ground and to processing. But most processed ore is sent via ships to steel smelting facilities. Getting it from the processing to the harbor is usually downhill.
I agree. Maybe her reference to rotational change refers to reversing direction of train. Going down hill motor is in “forward” and return trip it is in “reverse” because there is no U-turn at bottom of bill.
`I disaggree, unless the locomotive disconnects and turns around, then indeed the motors powering the axles will be running in opposite directions each way.
Either way the rotation of an ac motor doesn’t matter …..The inverter/chargers take care of the charging polarity … the cargo is the downhill fuel energy. Good to see Mr Forest leading the way in W.A. …. Great Guy …
I totaly enjoy your videos, so I feel it's appropriate to exspress my appreciation before correcting a statement. "It's free energy!" as in free beer, not free as in violating the laws of thermodynamics. If the cost to get the free energy is a fixed cost, eg the train and batteries, then the energy, a variable, is free once the fixed cost is recovered. I know. I've invented a free energy device that doubles the efficiency of electricity. It doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics rather the device uses it appropriately to slow down entropy and convert it into information that can then be sent over the internet and converted back into energy anywhere in the world. (cut and paste commentator's name into Google patents to see how it works.) 😉 PS. the batteries don't need to be on the train.
Where do you propose to locate the batteries if they're not on the train? Trackside with conventional electrification? Massively expensive and less efficient. The big miners know what they're doing, and it doesn't involve stringing thousands of kilometres of overhead wiring at a cost of many billions. It that was the solution they would have done it well before now.
The principle in this video has been used a long time already on a iron ore train from "Kiruna, Sweden" to "Narvik, Norway) on "Ofotbanen". On the way from the highest point at 531 meter down to sea level in Narvik it generate up to 4000 KW will breaking. The total generated power is more then it need on the return trip. The difference is that the since the train is net connected all the way it just return the power to the electricity net. Since the electricity on that net is generated using hydro or wind it is pretty green at the start, but it is a major cost saving. (A easy way to see how electromagnetic breaking work is to find a small electric motor and wrap some string around the axle with some weight at the end. If you drop the weight it will basically free fall to the ground. but if you place a led between the plus and minus on the motor the led will light and the drop speed will slow down to a small fraction of free fall).
@@alisavas9526 Not having to push the batteries up the hill every time should make it more efficient, but then you also need the power line along the track and a large enough net or a large battery bank at the mine. I think it comes down to cost and what gives the best PR for the company.
On Fraser Island (Qld), a gravity train brought the logs from the interior to the coast in the early 20th Century, a distance of about ten miles. A team of horses rode in a wagon for the down trip, and hauled the empty train back to the forest. So it was powered by renewable energy before that was even a thing.
Nice technology. If they split the train into two. Two locos. Same number of wagons. Two tracks. They don't need storage. The full train going down can power the empty train going up empty, through a power line specifically linking the two trains. Just a bit of synchronising schedule required..
The power line will cost a lot more than the batteries - about A$1.5M per track kilometre - this is why the mining railways have never gone with conventional railway electrification
If use traditional wired electrification was economically viable the Pilbara miners would have done it decades ago, and they haven't. Battery electrification allows them to transition at low upfront costs and no big fixed overheads that require maintenance.
Yes it's iron ore. Not sure how I would feel about the train project if it was to carry coal. Negatively probably, not worth the effort to slightly decarbonise an industry that's just got to go. But iron ore we're going to need for a lot of stuff that will power the energy transition, so I'm on board 🚂
@@Nerd3927 sure it is very easy to say that. But I have spent my whole career developing technologies to replace coal. So I am certainly not just talking about replacing coal, I'm helping develop solutions to replace it without sending anyone into energy poverty.
The batteries required are huge and heavy, however they may be placed in one or more storage stations near the railway line, and be connected to the train with overhead lines like for standard electric trains.
Why not mount the batteries along the rail way, have the charged by the decending train, then have the empty powered back up via powered rail. Make the batteries as big as you want to no weight issue. A DAY put solar cells on the batteries as extra power since they sitting in the sun allready!!
They're not too huge or heavy. The Progress Rail BE14.5BB battery-electric locomotives already have 14.5MWh capacity batteries, and this will increase progressively over coming decades as battery tech continues to improve. The whole point of battery-electric traction is to avoid complex and expensive overhead wiring systems. These big battery-electric ore trains operating on downhill routes will not need any external charging.
One reason is you want a lot of weight in the locomotive to help with gaining traction for applying power or braking. Normally that weight comes from the diesel engine and generator, which aren't required for this locomotive.
Battery electric locomotives won't be any heavier than the diesel-electric locomotives they will progressively replace. You are correct in one sense though - the performance of existing overhead electrified railways will be improved by the use of batteries at traction substations and even on electric locomotives. The regen performance of conventional electrified railways is highly dependent on the 'receptivity' of the railway's electricity traction network and the public grid, and can range between almost zero and 100% depending on traffic and grid conditions. Storage batteries will significantly improve this.
2 года назад
I could imagine the 'cat attached to toast' type of machine to work, but you'd probably go through a lot of cats and toast, which breaks both, cat and toast conservation, so it wouldn't be perpetual after all.
Ha! I don't know when this idea was first floated (pun intended), but I remember seeing Captain Hotknives perform Anti Gravity Cats close to 15 years ago. Funny guy.
