Gravitricity Gets An Imperial Seal Of Approval
This article on Renewable Energy Magazine is entitled Gravitricity Technology Turns Mine Shafts into Low Cost Power Storage Systems.
This is the first paragraph.
A report by independent analysts at Imperial College London has found that Scotland-based Gravitricity’s gravity-fed energy storage system may offer a better long-term cost of energy storage than batteries or other alternatives – particularly in grid balancing and rapid frequency response services.
I am starting to believe that Gravitricity’s simple, but patented system has a future.
The Imperial report says the system has the following advantages.
- More affordable than batteries.
- Long life.
- No long term degredation.
The main requirement is a shaft, which can be newly sunk or an old mine shaft.
Hopefully, reusing old mine shafts, must save costs and remove hazards from the landscape.
No-one can say the system isn’t extremely scientifically green.
I have some thoughts.
Eco-Developments
Could clever design allow a mine shaft to be both capped and turned into an energy storage system?
Perhaps then housing or other developments could be built over the top, thus converting an area unsuitable for anything into something more valuable. with built in energy storage.
More Efficient Motor-Generators
One of the keys to efficient operation of a Gravitricity system is efficient motor-generators.
These are also key to efficient regenerative braking on trains, trams and other vehicles.
So is enough research going into development of efficient motor-generators?
Report: Gravity-Based Energy Storage Could Prove Cheaper Than Batteries
The title of this post, is the same as this article on Business Green.
This is said.
Storing energy by suspending weights in disused mine shafts could be cheaper than batteries for balancing the grid, new research has found.
According to a report by analysts at Imperial College London and seen by BusinessGreen, gravity-fed energy storage systems can provide frequency response at a cost cheaper than most other storage solutions.
This was the conclusions of the Imperial College report.
According to the paper, gravity-fed storage providing frequency response costs $141 per kW, compared to $154 for a lithium-ion battery, $187 for lead acid batteries and $312 for flywheel.
Despite its high upfront cost, the paper argued that unlike battery-based storage systems, gravity-fed solutions have a long lifespan of more than 50 years and aren’t subject to degradation. This means they could cycle several times a day – allowing them to ‘stack revenues’ from different sources.
I always puzzle why this idea hasn’t been seriously tried before.
Mathematics Of A Bi-Mode Aventra With Batteries
This article in Rail Magazine, is entitled Bombardier Bi-Mode Aventra To Feature Battery Power.
A few points from the article.
- Development has already started.
- Battery power could be used for Last-Mile applications.
- The bi-mode would have a maximum speed of 125 mph under both electric and diesel power.
- The trains will be built at Derby.
- Bombardier’s spokesman said that the ambience will be better, than other bi-modes.
- Export of trains is a possibility.
It’s an interesting specification.
Diesel Or Hydrogen Power?
Could the better ambience be, because the train doesn’t use noisy and polluting diesel power, but clean hydrogen?
It’s a possibility, especially as Bombardier are Canadian, as are Ballard, who produce hydrogen fuel-cells with output between 100-200 kW.
Ballard’s fuel cells power some of London’s hydrogen buses.
The New Routemaster hybrid bus is powered by a 138 kW Cummins ISBe diesel engine and uses a 75 kWh lithium-ion battery, with the bus being driven by an electric motor.
If you sit in the back of one of these buses, you can sometimes hear the engine stop and start.
In the following calculations, I’m going to assume that the bi-mode |Aventra with batteries has a power source, that can provide up to 200 kW, in a fully-controlled manner
Ballard can do this power output with hydrogen and I’m sure that to do it with a diesel engine and alternator is not the most difficult problem in the world.
The Mathematics
Let’s look at the mathematics!
I’ll assume the following.
- The train is five cars, with say four motored cars.
- The empty train weighs close to 180 tonnes.
- There are 430 passengers, with an average weight of 80 Kg each.
- This gives a total train weight of 214.4 tonnes.
- The train is travelling at 200 kph or 125 mph.
- A diesel or hydrogen power pack is available that can provide a controllable 200 kW electricity supply.
These figures mean that the kinetic energy of the train is 91.9 kWh. This was calculated using Omni’s Kinetic Energy Calculator.
My preferred battery arrangement would be to put a battery in each motored car of the train, to reduce electrical loses and distribute the weight. Let’s assume four of the five cars have a New Routemaster-sized battery of 55 kWh.
