BATTERY POWER FOR REAL

Interesting. How steep are the grades in the UP system? I know Big Boy was made to conquer one of them but maybe batteries will still cover the rest of their network? Hopefully we have some members that can elaborate more on how this would work. I imagine batteries would do best on long haul, flat trips. But then again, the technology is evolving so fast that my knowledge is probably outdated.

Hopefully the other experts stay out of the thread.

@BOB WALKER posted:

The California Air Resources Board has passed sweeping emission limits on cargo trucks and trains.  Union Pacific has signed a $100 million project to test battery-electric locomotives. Looks like battery power will move from our layouts to real life.

And when the tech isn't up to the task, then what?  I can't begin to imagine what a lithiun fire the size of a locomotive would be like. 

I understand the concern about fire safety with Lithium batteries. Most of the research currently in place is to improve the separators which are the major cause of battery issues. There has been a lot of improvement in recent manufactured batteries primarily used for EV's.

I have to wonder if lithium batteries will be used here. Seems like the size of the batteries and locomotives leaves an opportunity to try other materials. I also wonder if batteries are even the way. Maybe a fuel cell would be better?

Just expect for a 300 to 400 % increase for any thing being shipped via CA

@BOB WALKER posted:

I understand the concern about fire safety with Lithium batteries. Most of the research currently in place is to improve the separators which are the major cause of battery issues. There has been a lot of improvement in recent manufactured batteries primarily used for EV's.

Given the recent record of fires in EV's, they're nowhere near the finish line in that effort!   Just recently locally an EV (Tesla Model S) caught fire in a driveway and the fire spread to the house and it was a total loss.  It wasn't being charged, and it wasn't in the garage, it just spontaneously caught fire in the driveway.  It's a lot more than separators that need to be addressed.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Given the recent record of fires in EV's, they're nowhere near the finish line in that effort!   Just recently locally an EV (Tesla Model S) caught fire in a driveway and the fire spread to the house and it was a total loss.  It wasn't being charged, and it wasn't in the garage, it just spontaneously caught fire in the driveway.  It's a lot more than separators that need to be addressed.

John,

Your comparison is quite valid.  These events happen everyday, and in larger numbers than you would think, even for gasoline powered vehicles.  However for many years they have not been broadly reported for traditional cars and trucks.

There is an additional problem with electric vehicles though and it is that once they catch fire Li ion batteries are very difficult to extinguish.  This is because the fire liberates oxygen from the battery's burning components, which feeds the fire.  As a result water won't quench it, so a typical fire pumper, even if it gets to the scene quickly, can't really help.  The garage and house could indeed go up with the car, very easily.

Mike

@Shawn_Chronister posted:

Not to mention its better for the earth.

Yes. And a lot of the raw materials needed to make the batteries are in that land far away. And the batteries are supposedly not at all environmentally friendly to dispose of. And I'm guessing that people with nice houses in Malibu aren't going to like off-shore wind farms messing up their pretty views. But we gotta build wind farms cause coal is bad. Didn't California tell people not to charge their EVs last summer cause there wasn't enough power? Oh well, I'll go run my trains and settle down. ☺

When pushing batteries one wonders if the California Air Resources Board and greens know batteries only store electricity and the effects on the environment are  lowered only if the source of the power and production of batteries are greener.

Charlie

This thread is doomed

@BillYo414 posted:

This thread is doomed

Delete in 5.. 4.. 3... 2... 1...   🧨

@H1000 posted:

Delete in 5.. 4.. 3... 2... 1...   🧨

Do batteries have losses? I wonder if it's more efficient to just electrify the trains from overhead or like the mag lev trains.

One word: "catenary"

@BillYo414 posted:

Do batteries have losses? I wonder if it's more efficient to just electrify the trains from overhead or like the mag lev trains.

My layman’s understanding of maglev is that all cars are powered. I don’t believe this would be readily applicable to freight trains.

@BOB WALKER posted:

The California Air Resources Board has passed sweeping emission limits on cargo trucks and trains.  Union Pacific has signed a $100 million project to test battery-electric locomotives. Looks like battery power will move from our layouts to real life.