It's not perpetual motion. The downhill train weight is ~ 40,000 tonnes, the uphill train weight is only ~ 5000 tonnes. Rio reckon that their 40,000 tonne trains use about 5000 litres of diesel for the 800km round trip, which is effectively ~ 15-20MWh when diesel-electric efficiencies are taken into account. On the downhill trip there's ~ 30-40MWh of potential energy available for regeneration, so it shouldn't be too difficult to capture 15-20MWh.
Funicular railways can be 'self-powering' too if they use a descending car with a full water tank to pull the ascending one upwards. At the bottom, the tank is emptied and the one that is next to descend has the tank lilled. The one at Lynton/lynmouth works on the principle IIRC. It just needs a water supply.
If it turns out to be borderline efficient enough, they could add PV panels. While it would not be practical on top of the train, except for a few on the locomotives and battery wagons, at either endpoint could also work, with the added complexity/cost of the charging infrastructure. But it seems plausible that it could work without, assuming that track curves does not call for harder braking than the regenerative system is capable of.
How much horse power or KW does it take to move just one empty car up a grade? Now do the back of the envelope calculation based on the 1kW per sq meter of available solar photons time its optimistic 20% conversion efficiency and let us know if this still sounds like a good idea.
@@craigs5212 It would *obviously* be a horrible idea if it was meant as a main power source, that's why I specifically wrote about a borderline case of regenerative braking needing just a little bit extra. I'm very well aware of the general impracticality of vehicular rooftop solar for providing much power.
@@JohnnieHougaardNielsen Mixed thoughts here. One other thing in favour of your suggestion is that the panels will be charging the batteries 24/7. That means that the fewer round trips a train makes in a week the bigger proportion of the energy can come from solar. Against that, it would save weight on the train if the same solar panels were installed at the one end of the track, charging a train directly when it's there and charging an intermediate ground based battery when no train is present. That battery could supply or supplement local power needs at the mine, or just be saved to top up the trains. That would entail having space for the panels at the top of the hill. Having the panels at the downhill end would mean that the system knows how much more energy the batteries need before they are full, but means that the solar power would not be available at the mine. I am guessing as Rosie said there's no grid supply that the mine runs on diesel generators, and if so that's where the panels will save most money and reduce emissions by the most. I am also guessing that as the train goes to a dock at the downhill end that there is likely to be power there already. Saving weight on the train is important for two reasons. First every kg of solar panel and related electronics is a kg of ore not carried to the ship. Secondly each of those kg has to climb the hill again, reducing the effectiveness of your idea. On balance I'm guessing that it would turn out better to put the panels at the top of the hill but I'm sure their engineers considered every option, or will do in the next few years in the light of experience running the thing.
It was refreshing to see these formulas again after studying them 50 years ago in engineering school. My greatest enjoyment of driving EVs for 5 years is regenerative braking. Not only is one pedal driving more relaxing, but the concept of generating energy for the battery instead of wasting it as kinetic energy feels efficient and saving money. I no longer have to clean that nasty brake dust on ice vehicle alloy wheels.
My friend's electric car needs the actual brakes do little that they go rusty between MOTs (that's an annual compulsory safety inspection) and he has to replace the discs not sure to wear but due to non-wear. Apparently regular cars really on the polishing effect of the braking to keep the rust from building up. I'm not sure what they do on a car that is electric from new: friend's car is a home conversion job using the original design brake discs
@@trueriver1950 For me, 95% of the time regen braking brings my Tesla to a full stop. So about 5% of the time I maybe removing rust. Tesla now offers automatic braking when the battery can't accept any more regen charge. I turn that function off and coast.
@@trueriver1950 Yes, don't go to inspection with rusty brakes. His mechanic is scamming him if he claims he needs new discs because of it. What I do before inspection is go to check all wheels on my EV. Discs in front I run over with a flapper disc or cup wheel in an angle grinder to remove any burnt in dirt or rust and likewise on the edge of the disc which also gets checked for any edge groove, (another fail at inspection) which too needs to be ground down if present. Then unhinge the caliper and check state of rubber parts and free movement and then finally wash pads and disc down with brake cleaner to remove road grime. Rear drum brakes the same, but you don't need to grind them: Check movement of pistons, health of rubber and movement of the parking brake mechanism and you are all done. Can be done in your driveway for free without resorting to a lift in a DIY shop if the weather is nice. My brake discs, still with no signs of any wear from braking, are 20 years old and my brake pads with 3/4 material left are 10 years old.
@@Tore_Lund thanks for that: I am sure you are right about your suggestion working, as clearly it has worked for you over a number of years. I also don't think the mechanic is scamming him though: if paying for that work at mechanic rates it's likely cheaper to buy new discs than to grind the old ones -- sad but all too common in these throw away days. My friend is an electrical engineer and was totally happy designing a battery system for his eV, but maybe not so keen on the sort of work you are talking about. He also doesn't have a drive or any other off-road place to keep his car. It takes all sorts to make a world.
Maybe this was already mentioned, but would it really be necessary for the train to have on-board batteries? Why not an electrified cable or third rail. Certainly the transmission losses from a compact system would still be better than the losses and or extra engineering for carrying the extra 690 tonnes? Plus having a stationary battery bank would allow for less energy dense and perhaps less expensive battery solutions. It could certainly allow for solutions that didn't require lithium and cobalt.
