Table of Contents

1. Introduction........................................1

2. Overview of existing gravitational

energy storage methods.................................2

2.1. Wet gravitational energy storage....3

2.2. Dry gravitational energy storage....5
3. Modelling of a gravitational energy
storage system...............................................6

3.1. Energy storage capacity..........................................

3.2. Mathematical description of the
resulting piston forces....................................................
4. GES performance capability..............9

4.1. Storage capacity.............................9

4.2. Piston material................................9
4.3. Energy and power densities..........10
4.4. GES levelised cost of storage.......12
4.5. Sensitivity analyses......................14
5. Wire rope hoisting system................16

5.1. Wire rope hoist modelling............16

5.2. Wire rope hoist capacity...............17
5.3. Drive train technology..................18
6. Linear electric machine hoist...........20

6.1. System description.......................20

6.2. Linear electric machine technology
22
6.3. Hoisting capability and practical
implementation.........................................23
References...............................................26
DESIGN OF GRAVITY ENERGY STORAGE BATTERY

1. Introduction
With the increasing penetration of renewable energy sources (RESs), the need to manage the
inherent intermittency of sources such as wind and solar power has also increased. While
traditional energy systems are well equipped to handle variability in energy demand, the additional
energy supply uncertainty introduced by the integration of large amounts of renewable energy will
require new kinds of flexibility measures to ensure grid stability [1].
Studies show that RES penetration up to 30% can be adequately accommodated by improving
operational practices [1-3], with several countries (e.g. Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus) generating
between 20 and 30% from variable RESs without any additional storage [4]. However, as RESs
continue to increase their share of generation responsibilities, the need to ensure adequate grid
flexibility and reliability has renewed interest in technologies and strategies that can help mitigate
the effects of RES [5].
One such technology, which can be especially useful in increasing the penetration of RESs, is
energy storage [1,6]. The renewed interest in energy storage methods have led to an increase in the
amount of research done, with the progress being well documented in various review papers [6-16].
The interest in and need for further development of energy storage systems, both technically and
economically, is thus of great importance.
There are numerous ways to classify energy storage systems. Broadly, such systems [10] can be
classified by either the form of the converted energy or the use of the storage, i.e. the service
provided by the storage system. The form of the storage can be divided into five main categories,
namely chemical, electrochemical, electrical, mechanical and thermal energy storage [9].
Qualifying the storage methods by means of the service produces the three overarching
categories described below [10,8] and summarised in Table 1.
 Bulk Energy Storage: Associated with services such as load shifting, providing spinning
reserves and long-term storage, these systems have a stored energy range of 1 MWh–8 GWh
and discharge times between 1 and 8 h.
 Distributed Generation: Storage systems better suited to applications such as peak shaving,
regulation services to help correct short-term power imbalances and upgrade deferral. These
systems are often deployed to reduce the load on the network, with a stored energy range of
0.05–8 MWh and discharge times between 30 min and 4 h.
 Power Quality: Generally systems that can respond very fast, they ensure end-user power
quality and reliability by helping maintain voltage levels and transient stability. These systems
have a stored energy range of 0.2–17 kWh and a discharge time of 1–30 s.

These definitions are purposely vague and even with them stated as above, technological
advancement has resulted in systems that can provide multiple services [8], making classification
more difficult.

160 | P a g e
Table 1
Summary of storage categories based on the service provided.

Service category Storage capacity Discharge time

Bulk energy storage 0.001–8 GWh 1–8 h
Distributed generation 0.05–8 MWh 0.5–4 h
Power quality 0.02–17 kWh 1–30 s

Consequently, it is useful to evaluate any storage system by fundamental attributes. Some of these
characteristics can be defined as follows [8,7]:
 Energy storage capacity and duration: Refers to the amount of energy that can be stored and
the duration that said energy can be stored.
 Energy/power density: Energy density (Wh/m3) is the energy stored per unit volume of the
system and power density (W/m3) is the output power per unit volume.
 Lifetime: The life span if the storage technology, measured in either years or total
charge/discharge cycles.
 Charge/discharge and response time: The time needed to charge or discharge fully. Response
time is the time needed to start providing rated power output.
 Roundtrip efficiency: Also called the AC-to-AC efficiency, this is defined as
Output Energy
∗100 % for one charge/discharge cycle.
Input Energy
 Capital Cost: The upfront costs of a storage technology, either per unit of power discharge or
per unit of energy discharge.
Analysing any storage system therefore requires weighing up a number of the relevant
characteristics and capabilities, as different renewable resources will have unique grid integration
and service requirements depending on various details such as the type and location of the
renewable source.
This paper focuses on gravity energy storage (GES), a subcategory of mechanical energy storage
which includes traditional pumped hydroelectricity storage [4]. It provides a review of the existing
GES technology and presents in-depth look at a proposed GES technology, with analysing two
proposed hoisting methods [7].

2. Overview of existing gravitational energy storage methods

Using the gravitational potential energy of an object as a way to store energy is not a new idea.
Pumped hydroelectric storage (PHES) is currently the most used storage method in the world,
especially for long-term, large-scale storage [17, 12]. There have been a number of variations on
the traditional PHES layout, while recently work has been done on dry, i.e. waterless, forms of
GES. The following two subsections provide an overview of systems in these subcategories.

161 | P a g e
2.1. Wet gravitational energy storage
The storage methods described below are variations on traditional pumped hydroelectricity
storage. PHES – Pumped hydroelectricity accounts for more than 99% of bulk storage capacity in
the world [12] and as a result, PHES is the most mature large-scale energy storage method
worldwide [7, 17]. In most cases, PHES systems have two reservoirs, one higher and one lower.
The system stores energy in the form of the potential energy of the water in the higher reservoir, to
which the water is pumped during off-peak time. The water is released to the lower reservoir
through turbines to generate electric power during periods of high demand.
Despite numerous advantages, such as scalability, long-term storage and a high round trip
efficiency (between 65 and 87%) [7], PHES systems have some obvious disadvantages. As gravity
on earth is a relatively weak force, the energy density of the system is low, thus requiring a large
variation in height or a large body of water to store a substantial amount of energy. Site selection
criteria include sufficient water supply, correct topography, social acceptability and economical
feasibility [17].
Underground PHES – In areas where the topography is not suitable for traditional PHES,
underground PHES (UPHES) provides an attractive alternative [11]. In this case, the upper
reservoir is placed above ground and the lower reservoir directly beneath it underground. Doing
this ensures that a high vertical displacement is achievable without consuming a large surface area,
allowing one to be constructed wherever there is low value ground. Similarly, some work has been
done to explore the viability of the use of deep mines and open pit mines for UPHES [18,19]. The
authors of specifically propose UPHES for deep level gold mines in South Africa which can
function as both a storage system and a way to purify the highly acidic and polluted water
contained in flooded mines.
Piston-based PHES – Also called Piston-In-Cylinder electrical energy storage [6], it entails the
use of water to lift a piston (any object with the required mass), thereby storing energy that can be
released by letting the piston descend, pushing the water back through hydroelectric generators.
This concept forms the basis for a trio of energy storage companies [20-22].
The Gravity Power Module (GPM) utilises a very large piston suspended in a deep, water-filled
shaft and a return pipe connected to a pump-turbine [20], as illustrated in Fig. 1. When charging,
water is pumped through the return pipe, lifting the piston up in the shaft. Discharging the system
entails the piston moving downwards, thereby forcing the water back through the return pipe and
turbine. The sizes under consideration can vary from a piston diameter of 30–100 m, a shaft depth
of 500–1000 m and a piston length exactly half of the shaft length. The aim is to provide power and
energy in therange of 40 MW/ 160 MWh to 1.6 GW/6.4 GWh [20]. Some research has also been
conducted on this storage method, with the authors of [23] presenting a system design and
economic evaluation of a 5 MW/20 MWh GPM. The same authors also present the dynamic
modelling of a GPM system in [24].
Both Heindl Energy [21] and Esco Vale have similar ideas, but larger in scale and with a
differentconstruction layout. Heindl Energy's system is called hydraulic hydro storage (HHS) [25]
and EscoVale's system is called ground-breaking energy storage (GBES) [22,26]. The construction
of both systems is achieved by excavating and reinforcing an area to form a natural piston.

