Maglev - Where Does the Energy Come From?

[jimmydasaint]

IMHO, the Maglev train using computers to guide a train by the principles of repulsion and attraction is a superb example of modern engineering overcoming a problem. The problem is to move populations around as quickly safely, and without hassle to different conurbations, either within a country or internationally.

 

The priciples are demonstrated below:

 

 

and

 

How Maglev trains work

 

However, it strikes me, as a member of the energy consuming public, that this seems to use a lot of electricity and raw materials. Of more concern to me is how much energy the trains will drain from the National Grid, and how this compares to the amount of fossil fuels used by aeroplanes.

 

Is a maglev another energy consuming idea that will force us to burn more fossil fuels to generate electricity for it, or can it become an elegant and intelligent solution to future travel?

[Danijel Gorupec]

As far as I understand, maglev trans are not about energy saving (malevs offer other advantages: 'unlimited' speed, low noise, high ride quality).

 

However, in theory maglev trains do not need to consume much more energy than wheeled electrical trains - just a small fraction more. In fact, if you make them confortable and fast enough to replace some other means of transport (cars, planes...) then, maybe, you can make some overall energy savings.

 

 

[doG]

Propulsion coupled with regenerative braking systems on vehicles using maglev suspension is much more efficient than friction laden mechanical systems using wheels and axles. Energy requirements should be lower overall. Considering the reduced mechanical wear and tear I suspect there would be additional cost savings as a transport system.

[swansont]

However, it strikes me, as a member of the energy consuming public, that this seems to use a lot of electricity and raw materials. Of more concern to me is how much energy the trains will drain from the National Grid, and how this compares to the amount of fossil fuels used by aeroplanes.

 

Is a maglev another energy consuming idea that will force us to burn more fossil fuels to generate electricity for it, or can it become an elegant and intelligent solution to future travel?

 

One can attack this from an economics perspective and compare the proposed operating costs. Today's trains are already a lower-energy option than air travel, but have large infrastructure costs. Does the price of travel go up for maglev trains, and is due to energy consumption or infrastructure?

[Leader Bee]

With a maglev train you only need to supply energy to the vehicle itself right, not the tracks too?

I'd have thought you'd be able to run these mroe efficiently than the current wheeled designs.

[Phi for All]

Some maglev designs energize only the portion of the tracks the train is currently on, to save on power consumption.

 

I think maglev is more cost and time efficient than short commuter air travel for those areas where it makes sense, like Europe and the US East Coast (maybe the Los Angeles/San Francisco/Las Vegas triangle as well), but I don't think it will ever replace longer flights. Trains don't generally spend any time in holding patterns, and maglev trains have fewer moving parts and no friction so mechanical problems would seem to cause fewer delays and costs as well.

[swansont]

Trains don't generally spend any time in holding patterns

 

They do have an analogue, where they just stop and wait for the track ahead to clear, and this can have a severe cascading effect.

[jimmydasaint]

Thanks for the replies guys. The track and guidelines are electromagnetic and do consume energy. However, as it is for a short time, as others have stated, and does not experience the friction of moving on wheels, so it is a potential energy saver.

 

The big difference between a maglev train and a conventional train is that maglev trains do not have an engine -- at least not the kind of engine used to pull typical train cars along steel tracks. The engine for maglev trains is rather inconspicuous. Instead of using fossil fuels, the magnetic field created by the electrified coils in the guideway walls and the track combine to propel the train.

 

How Stuff Works

 

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/maglev-track1.gif

 

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, by swansont and others, that the costs of setting up this technology are dollar-intensive when a second recession is looming.

 

3. California High-Speed Rail

Top Speed /// 220 mph | Distance /// 800 miles

Technology /// high-speed steel wheel

 

The Plan /// More than a dozen years in the planning, the next best chance to build the first high-speed rail system in the U.S. is California's high-speed rail initiative. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has put his political muscle behind it by agreeing to put the issue to the voters on the November ballot as Proposition 1A. Voters will decide whether the state will put up $9.95 billion for the project--its obligation for the construction of the line from Los Angeles to San Francisco (federal and other public funds would make up the balance).

 

When completed, the trip would take about 2.5 hours, rivaling the time it takes to fly between the two cities. Ultimately, the California High-Speed Rail Authority would like to link all major cities in California. According to state government estimates, it's a superior alternative to expanding airports and constructing 3000 miles of highway that it believes will be needed in the near future at a cost of $82 billion.

 

Estimated Cost /// $40 billion | Estimated Completion Date /// 2030 (for all 800 miles)

 

Read more: 5 New Super Trains on Fast Track to World's Fastest Bullet - Popular Mechanics

 

Popular Mechanics

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

Compared to 300 mph (483 km/hr) maglev trains, a 300 mph, 0.2 atm (20 kPa) PRT Maglev would require approximately 56% of the infrastructure cost at $10 million per mile as compared to $17.9 million per mile of bi-directional guideway. The energy requirements of the 300 mph Maglev would be approximately 45% of that corresponding to a train system. Such a 300 mph, 0.2 atm PRT Maglev would operate at low pressures typically encountered by commercial aircraft and no new developments or breakthroughs would be needed for maintaining cabin pressure.

 

A similar PRT Maglev system at 500 mph (805 km/hr) would offer a 25% reduction in travel time due to higher velocities and even further time reductions due to PRT service. However, a 500 mph, 0.2 atm PRT Maglev would consume a similar amount of energy as the 300 mph Bechtel concept and would have similar system costs. On option for alleviating the higher costs at 500 mph is to reduce internal tube pressures to between 0.03 atm and 0.1 atm (3-10 kPa). Both increasing velocities to 500 mph and decreasing pressures to 0.05 atm could be performed as evolutions to an initial system operated at 300 mph and 0.2 atm.

 

Academic Study

Edited December 10, 2011 by jimmydasaint

[TransformerRobot]

So in other words one way of decreasing the costs to power maglev trains would be to make the trains themselves faster?

 

Why can't the electricity needed for maglev systems simply come from energy generated from windmills? There are batteries that can be recharged using solar panels, so perhaps a similar method could be applied to maglev trains depending on the region (Some place that gets clear skies often like the tropics). If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong.