Tesi Magistrale Ing. Energetica e Nucleare Innovazione nella produzione energetica High-speed trains comparison to Hyperloop: energy and sustainability Hyperloop safety analysis and integrations to reach the NOAH concept Candidate Matteo Riviera Relators Andrea Carpignano Giacomo Bersano 2 Riviera M. –Innovazione nella produzione energetica – A.A. 2017/18 3 Acknowledgments Tanks to my family, for all you do to make me a better man, for all your support, for your gratitude and your teachings. I always keep you in my heart. Thanks to Polito staff, you can be proud of your work. Even if sometimes I felt like there was a wall between the world of teachers and the world of scholars. Thanks to my friends, always helpful and ready to show me other points of view in adverse situations. Thanks to Ikos staff, even if it was for a short time, it was a beautiful internship. Thanks to Carpene family, to host me like one of the family in your beautiful Beresina. Thank you all, if I can walk straight is because I found you in my way. Mostly thanks to my mother, that embolden myself from the very beginning and she will never stop to coach her little children. Riviera M. –Innovazione nella produzione energetica – A.A. 2017/18 4 Executive summary In a time of global changes, where humanity wakes up after a period of indiscriminate exploitation of resources and uncontrolled pollution of air, ground and sea, every chance to reduce damages to the environment must be taken on the fly. Transportation sector consumes, in Europe, one third of total end use energy relying for 90% over fossil fuels, a problem from environmental point of view. Assuming that long displacements are almost a need for actual society and that the airplane is a non-sustainable mean of transport, because of the great energy consumption and the total addiction to fossil fuels, High-Speed Train (HST) seems to be next principal long-distance continental operator. Objectives of the present analysis are to verify if hyperloop solution is more convenient than others HSTs and to implement an innovative, renewable, large and smart grid, to meet the need for an eco- friendly mean of transport. The method and the technologies under investigation are presented to have good foundations on which build the analysis. Results from a MATLAB flat-travel simulation are compared to evaluate energetic consumption linked to the only traction system for AGV, MAGLEV and HYPERLOOP. To find the more ecologic mean of transport a qualitative analysis of sustainability completes the comparison. A focus on hyperloop, through the Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) of the propulsion system and the description of the Network Operator Autonomous Hyperloop (NOAH), completes the paper. From simulations hyperloop appears like the best high-speed transportation on ground ever, consuming far less than other technologies in traction. Permitting almost 50% of energy regeneration at travel end, going uphill with a lower increase in consumption compared to maglev and AGV. Also, the qualitative analysis indicates it is the best HST to implement, point of view of performance, operational, maintenance and disposal costs. To make hyperloop a safe system is the work of RAMS ‘engineers, they should localize, analyze and resolve hazards step-by-step advancing in synchronization with the progression of the design. A short introduction to some standard is followed by the presentation of the inductive-deductive method employed to find hazards, then the worksheet based on ECSS standard is commented. Hyperloop seems the best technology to implement, but, once the energetic needs of vacuum pumps are estimated and added to results, the wind change direction. A solution can be to add an integrated photovoltaic plant on top of its mammoth infrastructure, like TransPod suggests, even if the best solution remains to save energy, not just to produce it from renewable sources. A critical analysis leads to implementing a new concept of the system. Smart energy storages, methanation plants near arrival stations, transportation of thermal energy and precious goods as water and an integrated intermodal system are presented in the NOAH concept. Concluding, magnetically levitated trains are the future of HST because of better performances and the possibility to reach higher speed. Hyperloop is suggested when crossing mountains and hills, it can regenerate huge quantities of energy thanks to quasi-complete loss of friction, it can be a smart energy operator (for production, storage and transportation). The more suitable infrastructure to build is hyperloop, which implies a series of advantages in the domain of intermodality and real connection. Great attention must be put in the domain of cybersecurity. Further analysis must be developed in the regenerative braking system, which is the best solution and how it is preferable? (onboard or connected to the guideway?). Hyperloop can be only a political project in Europe, connecting all countries in a unique network. Even if this new concept can assume some sci-fi aspects, it is achievable. Riviera M. –Innovazione nella produzione energetica – A.A. 2017/18 5 Table of content High-speed trains comparison to Hyperloop: energy and sustainability .......................................................... 1 Hyperloop safety analysis and integrations to reach the NOAH concept ......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive summary........................................................................................................................................ 4 Table of figures .............................................................................................................................................. 7 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Social background .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. Possible developments of mass transportation ............................................................................ 8 1.3. Actual high-speed systems description ......................................................................................... 9 1.4. A fifth way of transport, Hyperloop ............................................................................................ 14 1.5. Partners ....................................................................................................................................... 14 2. Objectives ............................................................................................................................................ 15 3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. General physic ............................................................................................................................. 17 3.2. Formulae for simulations ............................................................................................................. 20 3.3. Quantitative analysis: algorithm application ............................................................................... 22 3.4. Qualitative analysis ...................................................................................................................... 25 3.5. Preliminary Hazard Analysis ........................................................................................................ 25 3.5.1. Military standard ..................................................................................................................... 26 3.5.2. U.S Department of Transportation standard (FTA) ................................................................. 28 3.5.3. European standard .................................................................................................................. 30 3.5.4. ECSS standard .......................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.5. Focus on selected ECSS standard ............................................................................................ 33 3.5.6. Method to find hazards ........................................................................................................... 36 3.6. Critical analysis ............................................................................................................................ 38 4. High-speed trains description .............................................................................................................. 40 4.1. ALSTOM AGV ............................................................................................................................... 40 4.2. SHANGHAI MAGLEV ..................................................................................................................... 46 4.3. TRANSPOD HYPERLOOP ............................................................................................................... 52 5. Energetic and sustainability analysis: assumptions and results .......................................................... 59 5.1. Quantitative results of simulations ............................................................................................