162 | P a g e
Fig. 1. A simplified illustration of the Gravity Power Module. The system is charged by pumping water to

raise the piston and discharged by allowing the piston to descend, thereby pushing water through the
turbine.

Fig. 2. A simplified illustration of the concept for both Heindl Energy and EscoVale. The system is charged
by pumping water from the reservoir to raise the piston and discharged by letting the piston descend,
thereby pushing water through the turbine back into the reservoir.

The excavated portion is then connected to a return pipe and sealed to ensure there is no water
leakage. A simplified diagram of this form of storage is given in Fig. 2. From here the operational

163 | P a g e
principle is the same as for the GPM system. The proposed storage sizes range from 1 to 10 GWh
[6,21,22]. These pistonbased technologies all have the advantage of less rigorous topographical
requirements than that of traditional PHES.
Underwater Ocean Storage Systems (UOSS) – This type of storage system is specifically
designed to be used with a renewable energy plant floating offshore [27,28]. The storage system
consists of a submerged vessel (e.g. a large tank or a set of pipes/cylinders in [27] or a hollow
concrete sphere as in), a reversible turbine coupled to the vessel and an electric cable system
connecting the turbine to the generating unit (e.g. a floating PV plant or wind turbine). The
submerged vessel is moored to the ocean floor and the water is pumped out of the vessel during the
charging cycle and flows back into the vessel when discharging. The size of the storage system will
be completely dependent on the generating unit, but the example given in [27] shows a vessel with
a volume of 360 m3 at a depth of 1000 m will be able to store 984 kWh at an efficiency of 90%,
while [28] presented larger scale systems (in the area of a few GWh) with estimated efficiencies of
65–70% (Fig. 3).

2.2. Dry gravitational energy storage

The storage technologies described in this section all rely on the same operating principle as the
previous section's storage methods, but do not require the use of water.
ARES – Advanced rail energy storage (ARES) LLC is a Californiabased technology
development company dedicated to increasing the role of energy storage in the electrical grid
[6,29]. The company has developed a rail-based, traction drive technology, ARES, that uses surplus
renewable energy or low-cost electricity from the grid to move a mass, in the form of concrete
blocks, uphill by rail road shuttles. The shuttles are then allowed to descend under gravity when the

system is being discharged. The shuttles each weigh around 45–64 t and travel on a 16 km trail
with a grade up 8.5% [6].

164 | P a g e
Fig. 3. A simplified illustration of a spherical UOSS, as given in [28]. The system is charged by pumping
water out of the sphere, and discharged by letting the water flow back into the sphere.

The system has a claimed efficiency of 78–80%, with no standby storage losses (i.e. no self-
discharge) and a proposed system lifetime of 40 years. ARES LLC has a small pilot project that
demonstrated the technology in Tehachapi, California [29] and is currently building the first
commercial project in Nevada, a 50 MW, 12.5 MWh system, with a 9.3 km track at an average
grade of 7.05% and a gross shuttle mass of 780 t.
Gravitricity – The concept behind the technology of Gravitricity is to vertically raise/lower a
heavy mass down a shaft in the ground [30,31]. The stated plan is to build pistons with a mass up to
3000 t and use shafts that go as deep 1500 m [31], using either existing mine shafts or purposed
built shafts. The mass is lifted with a system of guide cables, cables and winch systems, similar to
the hoisting systems used in mines and cranes. Gravitricity claim an efficiency of around 80–90%,
a response time of around 0.5 s, a 50-year design life and an output duration ranging from 15 min
to 8 h.
An addition proposed by Gravitricity, is the use of a compressed air energy storage component.
By sealing the shaft, the space can simultaneously be used as a pressure vessel for compressed air,
potentially increasing the amount of energy stored by as much as a factor of three [31]. Gravitricity
has received funding at the beginning of 2018 to build a 250 kWh prototype in South Africa
[32,33] .
Similar to Gravitricity, MGH Deep Sea Energy Storage suggests raising and lowering the masses
from a platform floating offshore, thus removing the need for shaft infrastructure. StratoSolar
proposes the same idea, with the masses being raised/lowered from a PV farm floating on buoyant
platforms at an altitude of 20 km.
A summary of the important aspects of the above discussed storage methods is given in Table 2.
UPHES is not shown due to the similarity to traditional PHES. The power rating as well as the
discharge time for these technologies are difficult to define properly, as they are highly context
specific.

3. Modelling of a gravitational energy storage system

This section provides the modelling of a gravitational energy storage system. The focus is on the
development of equations describing the energy storage capacity, the energy and power densities,
the forces acting on the piston and providing an economic description of the system, with each
aspect covered in its own subsection.
The idea behind the GES system is to store electrical energy by converting it to gravitational
potential energy. The system is charged by lifting a certain mass and discharged when the mass is
allowed to descend. An example of the GES system is given in Fig. 4.

3.1. Energy storage capacity

To analyse the energy storage capacity, the potential energy of the piston can be stated as

165 | P a g e
E = mgh (1)
where m is the mass in kg, g is the gravitational constant (9.81 m/s 2) and h is the height. Converting
between Joule (J) and Watt-hour (Wh) is done as in (2).
1kWh = 3.6 × 106J (2)
Expanding on (1), the mass m can be written as ρVp, where ρ is the density of the piston material
and Vp is the volume of the piston. Assuming the piston takes the form of a cylinder as in Fig. 4, the
mass can be written as

( )
2
dp
m=ρπ l (3)
2 p

where dp is the piston diameter and l p is the piston length. The stored energy, in Joule, can now be
given as

166 | P a g e
In the same manner, an equation for the power density of the GES system can be derived. This is
given in kW/m3, where tdis is the discharge time of the GES system in h.

