This Mining Train Powers Itself: The "Infinity Train" (and how it works)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- Visit brilliant.org/Engineeringwith... to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Fortescue Metal Group's Infinity train will never need to be fuelled, never need to be charged... it uses regenerative braking to charge onboard batteries when it goes downhill and uses that charge to get back up the hill. Does that sound like a perpetual motion machine to you?
The project doesn't actually rely on a secret source of "free energy" to work. Sorry if that disappoints you! It's all based on sound physics, which I explain in this video and then I run the calculations to see whether the numbers add up!
Calcs from David Cebon, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Cambridge University can be found here!
textdoc.co/2Aztp3Y8KQH5Puhb
Bookmarks:
00:00 Intro
01:34 What is Fortescue's Infinity Train?
03:03 THe physics behind the Infinity Train
05:53 Calculations
09:35 e-Dumper: Kuhn Schweiz AG's electric mining truck
11:34 Rosie's thoughts on regenerative braking technologies
11:43 Thanks to Brilliant for sponsoring this video!
12:41 Outro
Sources:
Craft4 Shubham - 100% working free energy
• 100% working free ener...
Veritasium - Risking My Life To Settle A Physics Debate
• Risking My Life To Set...
Fortescue Metals Group - Fortescue Williams (WAE) settlement powers development of world's first Infinity Train
www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/m...
Tom Scott - The UK's last aerial ropeway uses no power, moves 300 tonnes a day, and will be gone by 2036.
• The UK's last aerial r...
UN Climate Technology Centre & Network - Regenerative braking in trains
www.ctc-n.org/technologies/re...
Fortescue Metals Group - Climate Change Report FY21
www.fmgl.com.au/docs/default-...
Ogawa et al, 2017 - Method of Calculating Running Resistance by the Use of the Train Data Collection Device
www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/...
Lucas di Grassi - eDumper - The BIGGEST EV in the world!
• eDumper - The BIGGEST...
Jalopnik - These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking
jalopnik.com/these-electric-t...
If you would like to help develop the Engineering with Rosie channel, you could consider joining the Patreon community, where there is a chat community (and Patreon-only Discord server) about topics covered in the videos and suggestions for future videos and production quality improvements. / engineeringwithrosie
This video was sponsored by Brilliant. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
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.
regenerative braking is not new and does not produce "free energy"
when are you going to tell the truth rosie ?
@@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.
Gravitational should be a term a scientist shouldnt use until proven. Maybe start with density and air pressure like buoyancy in water
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.
There is also a train going from Kiruna to Narvik also effectively producing electricity
Tonnes or tons?
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.
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.
@@soothcoder
Need nuclear power
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.
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.
Very cool. Thanks
Definitely neat
And it would actually deliver power and thus reduce the electric bill for the mine, genius!
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).
I seem to recall seeing this working in my early years (60 odd years ago).
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.
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 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.
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).
Connecting to network would eliminate the need of carrying heavy batteries. It may be more advantageous in many ways
@@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.
Have you witnessed bright-pink-painted bearing-houses on the Kiruna-Narvik bogies? Should be 16 of them in operation.. Asking for a "friend" ;)
@@AdityaMehendale Sorry, but I have not. Narvik is about 1700 km north from Stavanger where I live, but do tell the story. 🙂
I have skied in Narvik, should have checked out the train while I was there!
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.
The rotation of the electric motor doesn't change, during regenerative braking. Just the function.
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 …
@@donnamarie3617 the train route has large loops at each end. I don't think people understand the scale of these operations.
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.
Also pedestrians no longer have to breathe that nasty break dust, or particulats from the engine.
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.
In the 1800's there was a mine in California where they had a gravity powered train up an extremely steep grade. So steep no train could get up or down the hill on it's own.
A loaded train at the top of the hill would be tied to an empty train at the bottom.
The loaded train provided the power to pull the empty train up the hill, and the empty train provided a holdback to keep the loaded train under control.
It worked great so long as the cable didn't break. And it did break a few times, things got really exciting then, with 2 runaway trains at once.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
It's fun to see that this video is one of the most viewed of your chanel just because it contains "Free energy" in the title ;) (Thanks for all your nice videos)
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.
This gravitational energy application was used over two hundred years ago in Quincy Massachusetts with a pulley system and two rail cars to bring stone down hill from a granite quarry to be unloaded to boats on the Neponset river. The car was loaded at the top of the hill and would pull up the unloaded (empty) car from the bottom as it moved down.
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.
I appreciate how realistic you are about the project
It may not be ‘Free Energy’ but it’s a step forward. Gotta love TH-cam recommendations, you’ve a new follower!
Good to see the Brilliant add at the end!
(Double meaning, both true;)
If the eDumper "only" recovers 80% of what it spends going up the hill, that means it can make ~50 trips between charges versus just 10. 🤓
The problem is, most mines are down in the ground and the load needs to be hauled uphill.
@@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.
@@dbeekman9738 Yes that is true. I was referring to the Dump Truck.
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.
You give me lots of energy, Rosie, with your videos!