While this SEEMS an informative video - it really doesn't get into giving the viewer something to chew on as we head to global boiling. Why not talk about running trains in tandem - one going down and one going up? No (horrible batteries needed if a loaded rain going down generates power for an empty train traveling up at the same time. Also, as pointed out elsewhere, why have the train carry the batteries when they could just as easily (and even more easily?) kept in one spot. I get this video is a quick gulp - only 13 minutes - so probably not the time to spend really exploring this issue. But since the clock is ticking (as current UN advice to be at ZERO in 2030 - and of course NO ONE is even considering that ) perhaps a little bit exploratory discussion with zero carbon solutions (oh lets not talk about cost at this time, since the cost of a Planet B is pretty much out of everybody's credit card limit) such as how this could be translated into other areas. Example - why are not ALL trains doing this (a lot of them do run downhill and may be able to power others going up - no batteries needed.) Seems like this is a nice video on a train based on and coming from the "free energy" discussions - but - again imo - would help for someone with such a following and a 'soapbox' to produce a video that leads somewhere. After spending 13 minutes looking at this video, the only takeway is that maybe some viewers might head on over to Brilliant (which actually seems the real point of this video.) All in all, a nothing burger as far as dealing with global boiling.
There is (was) a mine in UK that has a gondola system which brings the ore down from the mountain. The downward gondola (heavier) would drive the empty gondola back up the hill.
But it's far better than the huge Emissions that these equipment produces. So the end ramifications by eliminating huge volumes of greenhouse emissions, would bee far greater than putting one's head in the sand : say I don't see a problem. Realistically reducing our dependency of fossil fuels too 73% would definitely change the outcome for the 22nd century. Because 2042 is right around the corner bringing all sorts of global changes and challenges. Take care and be safe and count your blessings amen.
Why does the train have to have batteries. Why can't the batteries be at one spot and the train powered like all electric trains with pantographs? that would obviously save having the weight of the batteries in the mix. Fixed costs of a one-time installation of overhead wires.
4:06 regenerative braking has been used in passenger trains since before the turn of the LAST century. Electric trains braking or going down hill put power back on the catenary line for use by other trains. The trains accomplished this quite simply by using shunt motors as traction motors. The magnitude and direction of power flow is then easily controlled by varying the motor excitation.
Most diesel electrics have most of the system as dynamic braking. They dump the generated electric into a set of resistors to help stop the train. All any trains needs to have regenerative braking is to disconnect the resistors and hook them to a battery car or two.
@@ericpaul4575 Or do what WABTEC and Progress Rail have done and get rid of the diesel-generator system completely and replace it with a large battery pack (7MWh for WABTEC FLXdrive, 14.5MWh for PR BE14.5BB). These are the BE locos that Fortescue, Rio Tinto, BHP and Roy Hill Mining have all ordered for their pilot evaluations of battery-electric traction in the next few years
Yes trains descending from Katoomba to Emu Plains help other trains climb, and if there are none to take this load, there was a huge cast iron resistor bank there too. It is shown in the 1973 "Electrical Technology" by Theo Baitch.
The efficiency of regeneration on conventional wired electric railways is highly variable, and is dependent on traffic and grid conditions. Battery electric locomotives will have consistently much more efficient regen energy capture than conventional electric railways.
I was about to do a don't recommend as I was thinking this was pro free energy bs. I gave a chance to watch and was very glad I did, as I am subscribed now. I get so tired of perpetual motion stuff going on my feed all the time.
Yes. But it is horribly expensive to install "conventional catenary". Third rail is likely to be cheaper, but my guess is that the solution with the batteries in the train might well turn out cheapest of all. That depends on how many trains you need, and the length of the track.
I remember when Virgin Pendolino Class 390 arrived in the UK in 2001 and the big song and dance about it being able to regenerative braking and sending the power it made when slowing down back up the pantograph and into the overhead power lines
The bad part of regen braking in a system is that the extra power is only available while the train is doing it. There is no place to store it for later.
As you mention, these sort of machines can be used to store energy for the electric grid. They are not 100% efficient obviously, but they are less expensive and dependable. Another savings is the minimized wear on the friction brakes, on these vehicles.
They're not 100% efficient (nothing is) but they're pretty close. Round trip efficiency for lithium-ion batteries in typical rail traction applications will be ~ 95%. Nothing else gets remotely close.
Just discovered this channel recently and I'm really enjoying it, great work and very educational. One small, minor correction though... with regenerative braking the motor does not turn in reverse; it overruns in the same direction. In an AC machine this would be a speed above the synchronous speed of the motor but still in the forward direction. With modern drive electronics this speed (supply frequency) is variable but the direction of rotation is still the same when braking. Keep up the great work!
Why put battery into train for storing breaking energy? Would be better to send that energy via electric traction to stationary energy storage facilities. Those stationary energy storage would not be then need to be lightweight, in addition nearby those storages a fotovoltaic farm could be placed for even more electricar production. Finaly if the energy production would exced usage, then some of this energy could be pumped into national grid.
OOOOhhhh I haven't watched yet but I'm guessing that on the way down, the train weighs more, so it is able to charge a lot, which is enough to get the empty train back up.
On the railroad that’s known as dynamic braking where the power generated by the traction motors is dissipated as heat by feeding the power into resistance grids on top of the locomotive which also powers the fan that draws cooling air in through the grids and exhaust the heat out the top. Those GE’S simply store the power thus generated in batteries. A very nice way to avoid the high price of diesel.
The math at the 7 minute mark makes a big assumption of a consistent angle of travel. Any up and down (hills on the way) will cause extra losses as well.
Nice video, Rosie. Clearly, they'll need multiple banks of ultra/super capacitors to maximize the energy recovery, unless the train is traveling so slowly that the energy being produced is not higher than the amount of energy that the batteries can receive. Remember, batteries have to be at their optimal temperatures to receive their maximum charging speed. I'm also assuming the voltage architecture at the battery pack level will be very high for maximum efficiency. The higher the voltage the lower current, thus the lower heat and losses.