ρ glp
PD ¿ 6 (9)
3.6 ×10 t dis

From (8) and (9), an interesting quality of the GES system becomes apparent. Both the energy
Storage technology Power rating Energy rating Discharge time Life time (years) Efficiency

PHES 1–5000 MW 1 MWh–20 GWh 1–24 h + 40–60 65–87%

GPM 40–1600
Fig. 4.MW 1.6 GWh–6.4
A simplified illustration ofGWh
the GES1–4 h
system. 40 + 75–80%
HHS 20–2750 MW 1 GWh–10 GWh 1–24 h + 40 + 80%
GBES 100 MW to multi-GW Up to 20 GWh 24 h + 40 + 80%
UOSS Up to a few GW Up to a few GW 1–10 h n/a 65–90%
ARES 100–3000 MW Up to 6 GWh + 2–24 h 40 + 78–80%
Table 2
Gravitricity Up to 40 MW Up to a few MWh min–2 h 50 + 80–90%
Summary
and powerof GES technologies.
densities are dependant on the length of the piston and the density of the piston material.
This property is true for any shape, as long as both the shaft and piston have the same shape.

3.2. Mathematical description of the resulting piston forces

To relate the storage capacity of the GES system with the capability of different hoisting
methods, the force required to move the piston can be expressed with regards to the mass and
acceleration of the piston. The force required to accelerate the piston from a standstill to a constant
velocity can be written as
Ft = Fa + Fg
= ma + mg (10)
Δv
where a is the acceleration, defined as . Typical acceleration times for mining hoists are in the
Δt
range of 0.5–0.75 m/s2 [36,37]. When compared to the value of g (9.81 m/s2), the force necessary
during the acceleration/deceleration could be as little as 5% higher than during steady-state
discharge. This, in turn, points to the possibility of fast response times, as the discharge velocity of
the GES tends to be slow.
As an example, if the GES system is located in a 2 km mining shaft and had a discharge time of
2 h (as given in Table 2 for Gravitricity), it would have a discharge velocity of V2 = 0.28 m/s.
Choosing an acceleration value of 0.5 m/s 2, this would yield a response time of t = 0.56 s, similar to
what Gravitricity cites as being their system's response time [30,31].

4. GES performance capability

To illustrate the performance of the GES, this section uses the system modelling from the
previous section to analyse the storage capacity of the GES, the energy and power densities that are

167 | P a g e
possible using different piston materials as well as the potential LCOS of such a storage system. A
discussion of the different piston materials is also done.

4.1. Storage capacity

Using (1) and (2), Fig. 5 relates the storage capacity of the GES as the piston mass increases for
three chosen system heights, 100 m, 1000 m and 2000 m. This gives an indication of the amount of
mass needed, as well as the system height, to achieve a few MWh of storage. At a height di fference
of 2000 m and a mass of 1000 t, which gives a storage capacity of 5.4 MWh, the storage capacity
of the GES is lower than all of the gravity-based storage systems listed in Table 2.

4.2. Piston material

From (8) and (9) it can be seen that the choice of piston material has an effect on the energy and
power density of the GES and thus the overall size of the storage system. This choice also has an
effect on the cost of the system. Given in Table 3 are a few heavy metals that are commonly used in
construction. The prices given are for the raw material, i.e. ore, and thus do not include the cost of
transporting or processing [23]. If these are taken consideration, the material cost could be higher.
From Table 3, lead, copper and iron appear to be viable options based on their density and
availability. However, when comparing the price per tonne of these materials, it is apparent that the

Table 3
Common construction material properties.

Material Density (kg/ m3) 2017 World production (t) Price per t ( $2017/t)
Aluminium 2712 60 million 1728
Copper 8940 19.7 million 5660
Iron 7850 1200 million 80
Lead 11340 4.7 million 2258

168 | P a g e
Fig. 6. Energy density of the GES system as it relates to the length of the piston.

copper is not a practical choice, given the price increase over iron (5580 $/t), with only a 13.9%
increase in density. Lead and iron are chosen to help demonstrate the effect that the material density
has on the energy density, power density and LCOS of the GES system.

4.3. Energy and power densities

Using (8), the energy density for varying piston lengths is shown in Fig. 6. A 100 m piston length

may seem impractical, though this size is still smaller than suggested by some of the other piston-
based PHES systems [6]. This piston size can be realised by having multiple smaller pistons in the
same shaft.
Fig. 6 demonstrates the GES system's low energy density, which is not surprising as earth's
gravitational force is relatively weak, with low energy densities being a hallmark of gravity energy
systems [20,23,25,26]. The choice of piston material has a small effect on the system's energy
density, as the increase in energy density between iron and lead is only 30.7%. A comparison of the
GES energy density with other storage systems, with values as presented in, is given in Table 4.
The power density, as given by (9), is shown in Fig. 7. Aside from the length of the piston and
the piston material density, the power density is also dependent on the discharge time. The power
density is plotted against discharge time, with the piston material as a second variable. The power
density is shown for two piston lengths, 10 m and 100 m.
The power densities shown in Fig. 7 point to the optimal discharge time for the GES, regardless
of piston material, being between 0 and 2 h. The difference in power density as a result of piston
material is also small, as is the case for the energy density. A comparison of the power density
values of the GES and other storage systems is given in Table 4. It should be noted that the
minimum and maximum values of the GES are determined by piston lengths of 10 and 100 m,

169 | P a g e
respectively, and will vary depending
on the piston size and material.
The GES system has the same
power and energy density
characteristics as flow batteries
and lends itself to power
applications such

Table 4
Comparison of the power and
energy density of selected storage
systems.

Storage system Energy density (kWh/m3) Power density (kW/m3)

GES 0.2–3.1 0.03–30
PHES 0.133–0.5 0.01–0.12
CAES 0.4–20 0.04–10
Flywheel 0.25–424 40–2000
Li-ion 94–500 56–800
Flow batteries
VRB 10–30 2.5–33.4
ZnBr 5.2–70 3–8.5
PSB 10.8–60 1.35–4.16

GES – gravity energy storage; PHES – pumped hydroelectricy storage; CAES – compressed air
energy storage; VRB – vanadium redox battery; ZnBr – zinc bromine; PSB – polysulfide bromide.

170 | P a g e
Fig. 7. Power density of the GES for a piston length of (a) 10 m and (b) 100 m. as those described by the
distributed generations category in Table 1.