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.
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.
I've only watched the first minute of this video but with that quick diagram you had that's a great idea. It's so simple and so obvious once you see it. I know it will only work in some places but where it will work it's a great solution
Old but smart idea. There's been a mine ropeway in Wales that used the same principle: the line is looped. Empty buckets are pulled uphill by the full buckets running downhill pulled by gravity.
Here's an idea for the infinity train: don't mount the batteries on the train, instead maybe use an overhead contact line? Proven concept. Easier on the batteries, easier maintenance, less moving stuff to maintain
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...
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.
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.
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
I love these kinds of projects.
I'm 70 years old. When I was a child, my Father said to me "Think before you Open You Mouth and Put Your Foot In It". Good advice.
wow! this is very interesting! thankyou for sharing.
Cool stuff, thank you!
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.
Great episode.
Totally Awesome !!
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
Interesting as always!
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 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.
free energy is a thing, it's called the sun, we use it every day
also before i even watch the video i know how the train could work and its quite simple, if it's transporting a heavy load downhill it has more potential energy, it is essentially slowly lowering materials using the force of gravity to generate power, then once at the bottom, it gets unloaded making it lighter meaning, the amount of energy required to get up the hill, will be less then the energy gained from regenerative breaking
you could achieve the same thing by just throwing materials down the hill and letting it role down, but well that wouldn't be a great way to transport materials
yeah this is a really well made video, you have earned yourself a new subscriber, your a gem partner would be lucky to have someone as smart as you, it's rare to find someone who shares a very forward thinking realistic, down to earth way of thinking
What a refreshing view point. Fancy someone actually using facts (shock horror) to back up a very sound argument! Go Girl, love it.
Rosie, in this channel we obbey the laws of thermodynamics!
Cool. Love it!
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.
This is good stuff for physics teachers.
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.
The trucks interesting concept but having worked mining it is a rare situation trucks are running downhill loaded but still it's a good effort any fuel burn savings worth having. Thankyou well explained and informative
I have an idea for energy storage. Its the same as a potential energy battery. Actually my friend had the idea. Basically you can turn a kinetic energy motor upside down if you put it in water and use a ballon to pull the rip corn instead. There are small tanks that can be dropped down to the ballon and used to rapidly fill it. Depth of water being the only concern. We came up with it while talking about under water cargo trains. So it wont rip as fast as a pure gravity battery but the pull would be constant and very strong. And i think very energy efficient to recharge as you could use a windmill or something similar to pump the air down.
Very interesting! This idea is much better than the crane that stacks blocks.
There already is a Pantagraph powered open pit mine with dump trucks going up and down. I guess they can use it as a energy storage system when they are done with it. But they will probably move their assets to the next mine because it is more valuable that way.
They use the landscape for pump hydro tho.
This kinda of problem solving thinking g outside the box always fascinates me. The people behind the idea of this infinity train are brilliant minded people. The amount of thoughts and ideas and trials put I to this, that yields satisfactory rewarding results.
i am now infinitely impressed.
Useful first order calculation for energy consumption for a freight train with regenerative electric traction is K*M**-0.5 wh/gt-km, where M = gross train mass (tonnes) and K is a constant for different track topologies (K=540 for flat, K=680 for moderately undulating, K=850 for mountainous topology). We can use K=540 for the uphill haul to the Pilbara, because there will be very little regen. So for a 5000 tonne empty train the specific energy consumption will be 540*5000**-0.5 = 7.6 watt-hours/gross tonne-kilometre => 5000*280*7.6/1000000 MWh = 10.64 MWh. Battery-wheel traction efficiency is around 85%, so battery capacity needed to overcome rolling & aerodynamic resistance will be ~ 12.5MWh.
I love that they’re calling it the Infinity Train. It’s a great show, the name sounds awesome, and it fits really well
Lets hope it is not an indication on how long they think the project will take before it produces results.
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%.
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.
claptrap
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.
@@jennydavidstokesjones8454
provide your workings out ?
@@richardcowley4087 What are you calling claptrap?
@@jennydavidstokesjones8454
read what has been written, very carefully !
you should provide workings out for your claim too !
Diesel electric engines in the US have dynamic brake systems for slowing the train when it's going downhill. When the train goes downhill the traction motors operate as generators to apply braking power. However the power generated is not used. It's released into the environment as heat.
I’m at 1:34 having just watched the intro.
Now i’m no scientist but i have a fair enough understanding of things & the train thing is simple, it travels down hill loaded & back uphill empty thus using less power in the uphill journey than is generated making the down hill journey.
I shall now watch & if i’m wrong i shall leave this to remind myself that i’m not a clever as i think i am 😂
great informative video as always Rosie.
it would definitely be interesting to see how feasible it is to have the battery system at the mine (or the port) with a 3rd rail allowing regenerative power to be sent back to it on the downhill trip.
> Having the battery storage static would mean that you don't incur the additional load during the uphill return trip & allow other renewables to supplement the system if needed.