So the total onboard storage of the train could easily be around 200 kWh, which should be more than enough to accommodate the energy generated , when braking from full speed..
I wonder if the operation of a bi-mode with batteries would be something like this.
- The batteries would power everything on the train, including traction, the driver’s systems and the passenger facilities, just as the single battery does on New Routemaster and other hybrid buses.
- The optimum energy level in the batteries would be calculated by the train’s computer, according to route, passenger load and the expected amount of energy that would be recovered by regenerative braking.
- The batteries would be charged when required by the power pack.
- A 200 kW power pack would take twenty-seven minutes to put 91.9 kWh in the batteries.
- In the cruise the power pack would run as required to keep the batteries charged to the optimum level and the train at line speed.
- If the train had to slow down, regenerative braking would be used and the electricity would be stored in the batteries.
- When the train stops at a station, the energy created by regenerative braking is stored in the batteries on the train.
- I suspect that the train’s computer will have managed energy, so that when the train stops, the batteries are as full as possible.
- When moving away from a stop, the train would use the stored battery power and any energy used would be topped up by the power pack.
The crucial operation would be stopping at a station.
- I’ll assume the example train is cruising at 125 mph with an energy of 91.9 kWh.
- The train’s batteries have been charged by the onboard generator, on the run from the previous station.
- But the batteries won’t be completely full, as the train’s computer will have deliberately left spare capacity to accept the expected energy from regenerated braking at the next station.
- At an appropriate distance from the station, the train will start to brake.
- The energy of the train will be transferred to the train’s batteries, by the regenerative braking system.
- If the computer has been well-programmed, the train will now be sitting in the station with fully-charged batteries.
- When the train moves off and accelerates to line speed, the train will use power from the batteries.
- As the battery power level drops, the onboard generator will start up and replace the energy used.
This sequence of operations or something like it will be repeated at each station.
One complication, is that regenerative braking is not one hundred percent efficient, so up to thirty percent can be lost in the braking process. In our example 125mph train, this could be 27.6 kWh.
With an onboard source capable of supplying 200 kW, this would mean the generator would have to run for about eight and a half minutes to replenish the lost power. As most legs on the proposed routes of these trains, are longer than that, there shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
If it sounds complicated, it’s my bad explanation.
This promotional video shows how Alstom’s hydrogen-powered Coradia iLint works.
It looks to me, that Bombardier’s proposed 125 mph bi-mode Aventra will work in a similar way, with respect to the batteries and the computer.
But, Bombardier Only Said Diesel!
The Rail Magazine article didn’t mention hydrogen and said that the train would be able to run at 125 mph on both diesel and electric power.
I have done the calculations assuming that there is a fully-controllable 200 kW power source, which could be diesel or hydrogen based.
British Rail’s Class 150 train from 1984, has two 215 kW Cummns diesel engines, so could a five-car bi-mode train, really be powered by a single modern engine of this size?
The mathematics say yes!
A typical engine would probably weigh about 500 Kg and surely because of its size and power output, it would be much easier to insulate passengers and staff from the noise and vibration.
Conclusion
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, that a 125 mph bi-mode train is a practical proposition.
- It would need a controllable hydrogen or diesel power-pack, that could deliver up to 200 kW
- Only one power-pack would be needed for a five-car train.
- For a five-car train, a battery capacity of 300 kWh would probably be sufficient.
From my past professional experience, I know that a computer model can be built, that would show the best onboard generator and battery sizes, and possibly a better operating strategy, for both individual routes and train operating companies.
Obviously, Bombardier have better data and more sophisticated calculations than I do.
D-Train Order For Marston Vale Confirmed
The title of this post, is the same as the title of an article in the April 2018 Edition of Modern Railways.
It gives a few more details on the order from West Midlands Trains for three Class 230 trains to provide the service on the Marston Vale Line.
- The trains will be in operation in December 2018
- Two trains will operate the daily service.
- The trains will be diesel-powered.
When the trains come into operation, extra early morning and late-night services will be added from Monday to Saturday.
Battery Prototype
The article also gives more details of the battery prototype.
- The train has four battery rafts, each with a capacity of 106 kWh
- Range is up to fifty miles with a ten minute charge at each end of the journey.