4.4. GES levelised cost of storage

The final metric used to describe the GES in the previous section is the LCOS. This is also the
most difficult metric to accurately determine because of highly context specific costs. Examples of
such specific costs are: the method of hoisting; how and where the system is installed (either in an
already existing mineshaft, a mineshaft specifically excavated for the system, an above ground
installation or a deep sea installation); and how the system is operated, e.g. the annual cycles has an
effect on the operational and maintenance cost. Each situation will have differing costs, in capital
investment cost, operational and maintenance costs as well as replacement costs [41]. For the
purposes of this study, it is assumed that a shaft is already available and the hoistingspecific costs,
such as equipment and installation costs, are ignored.
A 10 MWh system is examined at two system heights, 100 m and 2000 m, to clearly demonstrate
the effect that the piston material cost will have. The total mass required to store 10 MWh at these
heights are 36697 and 1835 t, respectively.
Referring to the power densities in Fig. 7, a shorter discharge time would be optimal for a GES.
This short discharge time will also take advantage of the high cyclability of the GES system, thus a
discharge time of 30 min is chosen. The technical information of the system is given in Table 5,
with the lifetime and η values based on the literature covered in Section 2.
The CAPEX term can be split into two terms, the energybased investment cost and the power-
based investment cost. The energy investment cost includes the components which can be
described in $/kWh. For this analysis, this comprises of the cost of the piston material. Using the
average 2017 prices of iron and lead, the energy investment costs is given in Table 6.
The power investment cost consists of the power electronics, motor/ generator unit and
gearboxes, all of which are priced per kW. The power electronics are taken as 84 $/kW [42]. The
rest of the drive train is approximated as a three stage gearbox drive with a motor/generator unit,
which can be approximated as 65 times the machine rating in kW [43]. Both of these costs are
adjusted to reflect 2017 dollar values
Table 5
Example GES system properties.

171 | P a g e
Property Value
Srated 10 MWh
Prated 20 MW
Discharge time 30 min
DoD 1
η 85%
Lifetime 50 years

Table 6
List of piston material costs.
Material Price per t ( $2017/t) [40] h = 100 m ($/kWh) h = 2000 m ($/kWh)
Iron 80 294 15
Lead 2258 8286 414

The operation and maintenance cost, COPEX, in (12) is difficult to estimate, as this value is
likely to vary substantially between different GES systems. Gravitricity estimates the COPEX of
their system as 0.5% of the CAPEX per year [44]. This is similar to the cost models for vertical
shaft underground mines given, where the operational costs vary from 0.4 to 0.6% of the total
capital costs, annually. Similar values are given in the economic comparison of vertical and decline
shaft mining in [46]. As such, the COPEX value is taken as 0.5%.
The replacement cost, CAPEXre, is approximated as a once-off expenditure halfway through the
system's lifetime [14]. The cost of input electrical energy is taken as 0$/kWh and the residual value,
R, is ignored for the initial LCOS calculations. This is because of the difficulty in determining what
value can be extracted the system's life cycle, as well as the widely varying cost of input electrical
energy, depending on where and when the system is used. The effect that both these input
parameters have is investigated in the sensitivity analyses later in this section.
The LCOS values for the different systems are given in Fig. 8. The effect that the piston material
has on the LCOS is pronounced at low annual cycles with a low system height, with an increase of
≈7$/kWh between an iron-based and lead-based system. This difference becomes less significant as
the annual cycles increase, becoming almost negligible in the 2000 m system. This can be ascribed
to the fact that the piston material cost having a smaller share of the overall costs at 2000 m, with
the power investment and replacement costs becoming more dominant.
The LCOS indicates that the GES system would be more economical at high yearly cycles,
regardless of piston material or system height. This translates to shorter discharge times, which
correlates well with the power densities shown in Fig. 7.

4.5. Sensitivity analyses

The LCOS is dependent on the accurate estimation of multiple input parameters. This subsection
investigates the effect that the variation of CAPEX, COPEX, CAPEX re and η has on the estimated

172 | P a g e
LCOS. The effect that the cost of input electrical energy and the recovery value has on the LCOS is
also investigated.
To illustrate the effects that the chosen input parameters have on the LCOS, an iron-based GES
system, at 100 m and 2000 m, and 730 annual cycles is taken as example. The cost share in terms
of the energy investment, power investment, operating cost and replacement cost is given in Fig. 9.
For both heights the power investment cost is the same at 0.039$/kWh, or 35% of the total LCOS
at 100 m and 51% at 2000 m. The COPEX cost is less in the 2000 m system as the estimate is
based on the total CAPEX, which is less for the 2000 m system. The replacement cost is also the
same for both systems, as the estimate is based on the power investment cost.

Fig. 8. The LCOS of a GES system based at a system height of (a) 100m and (b) 2000 m.

173 | P a g e
Fig. 9. The cost share components for a iron-based GES system at 730 annual cycles and a system height of
100m and 2000 m.

174 | P a g e
Fig. 10. The effect on the LCOS of an iron-based GES of (a) the cost of input electrical energy and (b) the
recovery value.

Fig. 10 demonstrates the effect of adding the cost of electricity and a recovery value has on the
LCOS. The cost of input electricity has a large effect on the projected LCOS, doubling the LCOS
even at low electricity prices.
The change in recovery value extracted after the lifetime of a GES disproportionately a ffects the
100 m system. This is as expected, as the energy investment is higher for this system. To accurately
estimate this term, the cost of extracting and recycling the piston material, as well as any cost with
regards to the proper disposal of the power electronics, motor/generator unit and other hoisting-
specific items should be taken into account. This could decrease the potential recovery value.
Regardless, GES system with a large amount of piston material would likely be able to recuperate a
significant amount of money through the recycling of the piston material.

5. Wire rope hoisting system

The first hoisting system under consideration is a conventional wire rope hoisting system, e.g.
such as those used in elevators, mines and shipyards. These hoisting systems consist of mature
technologies, making such a system an attractive option for the GES. The major components in a
hoisting system are the winder drum and ropes, bearings, gearing, brakes, drive motor, power
conversion and the hoist control system. Wire rope hoisting systems commonly fall into two
categories, drum or friction hoists. In a drum hoist system, the rope is connected, wound and stored
on a drum, whereas in a friction hoist the rope only passes over the drum and is connected to a
counterweight. For the GES system, only the drum hoist is applicable and is thus the focus of the
rest of the section.

5.1. Wire rope hoist modelling

The capacity of a wire rope hoisting system is ultimately limited by the load that the wire rope
can handle. The mechanical parts, e.g. the drum and the brake, are sized to match the rope loading,
after which the electrical parts, e.g. the machine, gearbox and power electronics, are sized to match
the torque and speed requirements of the mechanical parts. The first part of this analysis therefore
addresses the choice of wire rope and drum size.
A standard wire rope is constructed by twisting many small wires together to form a strand, with
typical numbers of 7, 19 or 37 small wires per strand. These strands are then twisted about a core,
with the number of strands generally being six or eight, to form the wire rope. This rope is now
flexible enough to wind around drums and sheaves. The wire rope diameter determines how large
the drum diameter, ddr, has to be, with the exact factor usually dependent on the type of wire rope
used. A 6 × 7 wire rope will be less flexible than a 6 × 37 wire rope and thus require a bigger
winder drum or sheave. Some properties of common wire rope constructions are given in Table 7,
where dr represents the wire rope diameter.