Okay... hear me out ( just pretend I am not being delusional).  The state of CA wants to wage on war anything diesel powered, they don't want fossil fired power plants that could supply catenary for overhead power to every mile of rail in the state, and they can't admit it would take turning the entire mojave desert into a giant wind and solar farm to power their electrical needs and that doesn't work when it rains, and that their general infrastructure planning skills are horrendous.  (i.e. the route for CA high speed rail)

So when they have exhausted and outlawed all modern options, we finally see a resurgence of STEAM!  Technically they are external combustion since the fire is outside the cylinders. CA loves extra labor even when it could be modernized away so mu capability not required, just a 2 or 3 man crew in every locomotive.  The engines can all burn fryer grease or dried Kale.

So break out those plans from Porta and start building 5000 hp condensing, Kale fired, cab forwards locomotives!

The LIRR ran a pilot project last year to use batteries for a M7 commuter train. It was a spectacular failure...... and these are already electric trains.

Electrifying the national freight network would be nearly impossible and cost prohibitive. If an EV car takes several hours to full charge, how long would a ES44 take?

And the fire risks are a real issue that the industry needs to figure out.

I saw a video recently from Toyota, they are testing a hybrid fuel-cell internal combustion engine. Looks promising so far.

Union Pacific started this initiative in 2021 and updated it in 2022.

Union Pacific’s purpose is to connect communities and businesses to each other and to the world. Fundamental to this is ensuring the health, safety, and viability of those communities and businesses. Union Pacific is taking thoughtful and deliberate steps to reduce its environmental impact, and helping others reduce their impact on the environment. These actions are broadly outlined in this Climate Action Plan.

The Climate Action Plan outlines Union Pacific’s work to reduce its environmental impact, to achieve its science-based target, and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It is part of a comprehensive ESG initiative called Building a Sustainable Future 2030, and is aligned with the company’s strategic framework of Serve/Grow/Win/Together.

https://www.up.com/aboutup/esg...ction-plan/index.htm

Here is their press release regarding the battery power initiative:

https://www.up.com/media/relea...motive-nr-220128.htm

Here is the information from the company that makes the motors:

https://www.wabteccorp.com/new...ercent-in-california

John

@BillYo414 posted:

This thread is doomed

Yup! Doomed!  We are talking about a State that is in decline, cant produce enough electricity for its population  , Hates fossil fuels , hates nuclear power plants, doesn't have enough water (except for the past couple of months)  . This the same state that votes these great thinkers in.   PS  JHZ563 they could also add dried  broccoli  to increase  the therm's!

Why is the thread doomed?  I posted the press releases from the company and their climate action plans dating back to 2021.  If you read it, it doesn't sound like anyone is forcing them to do this.  It sounds like the company thinks this is good for business.  Read the press releases I posted.

John

@Arthur P. Bloom that's what I'm saying. I feel like that's way better than any battery.

@Mark V. Spadaro I see. I wasn't sure what actually moves the maglev but I would say powering every freight car won't work haha

@Craftech because the subject of energy production tends to be a direct route to political whining. People get dismissive about it and start slinging the mud. I think it's interesting that a battery would be preferred over catenary and I think it's exciting to be in a time where new things are being tried. Other people don't feel the same

Glad I don't live in California.  They're just plain nuts out there.

Me I love the smell of burning coal.

What about the power drop when temp drop?

I have very little faith in batteries.   I have 5 battery drills, including a new one I got for Christmas.     Of the other 4, 3 will batteries sets will not hold a charge or not charge.    One will sort of charge and hold for a day or so.    And 2 of the 4 bad ones have 2 batteries.     I looked into a second battery  for the drill I got for Christmas that cost about $60.   It is nice but a second battery costs over $90!    how does that make sense.   I get the first battery and a drill and a charger at Ace, and the second battery alone costs twice as much.

My Cell phone was good for a year with me charging it about every 4-6 days.    Now it needs to be charged every day.

I keep my cars at least 10 years and the quality is such they run just fine.    I am hearing that these battery toy cars have batteries that last only about 5 years and the cost of replacement is about what the car is worth by then.

It all just does not make sense to me.

There should be some skepticism of batteries powering heavy haul vehicles from a energy density view point.  The energy density of Li-ion batteries is about 300 w hr/kg.  That means to do 1 horsepower work in one hour requires 2.5 kg of battery.  Thus, a 4,000 hp locomotive would require 10,000 kg (685 slugs) of battery to power it at full power for 1 hour. A locomotive carries about 25,000 kg of diesel fuel and so if one replaces the diesel fuel with batteries would give about 2.5 hours of operation at full power.  Battery technology works ok for cars in view of energy density, but battery capacity needs to increase dramatically for heavy haul vehicles.

