Could this be combined with site-seeing railway trips to the top of famous mountains?
Natural water-courses could be diverted to fill extra tanks at the top of the incline, making net
energy contribution positive?
(Some old funicular railways used under-carriage water tanks to power them, with a speed-governor
rather than a motor (two cars moving in opposite directions, tanks drain at the bottom).
The end plan seems to be having 34 electric-traction-drive shuttle trains moving 11,400 230-ton masses (about 335 trips for each shuttle in an 8 hour period) between two yards, one at the bottom and one at the top of a 9.2Km rail road track (7.2% grade) in Nevada. Not mentioned is there would have to be a second parallel rail road track so in the case of when the system is generating electricity a shuttle that just dropped off a 230-ton mass at the bottom yard would be somehow moved over on to the other track and go up that empty to the top yard.
Another thing is 335 trips X 9.2Km = 3082Km and then divide that by 8 hours = 385.25Km per hour (shuttle speed) must be wrong so I guess they incorrectly added an extra zero to the masses so if I'm right it would be 33 trips, 1,140 230-ton masses and 38.52Km per hour for the shuttle speed.
ctwardell
Posts: 1,716
Comments
Too bad Nevada has no mountains, wind, or sunshine...
Natural water-courses could be diverted to fill extra tanks at the top of the incline, making net
energy contribution positive?
(Some old funicular railways used under-carriage water tanks to power them, with a speed-governor
rather than a motor (two cars moving in opposite directions, tanks drain at the bottom).
Another thing is 335 trips X 9.2Km = 3082Km and then divide that by 8 hours = 385.25Km per hour (shuttle speed) must be wrong so I guess they incorrectly added an extra zero to the masses so if I'm right it would be 33 trips, 1,140 230-ton masses and 38.52Km per hour for the shuttle speed.