175 | P a g e
The factors by which the winder drum diameter has to be larger than the wire rope diameter
given in Table 7 are only guidelines, with each wire rope manufacturer providing their own sizing,
while different industries also have its own standards. In the mining industry, the drum diameter is
generally

Table 7
Common wire rope sizes and properties
Wire rope Approximate mass (kg/ m) Area of metal (mm2) Minimum drum diameter (mm)

6×7 3.45 × 10−3 dr2 0.38dr2 42dr

6 × 19 3.68 × 10−3 dr2 0.4dr2 30dr
6 × 37 3.57 × 10−3 dr2 0.4dr2 18dr

larger by a factor of 70 for a standard wire rope and given the similarity between mine hoisting
systems and the GES system, a factor of 70 will be used when determining the drum size.
The initial wire rope selection is based on the three requirements, the wire rope tensile strength,
resistance to bending fatigue and abrasion resistance. Normally, a wire rope diameter is determined
for each of these categories and the largest result is taken as the wire rope diameter. Given the
relatively large ddr to dr ratio used and the very large amount of mass being hoisted, the resistance to
bending fatigue is assumed to produce a smaller diameter than the required diameter based on the
tensile strength would. Abrasive wear is less of a problem in vertical shafts. however, the abrasion
resistance of a wire rope can be increased by selecting ropes with thicker wires, e.g. a 6 × 7 rope, or
increasing the factor of safety when determining the wire rope diameter. It is thus assumed that the
largest required diameter is produced by the wire rope tensile strength.

Table 8

h (m) Discharge Time (h) v2 (m/s) Wire Rope Tensile strength (N/mm2)

System 1 100 0.5 0.055 6×7 1770

System 2 2000 0.5 1.11 6×7 1770
Wire rope system design specifications.

While the mass of the piston and the acceleration/deceleration forces are already taken into
account in Ft in the mass of the wire rope still needs to be taken into account. This can be done by
approximating the mass of the wire rope as in Table 8 and multiplying it by the total length of the
rope. The frictional forces can be approximated as 2.5% of the mass of the conveyance and 10% of
the rope mass.

5.2. Wire rope hoist capacity

Using the above equations, two example systems, given in Table 8, are analysed. The system
heights, while extreme, are chosen as a way to demonstrate the effect the system height has on the

176 | P a g e
hoisting capacity. The discharge time is the same as used for the LCOS calculations, while the
choice of wire rope tensile strength is a commercially available value. A limit of 5 m is placed on
the size of the drum diameter and the total number of drums is limited to six. Figs. 10 show the
drum diameter, drive train torque and power as well as the drum velocity.
The effect of the rope mass can be seen as the achievable piston mass is a lot less in the 2000 m
system than the 100 m. However, from (1), to achieve the same energy storage, a system with a 100
m height difference will require 20 times as much piston weight as a system with a 2000 m height
difference.
The 100 m system also has a slower rotational speed and a larger torque requirement. This is
likely to result in a larger, more complex drive train, as larger torque values usually result in a
larger machine and the low rotational velocity needs to be stepped up by some form of gearbox.
This increases the cost of the system. However, when compared to the 2000 m system, the 100 m
system has a lot less wire rope, which may be able to mitigate the increased drive train complexity
and cost.

5.3. Drive train technology

The slow rotational velocity of the winder drums shown in Figs. 10, along with the high torque
requirement, means a specialised drive train is needed to operate and drive the drums. This drive
train consists of an electric machine and a gearbox of some form, similar to a wind turbine's drive
train. While this can be realised in numerous ways, one of the most attractive options is a drive
train utilising a magnetic gearbox or magnetically geared machine. This produces a highly e fficient
drive train, which is key to ensuring a high round trip efficiency. Most magnetic gearboxes have
high efficiencies, between 80 and 99% as well as high torque densities and high gear ratios.
With regards to the machine, a conventional permanent magnet synchronous machine (PMSM)
can be designed, such as the 79.5 kNm, 500 kW, 60 r/min presented in. However, a specific PM
machine topology, called the pseudo direct-drive (PDD) machine, appears to be extremely well
suited to an application such as this. The PDD machine takes advantage of the properties of a
magnetic gear and combine them with the high torque density of a conventional PM machine. The
result is a machine designed for high-torque, low-speed operation. A design example of this
machine is given in, where the authors design a 15 MW, 100 r/min, 1.43 MNm PDD machine.
This technology is also commercially available, with Magnomatics offering specially designed
PDD machines which have an operating limit of anywhere from a few kWs to a few MWs, a speed
range of 10–1000 r/min, providing torque in the range of 1 kNm to 5 MNm and a claimed
efficiency of above 97%. Magnomatics also does work on magnetic gearboxes, claiming they have
a rated efficiency of 99%.

5.4. Practical hoist system implementation

As for the practical implementation, e.g. the placement of the winder drums, of such a wire rope
hoisting system, there are numerous ways to accomplish this. Each will have its own advantages
and disadvantages, and Fig. 10 displays two possible installations.

177 | P a g e
The first is a modified version of a conventional mine hoist and similar to the system proposed
by Gravitricity for their prototype. The example shown here represents a four drum system, though
this can be adjusted as necessary. Such a system is well-suited for use in existing mine shafts and
other systems where there is a large height difference. This is because of the available space around
the shaft, which provides ample space for the very large drums, both in width and diameter, that are
needed to store wire ropes with large lengths. If, for example, a drum diameter of 5 m is assumed,

Fig. 11. Two different practical implementations of a wire rope hoisting system.

the wire rope diameter is 71 mm, with one turn of the drum storing the equivalent of 15.7 m of
rope. To fully store the rope on the drum requires 128 turns. If the rope is stored in five layers, the
drum needs to be close to 2 m wide. Ropes can be layered up to 15 times on a single drum,
however this much layering would reduce the rope lifetime significantly and as such the trade-off
between drum width and rope lifetime needs to be considered carefully.
The second set up is adjusted from a mining friction hoist, with the drum located on a headframe
directly above the piston. While the example shown here has two drums, this can also be extended
or reduced as needed. As an example, if the 100 m system is considered, the same 5 m diameter

178 | P a g e
drum requires 7 turns to fully store the rope. This gives a drum width of 0.5 m, which is well-suited
to a situation where there are multiple smaller systems built above ground and placed next to each
other, as it allows for less space to be consumed per drum.
The actual piston size is completely independent of the hoisting capability of a wire rope hoist,
and can be built to fit the specific use case. In the case where a mine shaft is used, which generally
have a diameter of 10 m, the piston can be shaped so as to fit the shaft as a large disk, or be shaped
as a smaller, narrower cylinder. Taking, for example, a 2000 m system with four winder drums
which can hoist a total mass of 110 t. Assuming the piston is made of iron, this produces a piston
with a total volume of 14 m3. If the piston diameter is roughly the same as a mine shaft, the piston
would have a diameter of 10 m and a length of 0.178 m. This produces a GES system with a
storage capacity of 600 kWh, an energy density of 0.0038 kWh/m 3 and a power density of 0.0076
kW/m3.