No need for ultra/super capacitors. A battery-electric locomotive like the PR BE14.5BB with a 14.5MWh main battery and a traction motor rating ~ 3.24MW will be operating at a charging C-rate of 0.22 at full regen - well within typical C-rate capabilities of lithium-ion traction batteries. Charging losses at these C-rates will be in the order of 1-2%.
It's also not perpetual motion because the energy put into making the batteries doesn't last forever - there will come a time when the batteries will need to be replaced, so it's just a long term motion machine.
Good to see the calcs! Here's a thought - (ignoring any H&S concerns) would it be beneficial to use the train's rails to conduct the regenerated electrical energy? The rails could then feed to battery banks sited at regular intervals along the track, rather than weigh down the train by carrying batteries. Any excess electrical energy (once the train had reached its origin) could also be used by as 'V to G'.
Steel’s not a particularly good conductor. You’d need to do the sums and I suspect the folks who designed this system would have considered your idea. It is rather obvious...
@@jonathansturm4163 yeah, BUT, CORPORATE CAPITALISM. .................. MAKES DECISIONS BASED ON SHORT TERM PROFI..FCK CONSUMERS, HUMANITY, THE PLANET !!!!
If this was a viable solution the big miners would have done it by now. The running rails can't be easily used to conduct electrical energy - it needs an isolated third rail or overhead wire. Batteries are much simpler and cheaper. No difference in weight compared to diesel-electric locos for this task by 2030s.
Very nice video. I like how you showed the math. I think you should have emphasized that the trains energy comes from the mass (back to your equation) and that this isn’t sustainable because eventually the mass will be gone (it’s not a closed loop), and that the mining operations to extract the mass is energy that’s input and not a closed loop or renewable either (it runs on fuel or electricity). So all the energy of the gravity train is “manufactured” by the equipment putting the mass into the train. I still admire the video and how you worked in the math! And your conclusions are correct. I’m not sure the layperson can intuit the reason why it’s not “free energy” without showing/talking about the “input” side, and that’s the min8ng operation. It’s like hitching a ride on a passing blue whale. The whale is spending a lot of energy to move but it’s easy for us to be propelled for free with some thinking.
I am curious, how are they dealing with wind resistance? An odd thing in American railroads with coal cars. They actually take more energy to haul empty than when loaded. Because the massive amount of wind resistance. It will be a significant factor if there is any appreciable speed on this route.
A nice explanation of the concept. I am working with Aurizon, Australia's largest rail freight company, on maximising the regen from the potential energy to reduce the external energy required as an interim step before eliminating external energy needs.
Nice video, Rosie! Also, a cool idea! I will point out that you applied the 37% frictional losses *only* on the uphill climb. In fact, the frictional losses will be higher on the *downhill* run due to the additional weight. Note that the *absolute maximum* frictional loss that could be tolerated in this system is 1- sqrt(0.54) = 0.265 or 26.5%. That assumes no other losses and that frictional losses are the same in both directions. In other words, you would be able to store 91 MWh * 0.735 = 69 MWh on the way down and would have 69 MWh * 0.735 MWh = 51 MWh available for the journey back up. Clearly, there will be losses in the battery as well as in the electrical and electronic systems, so I suspect the frictional losses cannot be more than about 15% each way, or less. That would allow for almost (but not quite) 15% electrical losses each way, as well. FWIW, another benefit of this new train system is that they will *also* save money due to reduced wear-and-tear on their brakes.
See my recent post for total train energy consumption to overcome rolling resistance (mechanical & aerodynamic) - downhill trip will be ~ 2.7 wh/gt-km => ~ 30MWh total, uphill trip will be ~ 7.6 wh-gt-km => ~ 10.7MWh
@@jennydavidstokesjones8454 Thanks! If those frictional losses are accurate, then there will be no gravitational potential energy left over to account for any electrical losses on the return trip: 91 MWh - 30 MWh - 10.7 MWh ~ 50 MWh. In that case, only perfectly efficient batteries and drive electronics could get the train back up the hill without the addition of electricity from an external source.
@@RegGuheert1 Those calculations are probably providing conservative (high) estimations for rolling resistance energy consumption, as they are based on empirical data for European freight trains with axle loads ~ 20 tonnes and typical operating speeds around 80-100km/h. The Pilbara mining trains have axle loads of 35-40 tonnes (increasing soon to 45-50 tonnes) and operating speeds ~ 65km/h, so the values for K may be somewhat lower for these ultra heavy slow trains.
@@jennydavidstokesjones8454 I agree with you guys. Rosie didn't allow for resistance losses downhill. The rolling resistance over such a distance is rather large (at 15.5 m/s aero resistance is not significant). I thought it would b a fun example to use in-class teaching. However I couldn't get it to work without seriously reducing the rail rolling resistance coefficient from 0.0015N/N to 0.00038 N/N , about a quarter of the expected value. That was allowing for 85% Energy recovery charge/discharge efficiency.
Great video, i agree that rolling resistance downhill is not taken into account. Another important factor is that the empty train weigh only 5500 tonnes where as in the video 40,000 t is taken.
If the train operated like a conventional electric train, regenerative energy could could supply a grid or a fixed battery. No need to carry the battery on the train.
With the battery only 2% of the EMPTY weight of the train, there’s no way that running overhead powerlines and installing an entire grid system would be a viable alternative. Cool idea though, if the infrastructure was there.