In comparison coal is 7-9,000 w hr/kg, while diesel fuel is around 11,000, gasoline 12,000 and natural gas 13,000.

Hydrogen is 33,000 w hr/kg which makes much more sense of a green energy source for heavy haul vehicles.  There are several technical issues to be addressed for hydrogen. The first issue is the source for the hydrogen.  Current hydrogen is grey hydrogen which is hydrogen produced from a reaction between natural gas and water to yield carbon dioxide and hydrogen. What to do with that carbon dioxide?  Grey hydrogen released the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so it is no better than burning the natural gas. Blue hydrogen sequesters the carbon dioxide and there are all sorts of technologies being pursed on how to sequester carbon dioxide, but reality is none are commercial. Pink hydrogen is electrolysis of water to yield hydrogen using nuclear power. There is no source of pink hydrogen. Green hydrogen is the production of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water using renewables (wind, solar, hydro).  The first green hydrogen production facility was due to be opened in March, but has been delayed. Thus, no large scale green hydrogen is available but should start to be available this year.

There are a lot practical issues on the use of hydrogen. One such issue is how to fuel the vehicle. These are solvable with engineering and probably short term reachable than getting battery energy density up to 5000 w hr/kg.

I wonder how much ESG will make it cost effective for companies to use batteries even though they're not the best possible solution for the application @WBC. What you said makes perfect sense in terms of energy density and what makes sense to use. I just don't know if the shareholders are interested.

@BillYo414 posted:

I wonder how much ESG will make it cost effective for companies to use batteries even though they're not the best possible solution for the application @WBC. What you said makes perfect sense in terms of energy density and what makes sense to use. I just don't know if the shareholders are interested.

That's the question.  If anybody looks at the stock market and how green energy companies have performed over the last couple of months one would conclude that shareholders are not interested at all. 

All new technologies have teething pains .  Some of the arguments against non-polluting, renewables sound a bit like the arguments for why automobiles with steam, electric or internal combustion engines could never replace horses.

As a physician, I know that combustibles (particularly coal and petroleum products) produce air pollution that dramatically increases disability and death due to cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases and cancer. Thus, for me,  the primary reason for moving to non-combustion oriented power for heating, lighting and transportation,  etc. is health.

Climate change is a consideration for sure, but the primary direct benefits are to reduced cardiovascular, lung and cancer related deaths.   And growing crops using renewable energy means greenhouses become economical and feasible to grow food anywhere regardless of climate and water availability (electrolysis of salt water for one example).

And if there's another ice age, it would be nice to have wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear etc. sources of electricity that would work on top of the ice then covering North America.  Keep our toy trains running too.

"A locomotive carries about 25,000 of diesel fuel..."

That seems like a lot. Just from casual observation, the tanks look to be around 5,000 gallons. Ten times the size of the 550 gallon tank in my basement, as an example.

@WBC posted:

There should be some skepticism of batteries powering heavy haul vehicles from a energy density view point.  The energy density of Li-ion batteries is about 300 kw hr/kg.  That means to do 1 horsepower work in one hour requires 2.5 kg of battery.  Thus, a 4,000 hp locomotive would require 10,000 kg (685 slugs) of battery to power it at full power for 1 hour. A locomotive carries about 25,000 kg of diesel fuel and so if one replaces the diesel fuel with batteries would give about 2.5 hours of operation at full power.  Battery technology works ok for cars in view of energy density, but battery capacity needs to increase dramatically for heavy haul vehicles.

The AC4400CW 4,400 HP locomotive has a 5,000 gallon tank, that would equate to 16,100 kg of fuel, not 25,000 kg.  Other road engines have 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of tank capacity.

Not to take away from your point, I think trying to do this with with today's battery technology is a fool's errand!  Also, imagine the lithium fire if a battery the size required catches on fire, it'll make Tesla fires look pretty tame!

@Arthur P. Bloom posted:

"A locomotive carries about 25,000 of diesel fuel..."

That seems like a lot. Just from casual observation, the tanks look to be around 5,000 gallons. Ten times the size of the 550 gallon tank in my basement, as an example.

Probably should not due calculations in my head.

Let us work it out.  The fuel is about 11 lbs/ gal which would be 55000 pounds. Converting to Newtons at 4.44822 Newtons per pound, that would be about 245000 Newtons.  Both pounds and Newtons are units of force. Now to convert to mass. 1 kg mass has a force of 9.81 Newtons in Earth's gravity (not at coincidence that acceleration due to Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 ).  Thus, converting the force 245000 Newtons to mass in kg would be 245000/9.81 equals 24,974.5 kg.