Table 9
Energy storage Energy density Power density
h (m)
(kWh) (kWh/m3) (kW/m3)
System 1 100 54.64 0.028 0.056
System 2 2000 600 0.0038 0.0076
Example values of a wire rope hoisting system using the above mentioned hoisting set ups.

Considering the 100 m system and the set up shown in Fig. 10 as another example. Based on the
larger torque requirements and allowing for the placement of the drive train, the number of drums
are limited to two. This would allow a piston mass of about 200 t. Again assuming the piston
material is iron, the total space consumed by the drums would likely be a circle with a radius of 5
m, similar to the winder drums. If the piston is that same diameter, then it would have a length of
1.3 m. The system specifications is given in Table 9, showing the low energy storage capacity that
is the result of the limits placed by the wire ropes on the piston mass.

6. Linear electric machine hoist

In the wire rope hoist, the gravitational potential energy of the piston, and its inherent linear
motion, is converted to and from electrical energy by rotary machines through the indirect method
of wire ropes, winder drums and gearboxes. The hoisting system described in this section proposes
the use of linear electric machines (LM), which can directly convert the linear motion of the piston
to and from electrical energy. Magnetically levitated (MAGLEV) trains, generators for wave
energy conversion and ropeless elevators are some examples of the use of LMs. LMs also do not
require the use of wire ropes, a limiting factor of the previous hoisting method. They do, however,
require application specific topologies and design and power electronics to control.

179 | P a g e
6.1. System description
LMs can be obtained by ‘cutting and rolling out’ the corresponding rotary machine and can be
classified as either flat or tubular in shape. the segment with the armature winding is referred to as
the primary. The second segment is referred to as the secondary or the translator, the rotor in rotary
machines, and in this example only consists of the laminated steel. Numerous topologies exist with
any combination of permanent magnets and windings on the primary, secondary or both.
The hoisting system can best be imagined as similar to a ropeless elevator and an example with
two single-sided LMs. Since the secondary has to span the length of the system, it is imperative
that it only consists of the laminated steel, and all the active parts are situated on the primary.
Fig. 13 provides a closer look at the two-sided piston example from Fig. 12, without the
armature windings. Indicated on the figure are four linear guides. These guides can consist of
mechanical parts, e.g. through linear bearings, although this will increase the maintenance of the
system and decrease the overall efficiency due to the friction caused by the contact between the
bearing and the guideway. Another option is the use of electromagnetic guides. These consist of
omega shaped actuators, with permanent magnets and coils, around a steel guide rail and can be

Two other aspects, which are not indicated in Fig. 14, are the power supply and brakes. Since all
the active material is on the short primary, located on the piston, it has to be supplied with electric
power. This can be achieved in numerous ways, the simplest being the use of pantographs as in
electric trains and trams. This is already an established technology and is simple to implement.
Another attractive option is the use of the contactless power transmission method developed
alongside the omega-shaped actuator in, thereby combining both the guideway and power supply.
Fig. 12. An example of a flat, single-sided linear electric machine.

180 | P a g e
Fig. 13. An example of an LM-based GES system.

Fig. 14. An example piston, without the armature winding, for an LM-based GES system.

Similar work has been done on the wireless power transfer systems for roadway powered electric
vehicles, although both of these methods add more complexity to the system. The braking system,
which is especially important in case of a complete power failure, also presents a few options. Here

the simplest method is again the traditional mechanical brakes, such as the friction brakes, usually

181 | P a g e
installed on the drums of mine hoists and elevators. They can be installed on the guideways,
secured to the piston.
The example given in Figs. 13 and 14 relies on the use of a two-sided LM and a rectangular
shaped piston. This allows for a simple illustration of the system and discussion of the necessary
components of an LM based hoist. However, in principle, the concept can be applied to any piston
shape and the final choice of shape involves a trade-off between air gap area and practicality.

6.2. Linear electric machine technology

As mentioned in the system description, a LM can be classified by shape, i.e. flat or tubular.
Similarly, the LM can be classified as according to its topology. Two main classifications are the
linear induction machine (LIM) and linear synchronous machine (LSM).
Due to the inherently large air gap of LIMs, they suffer from low power factor and force density,
i.e. shear force. The secondary consists of two materials, a electric conduction layer (usually
aluminium or copper) and a magnetic layer of mild ferromagnetic steel. The magnetic field
generated by the primary induces an eddy current in the solid secondary, lowering the machine
efficiency. Combined, these characteristics make a LIM unsuitable for use in the low velocity GES
system.
LSMs have higher shear force, efficiency and power factor, but they are generally more
expensive to manufacture due to the higher amount of active material used. LSMs typically have a
σ value in the range of 20–40 kN/m2 and can achieve an efficiency of 90% or more. There are
various methods of classifying LSMs, although for the purposes of this paper, they can be classified
in two categories, i.e. electrically exited and PM LSMs.
Electrically excited LSMs have windings on both the primary and secondary and has received
some attention for use in mine hoisting systems. However, the windings on the secondary make
them inapplicable for use in a GES system.
The PM LSM may have PMs on either the primary, secondary or both, and have high force
densities and efficiencies, making the use of a PM LSM ideal for the GES system. Conventional
PM LSMs, which have magnets placed on the secondary, have received attention for use in
ropeless elevators, i.e. long secondary applications, due to their inherently large force density with
novel dual-PM linear motors developed in. These topologies are not considered, do to the
placement of PMs on the secondary.
LMs in the variable reluctance permanent magnet (VRPM) family allow for higher σ values to
be achieved. The transverse flux machine (TFM) can reach shear stress values up to 200 kN/m 2,
however, due to the non-conventional machine structure and the associated construction
difficulties, this topology is not suited for the GES system application. The linear vernier hybrid
(VH) permanent magnet machine, which is a variant of a normal vernier machine with the magnets
placed on the stator, has been noted to reach shear stress values up to 143.9 kN/m 2, though the
VHPM is notorious for its low power factor, which increases the cost of the power electronics
needed to drive it. Another option is the linear flux-switching permanent magnet and flux-

182 | P a g e
switching wound field machines, where all the active material is on the primary. They generally
have higher shear stress than conventional PM machines.
Other PM-less LM options, in the linear reluctance machine family, with high shear stress values
are the linear switched reluctance machines (LSRMs), with σ values up to 35 kN/m2, and the flux-
controllable variable reluctance machine, with σ values up to 50 kN/m2.