The thing that sticks in my mind is that the elevation loss isn't going to be a nice straight line, like in the example. There'll be little up hill sections, corners that may have speed limits below what is required to recharge at such a high rate. I look forward to seeing the implementation and the real world figures.
The on-board battery can handle all of that. Ultimately approximately-only the total elevation and mass change matter, not the things that happen in between, as long as you don't get too crazy.
Even before electricity, man came up with numerous concepts on how to propel vehicles. There are gravity-powered funiculars going up and down a mountain and river ferries operated solely with a set of rudders.
I had seen the truck a couple years ago. Great update on that. Originally they were saying it would be over 100% efficient and actually help power equipment at the top of the hill. To bad that didn’t pan out but good technology anyway.
Couldn't the batteries be fixed (saving moving _that_ weight uphill)? With catenary or third rail Im sure there would be some transmission losses but the cars would be less complex and much lighter.
I would put the storage batteries at about 1/2 the way up the mountain, to reduce the IR losses during charging and the return trip. ((Need to do the math to get an informed estimate.))
So to solve general automotive transportation costs and work as this train does all we need to do as a society is build all roads so they run downhill. Take the family on a day trip going downhill, charge your car batteries, abandon the wife and children somewhere and go home free. I think it just might work. 😉
I'm willing to bet that if the Infinity Train were to also use solar charging they would have no trouble getting to and maybe even above 100% efficiency, especially being in Australia.
I read a long time ago that here in the UK many electric trains had motors capable of returning power to the grid as they slowed into stations, but that none had ever been used to do that. It didn't surprise me.
It's sad that those in government have so little vision so what great innovators and novel tech that the we have is unsupported so rarely makes it to market. It's becoming Backwater UK ☹️
We had this system in the UK back in the 50s & 60s between Sheffield and Manchester via the Woodhead route over the Pennines.The major traffic was coal from the Yorkshire coal fields around Barnsley. Loaded trains going down the hill regenerated into the overhead wires to propel the empty one going back up for the next load. without the need to "Store " the energy in batteries
Great Story and Good Math. When Convenient, could U do an updated vid on so-called ... Green Hydrogen. I simply do not understand WHY Germany is not replacing much of it's ... METHANE demand with locally produced hydrogen ?!?!?!?! ...
Unit energy consumption to overcome rolling & aero resistance for the loaded train on the downhill trip is very low. 540*38000**-0.5 = 2.77 watt-hours/gross tonne-km => 38000*280*2.77/1000000 = 29.5MWh I calculated the downhill potential energy delta for 38,000 tonnes from 450m to sea level to be 46.6MWh. Nett energy recovery would be around (46.6-29.5)*0.85 = 14.5MWh
Using K*M**-0.5 for the 40,000 loaded ore train and K=540, unit energy consumption to overcome rolling resistance for the downhill trip will be ~ 540*40000**-0.5 = 2.7 wh/gt-km => 30.24MWh total train energy consumption to overcome rolling resistance (K=540 is selected as the no-regen value because the regen component is dealt with in the separate PE delta calculation). For the uphill return trip with an unloaded train of M=5000 tonnes, unit energy consumption to overcome rolling resistance will be ~ 540*5000**-0.5 = 7.63 wh/gt-km => 10.69MWh total train energy consumption to over come rolling resistance.
I suspect that the situation is much better than you have calculated. In the first line of your calculation you have train empty weight of 40,000t and a load of 34,400t. Railway Gazette reported that the net and ore weights of Fortescue wagons are 23 and 137 tonnes respectively. I haven't been able to verify that but the numbers are similar to BHP with which I do have up to date data. the g and h2-h1 all cancel out in the calculation so apart from the losses which you explain and the energy to move the locos back and forth it's just the difference in loaded and empty weight and the elevation difference which count. This load/empty ratio is (first estimated based on wagon gross and tare =137/23) ~~6 You don't even need good efficiency to make this work.
I don't think it can do. 450m drop over 280km is 1.6/1000 gradient. The train would need rolling resistance coeff of 0.5/1000 to have 1.1/1000 charged into battery. This 1.1/1000 will be used for the return trip of (0.5 rolling + 1.6 climb) x half weight = 1.05/1000. I had a quick look in Engineeringtoolbox, railroad steel wheels on steel rails coeff is 1 to 2/1000, two to four times higher than needed. Btw your calc method is flawed - it's based just on potential energy and nowhere takes into account the distance. That means if it works for 280km it'd also work for 4500km distance = 0.1/1000 gradient (10cm drop per km). But at such 0.1/1000 gradient the train wouldn't roll down by itself let alone charge any to the battery.
Would the battery actually need to be on the train? Couldn't it be placed somewhere alongside the track and use a pantograph or powered rail? Or would transmission loss be greater than the energy saved by not lugging it back up the hill?
That was my thinking - the benefit of rail - rather than the dump truck example - is that you're stuck on rails to start with. Adding additional rails or overhead wires for power transmission and you could put the batteries where it would fit the best. Or, use alternative mechanisms for energy storage... And, multiple trains make it more complicated, but might actually reduce the amount of storage you need. One train goes down, providing energy to another train going up, and so on.
@@SteffenHausB Sure; but it comes down to what's more expensive - and also, if the batteries don't have to be actually on the train, then you can use cheaper, less compact, heavier technologies. Third rail systems would likely be cheaper than overhead wires. Ultimately it all comes down to compromise.
Multiple trains would also reduce the wait time at the loading and unloading stations to potential create better efficiencies and reduce storage requirements. A couple smaller trains may be more efficient than one large one. All situationally dependant of course. Each of mine worth its own custom design for it's circumstances.