If it was economically viable to use conventional electrification (either 3rd rail or overhead wire) for the Pilbara mining railways, they would have done it decades ago (but they haven't). Battery electrification allows the miners to transition their rail operations over the next decade or so from diesel-electric traction to full battery-electric traction with relatively low threshold costs and low maintenance costs. Electrifying the Pilbara railway network would cost around A$3-5 billion, and clearly the big miners have determined that it's not worth it.
I'm pretty sure there are some electric powered exicators bigger than the truck but both projects are good to see and it would nice to have a follow up in the future
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.
In the case of rocks, it may be easier to just throw them down the hillside! In a controlled manner of course.
Or, with logs they simply float them down a flume. Gunna be a serious flume for iron ore!!
Good luck throwing rocks down a 1% slope
I worked on the South African Railways many years ago and on the Eastern line from Pretoria (now Tswane) to Maputo there is a steep incline between Waterval-Bo and Waterval-Onder. I was told that an Airbrake train going down this incline on regenerative braking, pumps enough power back into the line to allow an ordinary vacuum brake train to go from Waterval-Onder to Komatipoort for free. A distance of about 180 to 200 km.
What do the train's brakes have to do with it?
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.
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.
you are a charming person. your face gives me a positive vibe every time I watch your video
Well done on your explanation. When I first saw the Title of your video I instantly called false but since I trust you I had to watch to hear about what methods you were using to break the lays of physics. (instantly understood once you explained the situation) 😄
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 😂
Hey Rosie could you please take a look at iron nitride magnets and their possible improvement to EVs and generators?
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.
the cost for the overhead line (plus maintenance) for 350km are immense, and you still need the batteries...
@@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.
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.
Love your big pearly choppers, lovely.
Anyone moving rocks down hill hopefully will recognize the benefit of this technology. Be it train or truck.
A spare pair of Battery Wagons could be used for operating the Camp Site?
All good fun for Engineering.
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...
On the straight and level, one person can move a boxcar. Rail friction only occurs on turns and the journals are designed to have very little friction as demonstrated by a Ford Lightning advert.
cool, thanks for sharing :-)
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.
Slight correction at 6.19, the train would weigh around 4 - 5,000t empty, not 40,000 tons. At 9.10, 690 tons is more like 12 - 15% of the train's empty weight.
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.
Agreed, but I suspect the electricity supplier may make the costs unattractive.
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 can't find it now but another location uses huge mining trucks that are electric only now, charging on the downhill trip loaded, driving back up empty. If I recall correctly they even can dump energy to the grid at the end of day as they generate more than they need. Similar to a locomotive those massive mine trucks are also generally diesel - electric so it's a very similar concept.
The cable cars in San Francisco always balanced multiple cars going downhill and uphill on the same cable, so the electric motor propelling the cable is surprisingly small because the motor only overcomes friction losses. I recommend the cable car museum to any engineer
The other benefit a train has over a large truck is length. Even if there are minor uphill sections, a 2 to 3km train has plenty of carriges still travelling in the downhill section with momentum that just carry the train over any bumps. Kinda like syphoning water.
lots of mining sites use a trolley system that uses the products weight to move everything around , the issue here is the less coefficient of dynamic friction of trains going up hill , they are better off just using an electric train and just exporting power to the grid downhill then using importing from the grid to drive it back up hill ~700 Ton less battery weight to try and drag back up the hill , and over all less issues as if something is wrong with a special power generating train a regular train can still run ... also "Gravity Trains" are being used as energy storage in many places already
Just found your channel amazing video.
BTW the batteries of the train don't need to be on the train. The electricity can run through the tracks to the battery and vice-versa.
Funicular railways have been doing the same thing for upwards of a couple hundred years, except they 'mine' water from mountaintop streams and caryy passengers up the hill. Ultimately solar energy, like pretty much everything else, but with a few steps added.
Recovering energy from trains going downhill seems like a market that Fortescue could serve with a spin-off of their technology. For instance they could use that energy to compress air and deliver that some industrial user at the bottom of the hill. No end of possibilities, it seems.
The "batteries" are being charged at the loading platform where adding the weight is eventually converted to electrical energy. Train returns lighter having used up the energy it took to load the rail cars. Incredibly clever execution of physics that would probably never happen here in the US. We seem to like being 30 to 50 years behind in technology.
A non-trivial part of the ore started at or below sea level and was raised up to the surface at the mine. So while it is an overall efficiency improvement it can be thought of as being charged by the lifting done by the mining equipment.
I think the benefit in this is overlooked in the sense of hindsight is 20/20. If one train fully loaded was to come downhill depending on its type of breaking mechanism if one train fully loaded was to pull two trains uphill that were empty you would then receive receive twice the benefit but one train coming down empty or full can create only so much electromagnetic energy and retrieve it and store it but to go uphill Fighting gravity even with an empty train the train becomes significantly heavier and it did when it came down with the weighted load because it was working with gravity so going against gravity with empty train might cost you more energy than you may coming down. But if you pulled two trains up you use zero energy going up and you have two trains now that can create energy coming down that would be perpetual free energy I think