6.3. Hoisting capability and practical implementation

The ideal shape for the LM is tubular, as that ensures maximum air gap area. However, taking
into account the placement of the brakes, power supply and guideway, the tubular shape is difficult
to construct practically and as such the more practical four-sided LM shape is used to demonstrate
the hoisting capability.
Using the four-sided shape and choosing two shear stress values, 30 and 100 kN/m 2, based on
the preceding overview, the width of an LMbased piston is determined for two different piston
materials identified in Section 4. The results are shown in Table 10.
Using this piston width and the two material choices, the piston length as the mass is increased is
shown in Fig. 15. This demonstrates that a higher density material produces a narrower and longer
piston. The achievable 30 kN/m2 shear stress can provide hoisting capability that is very similar to
the four-drum wire rope and when considering the same piston volume of 14 m 3 of that system, an
iron-based LM piston would be able to hoist slightly more than 100 t, with a piston length of 6 m.
For the same piston, but assuming a σ value of 100, the piston length would only be 0.5 m.
Table 10
Minimum width requirements.
σ = 30 kN/m2 σ = 100 kN/m2
Material Wp Wp
Iron 1.5 m 5.19 m
Lead 1.07 m 3.59 m

183 | P a g e
Fig. 15. The piston mass vs piston length for the two shear stress values.

184 | P a g e
Fig. 16. A simple multi-piston implementation of a LM-based GES system.

While it appears that the LM offers the same kind of hoisting capacity as the wire rope hoist, it
provides extra modularity. Since there are no wire ropes and no active material on the secondary, it
is possible to have a GES system with one shaft and multiple pistons as shown in Fig. 16. This
allows for more efficient use of the passive secondary that has to be installed in the shaft as well as
enormously increase the amount of mass that can be hoisted, and thus the storage capacity, while
allowing the active primary of the LM to be sized based on practical considerations instead of
designing for maximum possible hoisting weight. This can work especially well in underground
systems, such as mine shafts, as there is already space for both the charged and discharged store
areas.
As an example, consider a four-sided iron-based piston, with a LM length of 3 m and a shear
stress of 30 kN/m2. This gives a piston mass of 50 t. At a 100 m system height, from Fig. 12, a wire
rope hoist can realistically be expected to hoist 200 t. Using LMs at the same height theoretically
allows for up to 30 pistons in the shaft at one time, making an effective 1500 t of piston mass and
90 m piston length.
This difference becomes even more pronounced when considering a system height of 2000 m,
with the wire rope system being able to hoist around 110 t. At this height, the shaft could fit up to
665 m pistons at once, to produce a total effective piston mass of 250 t and effective piston length
of 1995 m. Some specifications of these systems, assuming a discharge of 0.5 h, is given in Table
11.
The values given for these two systems do assume that the shafts are the same width as the
pistons, which would not likely be the case in a real world application. This means that the energy

185 | P a g e
and power density would be lower for the actual implementation, although still significantly higher
than would be achievable in the wire rope system.
Table 11
Specifications of two iron-based LM GES system.
h (m) Number of Energy storage Energy density Power density
pistons (kWh) (kWh/m3) (kW/m3)
100 30 408 1.926 3.85
2000 665 181 200 42.7 85.4

Similarly, the discharge time of 0.5 h is assumed to allow the power density to be readily
comparable to the wire rope systems and the amount of pistons are chosen to demonstrate a
maximum theoretical value. It is likely that these choices would not be optimal for the LM hoist, as
all the pistons will only be in the shaft simultaneously for a very short time, during which the
power supply would need to handle a very large amount of current.
A more likely use case would be to design a system that discharges over a long time, thereby
bringing the power requirement down, e.g. from 362 MW for a 30 min discharge to 22.625 MW for
an 8 h discharge time over 2000 m. An 8 h discharge time would effectively mean that only 83 of
the 665 pistons would be in the shaft at the same time, thus reducing the energy and power density
values given in Table 11, while still keeping the same number of total pistons and energy storage
capacity. A system like this would also only be limited by the storage space for the pistons, thus
enabling even longer discharge times without altering the initial LM design.
The LM-based GES thus extends the capability of the GES beyond that which can be achieved
through wire rope hoisting by enabling very long discharge times, e.g. 8 h versus the 0.5 h of a
drum winder hoist, and large energy storage capacities, e.g. 180 MWh versus the 600 kWh of a
drum winder hoist.

References
[1] P.D. Lund, J. Lindgren, J. Mikkola, J. Salpakari, Review of energy system flexibility
mesures to enable high levels of variable renewable electricity, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 45 (2015) 785–807, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.057.
[2] E.A. Bakirtzis, C.K. Simoglou, P.N. Biskas, A.G. Bakirtzis, Storage management by rolling
stochastic unit commitment for high renewable energy penetration, Electric Power Syst.
Res. 158 (2018) 240–249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.12.025.
[3] P. Denholm, M. Hand, Grid flexibility and storage required to achieve very high penetration
of variable renewable electricity, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1817–1830,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.019.
[4] R. Adib, H.E. Murdock, Highlights of the REN21 Renewables 2017 Global Status Report in
Perspective, (2017) URL: http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GSR2017
_Highlights_FINAL.pdf.

186 | P a g e
[5] Gravity Power – Grid Scale Energy Storage. Available: http://www. gravitypower.net/
(accessed: February 2018).
[6] M. Aneke, M. Wang, Energy storage technologies and real life applications – a state of the
art review, Appl. Energy 179 (2016) 350–377,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06 .097.
[7] T.M. Letcher, Storing Energy: With Special Reference to Renewable Energy Sources,
(2016).
[8] M. McPherson, S. Tahseen, Deploying storage assets to facilitate variable renewable energy
integration: the impacts of grid flexibility, renewable penetration, and market structure,
Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.002.
[9] A. Castillo, D.F. Gayme, Grid-scale energy storage applications in renewable energy
integration: a survey, Energy Convers. Manage. 87 (2014) 885–894, https://doi. org/10.1016
/j.enconman.2014.07.063.
[10] M.S. Guney, Y. Tepe, Classification and assessment of energy storage systems, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 75 (2017) 1187–1197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2016.11.102.
[11] Y. Hou, R. Vidu, P. Stroeve, Solar energy storage methods, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (2011)
8954–8964, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie2003413.
[12] W.F. Pickard, The history, present state, and future prospects of underground pumped hydro
for massive energy storage, Proc. IEEE 100 (2012) 473–483,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC .2011.2126030.
[13] D. Rastler, Electricity Energy Storage Technology Options: A White Paper Primer on
Applications, Costs and Benefits, Electric Power Research Institute, 2010.
[14] S.O. Amrouche, D. Rekioua, T. Rekioua, S. Bacha, Overview of energy storage in
renewable energy systems, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (2016) 20914–20927,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.243.
[15] G. Locatelli, E. Palerma, M. Mancini, Assessing the economics of large energy storage
plants with an optimisation methodology, Energy 83 (2015) 15–28, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy .2015.01.050.
[16] T. Mahlia, T. Saktisahdan, A. Jannifar, M. Hasan, H. Matseelar, A review of available
methods and development on energy storage; technology update, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 33 (2014) 532–545, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01. 068.
[17] B. Zakeri, S. Syri, Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle cost analysis,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 569–596, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.011.
[18] S. Rehman, L.M. Al-Hadhrami, M.M. Alam, Pumped hydro energy storage system: a
technological review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44 (2015) 586–598, https://doi. org/10.
1016/j.rser.2014.12.040.
[19] E. Pujades, T. Willems, S. Bodeux, P. Orban, A. Dassargues, Underground pumped storage
hydroelectricity using abandoned works (deep mines or open pits) and the impact on
groundwater flow, Hydrogeol. J. 24 (2016) 1531–1546, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10040-
016-1413-z.
[20] F. Winde, F. Kaiser, E. Erasmus, Exploring the use of deep level gold mines in South Africa
for underground pumped hydroelectric energy storage schemes, Renew. Sustain. Energy