@@5353Jumper I think multiple smaller trains would actually be detrimental. The idea is that the potential energy is from the mass of the cargo. If the ratio of cargo mass to the total of mass plus cargo is too low it wouldn't work because it would fall outside of the efficiency window.
in that back of the envelope estimate, required efficency ratio interestingly doesn't even depend on the length of the track or slope or height, as they would all cancel out in the fraction (or in case of length aren't even in it); all it cares about is just the fact that the train is almost twice the weight going down than going up. It's really just 40kt/(34.4kt+40kt) = 53.8% So maybe its not quite as restrictive where it can go as it might seem on first glance, and it really is just about how efficient they managed to make this train? The basic setup, of mining something that tends to be in the hills/mountains and then carrying it down to some kind of port is probably pretty common in the mining world.
It's a Great Idea by Fortesque. But it is All Talk by Them at this Stage and No Infinity Train Actually Exists. It Remains a Fact that the Iron Ore Miners could have been Producing Green Iron Ore Twenty Years ago. So Whilst Engineer Rosie is Very Optimistic, Australia's Emission Giants do whatever They Like.
Progress Rail BE14.5BB battery-electric locomotives ordered by Fortescue for evaluation already have 14.5MWh capacity with contemporary battery tech, and we can reasonably assume that this will increase to ~ 20-25MWh over the next decade or so as battery tech continues to improve. Presumably this is why Fortescue have acquired Williams Advanced Engineering.
There is a quarry in New Zealand that uses electric trucks the same way. The depot is at the bottom of the hill and the quarry is at the top. Trucks go down loaded and return empty. Overnight they put about $8 worth of grid power into the truck to fully charge it. But it is a very old concept. The Denniston Incline was a coal transport system on the West Coast of the South Island that was fully gravity powered
Why is it that you never hear the question of “How much CO2 is in the air from human activity? Pro global warming scientists have been saying for many years that the amount of CO2 in the air is about 400 parts per million. That can be written as a fraction: 400 / 1,000,000. Fractions can be reduced without changing the value. If one divides the numerator and the denominator by the same number, the value remains the same. For example 100 / 1000 is the same as 10 / 100 is the same as 1 / 10. This was done by dividing the numerator by 10 and the denominator by 10 as well. If we divide our CO2 fraction by 400 in both the numerator and denominator: 400 / 1,000,000 equals 1/2500. This means that the amount of CO2 in the air is one part out of 2500, or in other words, if you divide a given volume of air into 2500 equal pieces, then only one of those pieces will be CO2 and 2499 of them will be something else. However, that is not the end of the story. Pro climate change scientists have said that 98% of the CO2 in the air comes from plants, the ocean, and other natural sources of CO2. That means that only 2% of that one part out of 2500 is CO2 that comes from human activity. So let’s do the calculations. One divided by 2500 is .0004. 2% of that .0004 (.0004 times .02) is equal to 0.000008, or 8 parts per million. So, what this calculation proves is that of the total volume of the air, only 8 parts per million is CO2 from human activity. That is an extremely small amount. How can such a small amount collect and transmit enough heat to the other 999,992 parts per million of the air?
Precise calculation of train energy consumption for mechanical & aerodynamic rolling resistance is complex, but there's a useful first order calculation based on empirical data from European rail systems that gets you in the ballpark. Unit energy consumption in watt-hours/gross tonne-kilometre (wh/gt-km) = K*M**-0.5 where K is a constant related to route topology and M is the gross train mass in tonnes. K=540 for flat route topologies, K=675 for moderately undulating topologies, K=810 for mountainous topologies. I can forward the source document if it's of interest.
Dear Rosie Please consider a though experiment that is easy to explain, considering the limits of writing and sketching by type, but so hard to produce that it has no direct business value: COLD ROOM ())--:::WALL:::-->> HOT ROOM >~1000 NM< ()) = Paddlewheel. -- = Axle. (Continuous from end to end) ::: = Axle tunnel and wall >> = Lumped friction element Visualize two roome full of air separated by a very thin wall that allows the rooms to hold their heat independently. The wall is just thick enough to support billions of separate nanometer scale axles running straight through loosely enough to rotate freely but not leak very much heat so the rooms can hold separate temperatures. On the left side, a very small paddlewheel is mounted at the left end of each axle. On the right side, lumped friction elements are mounted stationary in place on the wall, one for each axle, for the right end of each axle to run through. The lumped friction elements connvert the mechanical rotation of their axle into heat. Brownian motion turns the paddlewheels at random speeds randomly clockwise or rcounterclockwise. This random rotation is turned into heat by the lumped friction elements. The lumped friction elements do not impart Brownian motion to their axle. The committed functional roles of the paddiewheels, axles, and lumped friction elements in differnt places should systemically produce a divergence in the thermal energy in the two rooms. Aloha Charles M Brown lll
Dear Rosie Please consider a though experiment that is easy to explain, considering the limits of writing and sketching by type, but so hard to produce that it has no direct business value: COLD ROOM ())--:::WALL:::-->> HOT ROOM >~1000 NM< ()) = Paddlewheel. -- = Axle. (Continuous from end to end) ::: = Axle tunnel and wall >> = Lumped friction element Visualize two roome full of air separated by a very thin wall that allows the rooms to hold their heat independently. The wall is just thick enough to support billions of separate nanometer scale axles running straight through, loose enough to rotate freely but not leak very much heat so the rooms can hold separate temperatures. On the left side, a very small paddlewheel is mounted at the left end of each axle. On the right side, lumped friction elements Browning motion int are mounted stationary in place on the wall, one for each axle, that the right end of each axle runs through. The lumped friction elements connvert the mechanical rotation of their axle into heat. Brownian motion turns the paddlewheels at random speeds randomly clockwise or rcounterclockwise. This random rotation is turned into heat by the lumped friction elements. The lumped friction elements do not impart Brownian motion to their axle. The committed functional roles of the paddiewheels, axles, and lumped friction elements in differnt placed should systemically hproduce a divergence in the thermal energy in the two rooms. Aloha Charles M Brown lll
Sorry Rosie, just found a big error. At 6:28, you say the empty weight of the train is 40,000 tonnes. This is in fact the gross weight (less the locos). In fact it is roughly the weight of the wagons - 250 x 160 Tonnes gross. Each wagon carries 137 tonnes of ore - your payload at 34,400 T is correct. The tare weight of a wagon is about 22.4 tonnes. The locos weigh about 200 T each. Without doing the sums, you can see there is a much bigger difference between the potential energy for the full and the empty train than in your calcs.