Thus, a full tank of gas in a locomotives has a mass of 24,974.5 kg.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Not to take away from your point, I think trying to do this with with today's battery technology is a fool's errand!  Also, imagine the lithium fire if a battery the size required catches on fire, it'll make Tesla fires look pretty tame!

The fire argument is a bit on the fear mongering side.  Of course, everybody points towards the Hindenburg (spectacular Zeppelin BTW flaming or not) with hydrogen. Fuels are fuels because they burn. The better they burn the better the fuel.  They go hand in hand. There are problems with Li-ion batteries. No doubt about that.

Li^+  + e^- -->  Li -3V. Plug that into ΔG=-nFE you have a big Gibbs free energy change for lithium giving up an electron to do work with. The atomic mass of lithium is 6 which allows for for a high packing density of lithium atoms per unit mass.  Sodium atomic mass is 23 while potassium is 39. That what makes lithium a great fuel. Being a great fuel means it can catch fire. Just goes with the territory. However, the problems with the batteries will be solved.  The chemists/material scientists with the engineers will solve those problems.

@WBC posted:

The fire argument is a bit on the fear mongering side.

Au contraire, I've seen a large lithium battery fire in person, it's not fear mongering at all!  You may think that that issue will be solved, but until it is, it's a real risk.

To date, Tesla's have had 182 confirmed fires with 53 fatalities, Tesla-Fire List.  These are reported and verified incidents, but I know of a local Tesla fire that caught fire in the driveway that's not on this list, so the list is not complete.

@WBC posted:

Probably should not due calculations in my head.

Let us work it out.  The fuel is about 11 lbs/ gal which would be 55000 pounds.

Diesel fuel weighs 7.1 pounds/gallon, not 11 pounds.

Probably should use the right numbers for the calculations in your head.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Diesel fuel weighs 7.1 pounds/gallon, not 11 pounds.

Probably should use the right numbers for the calculations in your head.

Point taken. Got to start with the correct number. I design a lot of paints which often come in at around 11 lbs/gal so that is where the number came from.

@WBC posted:

Point taken. Got to start with the correct number. I design a lot of paints which often come in at around 11 lbs/gal so that is where the number came from.

What kind of paints are those?  That seems fairly heavy for a gallon, maybe it's lead based.

I looked it up, I was amazed that paint can weight as much as 12-13 pounds/gallon!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Au contraire, I've seen a large lithium battery fire in person, it's not fear mongering at all!  You may think that that issue will be solved, but until it is, it's a real risk.

To date, Tesla's have had 182 confirmed fires with 53 fatalities, Tesla-Fire List.  These are reported and verified incidents, but I know of a local Tesla fire that caught fire in the driveway that's not on this list, so the list is not complete.

In all fairness, one must point out the rate of car fires across all vehicles.

https://www.caranddriver.com/n...mes-real-statistics/ No, Millions of Cars Are Not Catching Fire Every Year

AutoInsuranceEZ studied the frequency of fires—from all causes, including collisions—in automobiles in 2021.

It found that hybrid vehicles, which have an internal combustion engine and an electric motor, had the most fires per 100,000 vehicles (3475),

while vehicles with just an internal combustion engine placed second (1530 per 100,000).

Fully electric vehicles had the fewest: 25 per 100,000. These findings were based on data from the National Transportation Safety Board and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

I guess what is or what is not fear mongering is subjective but considering the overall rates across the spectrum it seems to be on the mongering side to me.

To quote Q:

“If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home, and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here! It's wondrous...with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid.”

The big difference is, a huge lithium battery fire would be a think to behold!  The technique and equipment for dealing with petroleum fires is widely available and there is tons of experience with that kind of fire.  Lithium fires have been a major challenge for fire departments.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

What kind of paints are those?  That seems fairly heavy for a gallon, maybe it's lead based.

I looked it up, I was amazed that paint can weight as much as 12-13 pounds/gallon!

Paints used to have lead in them.  This was before rutile. Not anymore, obviously.

Some of your fancy paints with special optical effects can have bismuth pigments in them. Bismuth pigments can give paints with fantastical optical effects dependent on viewing angle in addition to normal colors. Bismuth pigments can be quite dense giving the paint a high mass per gallon.