- Range will increase as battery technology improves.
- The train is charged using a patented automatic charging point.
- The batteries will have a seven-year lifespan, backed by a full warranty.
- Battery rafts would appear to be interchangeable with the diesel generators.
- Hydrogen power will be used within the next few years.
The specification seems comprehensive and it would appear there is a high degree of innovative automation and well-thought-out electrical engineering.
Train Energy Consumption
The train has the following characteristics.
- Two cars
- 424 kWh of battery capacity.
- 50 mile range
This gives a consumption 4.24 kWh/per car/per mile.
In an article in the October 2017 Edition of Modern Railways, which is entitled Celling England By The Pound, Ian Walmsley says this in relation to trains running on the Uckfield Branch, which is probably not much more taxing than the Marston Vale Line.
A modern EMU needs between 3 and 5 kWh per vehicle mile for this sort of service.
I am surprised that the Class 230 train lies in the 3-5 kWh range, but then I’m not sure of the weights of the two trains.
I estimate two-car units to weigh as follows.
- Class 230 train plus batteries – Around 50 tonnes.
- Electrostar – Around 90 tonnes
- Aventra – Around 80 tonnes
I shall get some better figures, when I actually see the trains, as the weight is on the side.
The Pop-Up Train
The article talks of the concept of a low-cost pop-up train as a solution for a regional or commuter train.
Export To America?
This pop-up train could be designed to be used to demonstrate rail services in America.
Henry Posner, who is promoting the train in America is quoted as saying cities could use the train to test possible services with passengers on board ‘for less than the cost of a consultant’s study into a possible service’.
These demonstrations will be on freight lines, where for reasons of safety, the passengers trains would run during the day and freight trains at night.
Is America ready for an invasion of remanufactured forty-year-old London Underground D78 Stock trains?
Huisman Weighs Into Storage
The title of this post is the same as thia article in RENews.
This is the first two paragraphs.
Edinburgh start-up Gravitricity is teaming up with Dutch lifting specialist Huisman to develop gravity-fed energy storage projects at the sites of disused mines in Scotland.
The partners plan to develop a 250kW demonstration project and test it early next year, and ultimately aim to scale up to 20MW commercial systems.
I think that this idea has a chance to be a success.
As an aside, one of my first experiences of industry was working at Enfield Rolling Mills. On one of their rolling mills, there was a ninety-three tonnes two-metre ring flywheel, which was attached to the mill. The flywheel was spun to 3000 rpm, before the copper wirebar was passed through the mill. You could see the flywheel slow, as it passed it’s energy to the mill, as it turned the wirebar into a thinner strand of copper, so that it could be drawn into electrical cable.
I think, that flywheel had an energy storage of over a MwH. Shimatovitch, the Chief Engineer reckoned that if had come of its mountings at full speed, it would have gone a mile before the houses stopped it.
Existing EVs Could Steer Energy To 300,000 Homes
The title of this post, is the same as this article on the Utility Week web site.
This is the opening two paragraphs.
Existing electric vehicles (EVs) in the UK could contribute more than 114MW to the National Grid, enough to power over 300,000 homes.
Research commissioned by Ovo Energy suggests the figure could be achieved based on the current 19,000 Nissan Leaf EVs registered in the UK using new vehicle-to-grid (V2G) chargers.
The article goes on to discuss this in detail.
So what is vehicle-to-grid?
Wikipedia has this summary.
Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which plug-in electric vehicles, such as electric cars (BEV), plug-in hybrids (PHEV) or hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV), communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by either returning electricity to the grid or by throttling their charging rate.
Vehicle-to-grid can be used with gridable vehicles, that is, plug-in electric vehicles (BEV and PHEV), with grid capacity. Since at any given time 95 percent of cars are parked, the batteries in electric vehicles could be used to let electricity flow from the car to the electric distribution network and back. This represents an estimated value to the utilities of up to $4,000 per year per car.
If you are thinking about buying an electric car or van, read the article and other sources. Wikipedia seems a good start.
At its simplest, it would appear that if you buy an electric vehicle, it would be prudent to fit a V2G charger in your garage or parking space.
I would expect, that the charging system is sophisticated, so that if you want to use the car, there is sufficient charge and the power hasn’t been sold back to the grid.
It will be very interesting to see how this technology develops.