While I haven't come up with a free energy machine, I've come up with a free money machine! Send me money and I'll sell you a bridge and tell you how you CAN TOO! Value of 2 things for the price of 1! P.S. This is sarcasm. Don't actually contact me or send me money.
I think you might want to check your PE calculations. Gross loaded train weight will be ~ 40,000 tonnes - not 74,400. Empty train weight is ~ 5,000 tonnes for the uphill unloaded trip.
The Tesla Megapack is not a relevant benchmark for a battery-electric traction system, because it includes a whole bunch of space and weight for chargers and inverters. A rail traction battery pack is just a DC pack that interfaces to existing rail traction controllers that are already designed to handle regen. For a 23 tonne battery container at current pack-level energy densities (eg CATL Qilin) we're looking at ~ 7MWh, and by mid-2030s ~ 15MWh.
In 1896 an Inclined plane railway was built at Covasna/Comandau in Transylvania (then in Austria-Hungary, now Romania) with some Danish, British and Austrian parts. Cable-connected cars used the potential energy of the heavier car loaded with timber descending to pull up the empty car. One horse used to maneuver the cars at each terminal to form trains. Steam locomotives burning lower-quality wood remnants brought the trains to a furniture factory. No other energy source needed...
Sorry...... perpetual motion and free energy are a "thing". Just because the many cannot think and, therefore, are crappy inventors, does not mean that a real thinking person cannot come up with working free energy devices. The so called Law of Thermodynamics deals with CLOSED systems and does apply in those cases. However, among other systems, there are approaches wherein the system is OPEN and this allows for the influx of other energies like with the Aether and zero point energy systems. Take the atom, for instance, it whirls about 24/7 indefatigably by way of a perpetual flow of the Aether that is created and sustained by the motions of the atom. Perpetual motion in our most basic of Reality's building blocks. Your "Laws" apply ONLY to closed systems, NOT to open systems which allow for an exterior influx of energy. You have much to learn and your yet to come flippant and all knowing response will be ineffective in undoing the FACT that open systems are unaffected by your cherished "Laws". You have much learning to do. You should always remember that school was not ever designed to make you smarter - it WAS designed to make you feel smarter and superior but it was designed to make worker bees not thinkers. Those who created educational institutions had only THEIR interests in mind - not yours. They knew you'd come out feeling superior and they didn't mind that just so long as you didn't start thinking and threaten their monopolies on energy products. So, they protected themselves from external threats to their money by teaching you what they wanted, which was all designed to prevent you from becoming a threat to them. Maxwell knew of free energy and it was for this that he created Quarternions to deal with the scalar components of all energy flows. Heaviside was just a little "challenged" and, his brain, unable to comprehend Maxwell's scalar formulas, simply threw them out so that modern engineers don't even know that those formulas ever existed. Anyway, you memorized a lot of stuff that you were ordered to memorize and nowhere in your schooling were you ever expected to think. So, today, you've been made to feel superior for being able to parrot what they told you to memorize. Not once did they want you to think for yourself. Not once. Your Laws do not work in open systems. You likely will have severe cognitive dissonance over this because you're NOT going to want to give up your feeling of superiority. Maybe you'll be different but I doubt it. Try thinking. You might come to like doing that......
The new Tesla semitruck has brakes, but only nominally. It uses three motors where they could have got away with only one, just because they use 100% regenerative braking; three motors in parallel are required to recover the totality of gravitational energy of a slope. In conjunction with 99% efficient converters and almost 1 MWh battery, it looks like a miracle but is only some very good engineering...
Yes, the Infinity Train is NOT using Free Energy; drawing power for the Earth's atmosphere, magnetic lines or anything like that. It uses gravity to recharge battery packs from the motor acting as a generator with a fully loaded cart on the way down and the stored battery power to run the motor with an empty load cart on the way up. The Energy may be cost free (not counting all conversion costs and ongoing maintenance costs), but that is NOT the concept of Free Energy.
Very interesting, but while you calculated the resistance losses for the return trip, you didn't for the downhill trip. Surely the 91 MWh you calculated for the downhill run would be reduced because of those same losses?
Could solar panels on the eDumper's roof/door/bonnet etc generate enough to make up the 2% deficit? And w.r.t. the train, could the battery not be static onland storage with connection via overhead lines?
Great explanation, one item which may be an issue, loading train, the speed is 1km/h for 2hrs on constant load, acceleration up to 60km/hr with 70kt. All these will need more than 90kwh battery. Even at 100kwh the realestate needed is quite high for requirements.
