Project
Objectives
Develop
a zero-emissions, fuelcell-powered metal-mining locomotive.
Evaluate
the vehicle for safety and performance in surface tests in Nevada.
Evaluate
its productivity in an underground mine in Canada.
Sponsor:
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Golden Field Office, Golden,
Colorado
Period
of Performance: 3
years (September 1999 through November 2002)
Total
Cost: US$1.6 million
US$1,039,195
– U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
US$100,000 – Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
US$451,277 – Cost sharing by industrial partners
Fuelcell Propulsion Institute – Industry oversight and
education
Hatch Associates Ltd – Safety analyses
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates – Surface test site
Mine Safety and Health Administration – Risk evaluation
of vehicle
Natural Resources Canada – Underground testing
Nuvera Fuel Cells Europe – Fuelcell stacks
Placer Dome Inc – Underground production test site
RA Warren Equipment Ltd – Base vehicle
Sandia National Laboratories / California – Powerplant
development
Stuart Energy Systems Inc – Vehicle refueling
University of Nevada, Reno – Surface testing in Nevada
Vehicle Projects LLC – Prime contractor and project management
1 September 1999 – Start date
December 2001 – Initial system power-up
February 2002 – System tests in Reno, Nevada
August 2002 – Final integration
of locomotive in Val-d'Or, Québec
New
fuelcell stacks installed, new programmable logic controller
installed, and new controller powered up.
September
2002 – Underground tests
The
locomotive became the first hydrogen fuelcell-powered locomotive
to be operated underground – perhaps the first fuelcell-powered
vehicle to operate underground. During tests at Val-d'Or, Québec,
the locomotive continued to exceed expectations, pulling five
loaded cars (20 tons total) without difficulty:
September
2002 – Regulatory approval by the Ontario Ministry of Labor
October
2002 – Underground production tests in
Placer Dome's Campbell Mine, Red Lake, Ontario
Mine
site test conclusions:
"The
locomotive, in both surface and underground tests at CANMET's
Experimental Mine and at Placer Dome's Campbell Mine, accumulated
a total of 43 hours of operation in fuelcell mode and 6.5
hours in traditional battery mode, for a grand total of almost
50 hours of monitored operation. . . . In this fully productive
environment, over 1,000 tons (760 tons on fuelcell and 240
tons on battery) of material were hauled, covering a total
cumulative distance of over 65 kilometres going up and down
the Campbell Mine's different tramming routes.
"The
fuelcell-powered locomotive proved to be as reliable and productive
as the battery-powered version . . . . It is also foreseeable
. . . that the fuelcell-powered version will give steady,
100% power availability for around 8.5 hours of operation,
compared to the battery-powered version, because running on
stored energy will give a steadily decreasing performance
curve for around 7 hours of operation.
".
. . . refuelling has the potential to easily being achieved
within an hour time frame if a proper underground hydrogen
refuelling area can be (found), compared to the 7 - 8 hours
needed to fully recharge a tradtional locomotive battery.
"Based
on these performance tests, this prototype fuelcell-powered
underground locomotive proves to be as effective as the same
battery-powered unit regarding power generation / tractive
effort / daily production basis for a continuous 6.5-hour
production window. However, the potential of increasing daily
production levels is much greater using the fuelcell-powered
unit. It is not an overstatement to say that an off-the-shelf
manufactured fuelcell power plant will be more efficient as
for power/volume ratio, and therefore will prove to be much
more productive on a long-term basis than battery-powered
locomotives. If the fuelcell-powered locomotive outperforms
the battery-powered locomotive based only on production issues,
one must also take into consideration the advantages compared
to an underground diesel-powered locomotive when adding ventilation-related
economies, noise, health, etc."
Pierre
Laliberté
Electrical Engineer
Natural Resources Canada
CANMET Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories
November
2002 – Refueling demonstration in Reno, Nevada
November
2002 – Successful project completion
19
May 2003 - U.S. Department of Energy Peer Review, Berkeley,
California
Locomotive
Specifications
PEM
(proton exchange membrane) stacks are rated at 17 kW continuous
gross power.
Reversible
metal-hydride storage safely provides 3 kg of high-purity hydrogen
fuel in small quantities as needed.
Vehicle
operates for 8 hours without refueling.
Full
refueling in approximately 1 hour.
Comparison
of Battery and Fuelcell 4-Ton Locomotives
| |
Battery
Locomotive |
Fuelcell
Locomotive |
| Power,
rated continuous |
7.1
kW (gross) |
17
kW (gross) |
Current,
rated continuous |
76
Amps |
135
Amps |
Voltage
at continuous rating |
94
Volts (estimated) |
126
Volts |
Energy
capacity, electrical |
43
kWh |
48
kWh |
Operating
time |
6
hours (available) |
8
hours |
Recharge
time |
8
hours (minimum) |
1
hour (maximum) |
Vehicle
weight |
3,600
kg |
2,500
kg (without ballast) |
Note: The fuelcell locomotive used a commercial battery locomotive
chassis and electric dirve. Battery-vehicle parameters are those of
the commercial product.
Advantages
of Fuelcell Locomotive over Battery Locomotive
Equal
acceleration
More
than twice the power
Ability
to pull longer trains
Shorter
recharge time
Longer
operational time (possibly 2 labor shifts)
Benefits
of the Fuelcell Locomotive
Same
health benefits of an electric vehicle
Same
productivity level as a diesel vehicle
Reduced
vehicle recurring costs
Lower
mine ventilation costs |