Will London Overground Procure Some Class 230 Trains?
Transport for London has a cash flow problem caused by various factors.
- The reduction in grant from Central Government.
- A fall in bus revenue caused by traffic congestion.
- The freeze of fares by the Mayor.
- The need to add services to stimulate much-needed housing.
This article in Rail Magazine is entitled Vivarail’s D-Trains Confirmed For Bedford-Bletchley.
As West Midlands Trains have now confirmed the order for the Class 230 trains, does this mean that buying Vivarail’s innovative refurbished London Underground D78 Stock, is now a less-risky train purchase?
Battery Or Diesel Class 230 Trains?
Would Transport for London buy a diesel or battery version of the Class 230 train?
Transport for London will have an exclusively electric fleet in a few months, when they have passed the Class 172 trains to West Midlands Trains.
I can’t believe they’d want to buy a small number of diesel trains, so I suspect they’ll go for battery versions.
Advantages Of Class 230 Trains For Transport for London
The trains must have advantages for Transport for London.
- They are simple trains, built for remote servicing.
- In some applications, their short length of just two cars must help, in that expensive platform extensions will not be needed.
- I would suspect that one two-car train is designed to rescue another.
- Capacity can be increased by adding a third-car.
- Transport for London must also have a lot of expertise on how to get the most out of these trains.
Possible Routes
There are a handful of possible routes.
Greenford Branch Line
The Greenford Branch Line must be a prime candidate for running with two-car battery version of a Class 230 train.
Consider.
- Using a four-car train, like a Class 710 train would require the platform at Greenford to be lengthened.
- A Class 230 train would only need some form of simple electrification at Greenford and/or West Ealing stations.
- Class 230 trains, would probably fit all platforms easily and give level access for wheelchairs and buggies.
- Could London Overground’s third-rail engineers add suitable electrification to charge the batteries at Greenford station?
- The branch is only four kilometres long.
- The branch only has the two tph passenger service and the occasional freight train.
- All trains use the new bay platform at West Ealing station.
One train could obviously work the current two trains per hour (tph) timetable, but could two trains and a possible spare run a four tph service on the branch?
The advantages of using Class 230 trains over a more conventional approach using perhaps Class 710 trains would include.
- No electrification of the branch.
- No platform lengthening and possibly little platform modification.
- Only a short length of third-rail electrification would be needed to charge the batteries.
- A four tph service might be possible.
The big advantage would be that it would be a low-cost project.
Romford To Upminster Line
The Romford To Upminster Line is currently run by a single four-car Class 315 train, which was to be replaced by a new Class 710 train.
In the March 2018 Edition of Modern Railways, whilst discussing nine more Class 71 trains for the London Overground, it is said, that a Class 315 train will be retained for the Romford To Upminster Line.
Why not procure another Class 230 train and use that to shuttle along the branch?
Consider.
- The electrification can be removed from the line, to save maintenance costs.
- A short length of third-rail electrification can be used to charge the batteries at Upminster station.
- The trains could be stabled at Upminster Depot.
The line used to have a short passing loop between Romford and Emerson Park station, that could be long enough for a two-car Class 230 train. If this loop were to be reinstated without electrification, if might allow a four tph service.
It would be another low-cost project.
Bromley North Line
The Bromley North Line is currently served by Southeastern.
Reading Wikipedia for the line, I get the impression, that the line isn’t a major problem, but there are little annoyances.
- Services are not frequent enough at some times of the day and week.
- Connection to services to and from London aren’t always convenient.
- It is not the easiest branch to provide with trains and drivers.
In addition, Southeastern would appear to be amenable to pass the line to Transport for London.
The track layout for the line has the following characteristics.
- Double-track throughout.
- There is a single platform at Grove Park station.
- There are two platforms at Bromley North station.
- The intermediate station; Sundridge Park has two platforms.
It looks like the line was designed so that two trains can operate simultaneously.
- Two Class 230 trains could run a four tph service.
- Stabling and servicing could be in Bromley North station.
- Trains could be third-rail or battery.
- A spare train could be held ready if it was felt needed.
It would be a self-contained low-cost solution.
Epping To Ongar
The Epping to Ongar service on the Central Line is no more, but would it be viable now with a Class 230 train?
Brentford Branch Line
The Brentford Branch Line has been proposed for reopening.
Class 230 trains powered by batteries would be ideal rolling stock.
The trains would be charged in Southall station.
West London Orbital
This article on Global Rail News is entitled Commitment To West London Orbital rail line.
This is said.
A press release distributed by the office of London Mayor Sadiq Khan said: “This new line, delivered through TfL, the West London Alliance, boroughs and Network Rail, could potentially support the delivery of an additional 20,000 homes, as well as employment growth in west London.”
In this article on Ian Visits, this is said about the service on the proposed West London Orbital line.
Phase 1: 4 trains per hour from West Hampstead to Hounslow, calling at West Hampstead, Cricklewood, Neasden, Harlesden, OOC, Acton Central, South Acton, Brentford, Syon Lane, Isleworth, Hounslow.
Phase 2: additional 4 trains per hour from Hendon to Kew Bridge, calling at Hendon, Brent Cross/Staples Corner, Neasden, Harlesden, OOC, Acton Central, South Acton, Kew Bridge.
The track is all in place and with a new bay platform at Hounslow, Class 230 trains could work Phase 1 on batteries with ease.
The key to the intermediate stations is property development. At Neasden, Harlesden and Old Oak Common, there is a lot of spare land around the Dudding Hill Line, where the trains will run. Developers will be told to build an appropriate amount of housing with a new station underneath.
The West London Orbital could be built to the following specification.
- No full electrification.
- Battery trains.
- Platforms long enough for four-car Class 710 trains.
- Bay platforms with possible charging at West Hampstead, Hendon, Hounslow and Key Bridge stations.
- Four tph on both routes.
It lends itself to a very efficient way of building the railway.
- Build a platform on the freight line through West Hampstead Thameslink station.
- Build a bay platform that will accept a four-car train at Hounslow station.
- Establish a four tph shuttle service between West Hampstead Thameslink and Hounslow stations calling at Acton Central, South Acton, Brentford, Syon Lane and Isleworth.
- Stations could be built at Neasden, Harlesden and Old Oak Common, where there is a generous amount of brownfield land, with lots of space for housing above the tracks and platforms.
Note.
- Batteries would be charged between Acton Central and Hounslow using the existing third-rail electrification.
- About five miles of the route would not be electrified.
- Housing developments on top of a station are a property developers dream.
The service could be started using Class 230 trains, with the option to switch to four-car Class 710 trains, powered by batteries, when more capacity is needed and Bombardier have fully developed the battery Aventra.
Phase two of the project would need development of platforms at Hendon and Kew Bridge stations.
The beauty of the West London Orbital, is that the only costs for Transport for London are four new platforms, some track-work and a fleet of new trains.
Hopefully, the development of the intermediate stations would be down to property developers, as they will make a fortune out of the housing!
Conclusion
I think the answer to my original question posed in the title of this post is Yes!
Would The Gravitricity Concept Work At Sea?
The North Sea and other similar places have lots of oil oil and gas platforms, that are coming to the end of their lives.
Many are being dismantled and scrapped.
But could some be used to store energy by replacing the refitting the deck with a Gravitricity energy storage system. The massive weight would be hauled up and down from the sea bed.
It would be fed generated electricity from nearby offshore wind turbines and would store or feed the electricity to the shore as required.
Remember that some of these oil platforms have been built to support decks weighing thousands of tonnes, so would be strong enough to support the massive weight needed for a Gravitricity system.
If the height was say 500 metres and the weight was 10,000 tonnes, this would equate to just under 14 mWh.
Gravitricity Sets Sights On South Africa To Test Green Energy Tech
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on ESI Africa, which describes itself as Africa’s Power Journal.
This is the first two paragraphs.
Disused mine shafts in South Africa have been identified as an ideal location to test UK-based energy start-up Gravitricity’s green energy technology.
The company announced plans to transform disused mine shafts into hi-tech green energy generation facilities through a system that uses gravity and massive weights.
This is surely a classic fit, as Africa has plenty of sun and some of the mine shafts in South Africa, like the TauTona mine are getting towards two miles deep.
A weight of 1,000 tonnes in a two mile deep shaft would store nearly nine MWh. By comparison, Dinorwig Power Station or Electric Mountain, has a capacity of 500 MWh.
But Electric Mountain was built in the 1970s, cost £425 million and took ten years to construct.