It's free energy until you buy and maintain the equipment. Solar power is "FREE" until you pay for a system. Oh, by the way, batteries eventually FAIL.
Flinstones a way :))) Why are highways and two stream direction roads, in general, made with slopes two stream lanes must be built with slopes, yeah it s an engineering challenge but it frees energy from mother Earth? 9:55 All mining trucks are powered by an electric motor and electric matter maybe some have diesel generators on it, we know the reason because to rid-off transmission device in internal combustion engines, and electric frequency convert weighs 100 grams maximum compare to 100 ton for mining truck and F1 Lucas de Grassi knows that transmission even in F1 cars is very heavy and teeth chip away faster than kids that hooked on candy:))))))))))) Sorry, but the mining trucks were unconsciously designed as not EV vehicles they were just the result of unfavorable circumstances.
Late comment, but for anyone who's watching, be aware that the locomotive total weight is not 34K tons + 40K tons lol. 40K tons is the total weight with the cargo, the locomotive empty weight is around 6000 tons.
I highly doubt that the train weights 40,000 t empty. In fact, this should be the weight of the full train, from which are 34,400t payload. Which makes this concept even more interesting for the company.
There is free energy! I use a motor to turn a generator that is fed back to the motor, presto! Damn you conventional physics! ( Oh yeah, I also steal the free power to keep it running by tapping my neighbors AC power...and so I can watch his cable...) Science!
A few years ago I designed and made a air compressor that runs off water pressure from a household tap 😅 unfortunately didn't get past the prototype stage, but it's actually created compressed air! Got to 70+ psi before i got scared 😂 very simple idea. I'm surprised no one has designed anything like it before and produced it. Just requires two tanks, 3 solenoid valves and 2 float switches. The incoming water fills the first tank and pushes the air into the second tank until the water level reaches the top of the first tank, the tank to tank valve closes, and the 1st tank is drained then the cycle is repeated gradually increasing the pressure on the second tank. Obviously, it uses a huge amount of water, but I run a small business selling plants, so it is perfect for somebody like me! I've missed a lot of info out but you get the idea 😂
Nice video Rosie, thanks for sharing! I was curious how the train initially starts off - most loading yards would be relatively flat so there could be significant initial inertia to overcome first as opposed to just putting the train "into neutral" (lol) to start it coasting... so the energy required needs to get it back to the top plus the initial start again? How close are the numbers if that's taken into account? Cheers =)
I'd love to see some pumped hydro battery projects that combine the battery function with secondary goals like moving water over a mountain range. If you can get significant from from just moving the water over the hill and add it to the value of the battery function it should be very profitable.
It’s technically continent power! Like petroleum is technically solar energy from photosynthesis millions of years ago, this is technically energy from plate tectonics. (Not an endorsement of petroleum as “solar power.” Solar power, renewable and good for the environment are not interchangeable phrases.)
I chuckled at the image of little locomotives with smoke coming out the stack. I probably don't need to remind you that with electronic things, when the 'magic smoke' comes out, that's bad. ;-)
Hi Rosie. Great hair day by the way. Say, energy storage doesn't need to be on the train. Don't commuter trains use a pantograph? With electricity storage off the train cars, significant weight savings could be attained. Furthermore, cheaper heavier energy storage like liquid magnesium batteries could be used. Energy density is a non-issue.
Like going downhill both ways. There is a significant problem with rejiggering what runs on what and in what proportion. It's what to do with all the left over petroleum products that once had a use but now little place to go? Heavy bunker oil is used by the 5,000+ global container ships. A barrel of crude produces about 1.5 gallons of heavy fuel when refined. Heavy fuel aka fuel oil is a heavier hydrocarbon than diesel, kerosene/jet fuel, gasoline, propane and butane. To get heavy fuel, the lighter hydrocarbons must be cooked off and need to go someplace. When cars are electric, gasoline will have to sell for pennies as it has to go someplace. It does go bad in long term storage if mixed with ethanol. Even clear no ethanol gas is 2 year storage life then you have a real mess. Still need all the other distillates and feed stocks if you want plastics, foam, fertilizer, roofing, asphalt roads, candles, lipstick etc as that is the heaviest. Nobody is addressing what happens when this distillation ratio becomes so imbalanced gasoline with no place to go and considered hazardous waste as result of refining heavy fuel or asphalt or candles?
there is nothing perpetual, but there could be unknown forms of energy that can be tapped which might appear to be perpetual. BTW gravitational force is an exception to laws of thermodynamics also 85% of the energy in the universe can't be explained with our current understanding of physics
By 1:15 I could see the principal, very smart. Not exactly free energy, but in this application, you don’t need to add energy, beyond the work already being done. Very smart.
law of thermodynamic only works on or in; one system; such as canned soup; but not two independent canned soup; idea some thing will change when pressure is equal all sides; or temperature is equal all side; lacks understanding of physics; so it can be said; law of thermodynamic exists for physics illiterate; e.g. you cannot be scientist; if you cannot explain it; so when two or more independent system is fastened; where one has higher pressure than other; e.g. two chamber heat sink; @ 0.8atm & 0.2atm; reaction would be different; and does not violate law of thermodynamics; so if there was connection between two; the system could be used as heat exchanger; closed evaporative chiller; to cool steam; at adjacent chamber; at specific pressure; without having other go into boiling point; especially if other chamber had internalized vane; would remove heat and work as heat sink; one of my inventions; from 1999;