187 | P a g e
Rev. 78 (2017) 668–682, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04. 116.
[21] Heindl Energy Storage [Online]. Available: https://heindl-energy.com (accessed: February
2018).
[22] Escovale Consultancy Services [Online]. Available: http://www.escovale.com/ GBES.php
(accessed: February 2018).
[23] Labeleda A. Berrada, K. Loudiyi, I. Zorkani, System design and economic performance of
gravity energy storage, J. Clean. Prod. 156 (2017) 317–326, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro .2017.04.043.
[24] A. Berrada, K. Loudiyi, I. Zorkani, Dynamic modeling and design considerations for
gravity energy storage, J. Clean. Prod. 159 (2017) 336–345.
[25] E. Heindl, Hydraulic hydro storage system for self-sufficient cities, Energy Procedia 46
(2014) 98–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.162.
[26] F. Escombe, GBES – Ground-Breaking Energy Storage (GBES-01), Available: http://
www.escovale.com/downloads/GBES-01-Introduction.pdf.
[27] R. Cazzaniga, M. Cicu, T. Marrana, M. Rosa-Clot, P. Rosa-Clot, G. Tina, Doges: deep
ocean gravitational energy storage, J. Energy Storage 14 (2017) 264–270, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.est.2017.06.008.
[28] A.H. Slocum, G.E. Fennell, G. Dundar, B.G. Hodder, J.D. Meredith, M.A. Sager, Ocean
renewable energy storage (ores) system: analysis of an undersea energy storage concept,
Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1109/ JPROC.2013.2242411.
[29] Ares – The Power of Gravity [Online]. Available: https://www.aresnorthamerica. com/
(accessed 2018)].
[30] Gravitricity [Online]. Available: https://www.gravitricity.com/ (accessed: March 2018).
[31] C. Blair, Gravitricity – Storing Power as well as Energy [Online]. Available:
http://www .all-energy.co.uk/Conference/Download-2016-Presentations/.
[32] B. Bungane, Gravitricity Sets Sights on South Africa to Test Green Energy Tech [Online].
Available: https://www.esi-africa.com/gravitricity-sets-sights-southafrica-test-green-energy-
tech/ (accessed: March 2018).
[33] Gravitricity Teams up with Worldwide Lifting, Drilling and Subsea Specialists Huisman to
Build Prototype Energy Store [Online]. Available: https://www.huismanequipment.com/
(accessed: March 2018).
[34] MGH – Deep Sea Energy Storage [Online]. Available: http://www.mgh-energy. com/
(accessed: August 2018).
[35] Stratosolar [Online]. Available: http://www.stratosolar.com/ (accessed: August 2018).
[36] T. Mushiri, M. Jirivengwa, C. Mbohwa, Design of a hoisting system for a small scale mine,
Procedia Manuf. 8 (2017) 738–745, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.095.
[37] Guideline for Design, Commissioning and Maintenance of Drum Winders. 1998.
[38] V. Jülch, Comparison of electricity storage options using levelized cost of storage (LCOS)
method, Appl. Energy 183 (2016) 1594–1606,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08 .165.
[39] J.A. Ober, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2018, Technical Report, US Geological Survey,
2018.

188 | P a g e
[40] Metalary [Online]. Available: https://www.metalary.com (last accessed: September 2018).
[41] P. Nikolaidis, A. Poullikkas, Cost metrics of electrical energy storage technologies in
potential power system operations, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 25 (2018) 43–59,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.12.001.
[42] A. McKane, A. Hasanbeigi, Motor systems energy efficiency supply curves: a methodology
for assessing the energy efficiency potential of industrial motor systems, Energy Policy 39
(2011) 6595–6607, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.004.
[43] L.J. Fingersh, M.M. Hand, A.S. Laxson, Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model,
(2006).
[44] O. Schmidt, Levelised Cost of Storage for Gravitricity Storage Systems, Available on
request from: [email protected].
[45] P. McCarthy, R. Livingstone, Shaft or decline? An economic comparison, Open Pit to
Underground: Making the Transition AIG Bulletin, (1993), pp. 45–56.
[46] J.E. Shigley, Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2011.
[47] L. Bronn, R. Wang, M. Kamper, Development of a shutter type magnetic gear, in:
Proceedings of the 19th Southern African Universities Power Engineering Conference
(2010) 78–82.
[48] K. Nakamura, M. Fukuoka, O. Ichinokura, Performance improvement of magnetic gear and
efficiency comparison with conventional mechanical gear, J. Appl. Phys.115 (2014) 7A314,
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4863809.
[49] Magnomatics – Magnetically Geared. URL: http://www.magnomatics.com/pages/
technology/innovation.htm.
[50] P. Tlali, R. Wang, S. Gerber, Magnetic gear technologies: a review, 2014 International
Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM), IEEE, 2014, pp. 544–550, ,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICELMACH.2014.6960233.
[51] J. Rens, K. Atallah, S.D. Calverley, D. Howe, A novel magnetic harmonic gear, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl. 46 (2010) 206–212, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICELMACH.2008. 4800163.
[52] G. Zhou, X. Xu, Y. Xiong, L. Zhang, Design and analysis of low-speed high torque direct-
driven permanent magnet synchronous machines (PMSM) with fractionalslot concentrated
winding used in coal mine belt conveyor system, 2017 20th International Conference on:
Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5, ,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEMS.2017.8056054.
[53] K. Atallah, S. Calverley, R. Clark, J. Rens, D. Howe, A new pm machine topology for low-
speed, high-torque drives, 18th International Conference on Electrical Machines, ICEM
2008, IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–4, , https://doi.org/10.1109/ICELMACH. 2008.4799909.
[54] D. Powell, S. Calverley, F. De Wildt, K. Daffey, Design and Analysis of a Pseudo Direct-
Drive Propulsion Motor, (2010), https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2010.0025.
[55] I. Boldea, L.N. Tutelea, W. Xu, M. Pucci, Linear electric machines, drives, and maglevs: an
overview, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 65 (2018) 7504–7515,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE .2017.2733492.
[56] Q. Lu, W. Mei, Recent development of linear machine topologies and applications, CES
Trans. Electr. Mach. Syst. 2 (2018) 65–72, https://doi.org/10.23919/TEMS. 2018.8326452.

189 | P a g e
[57] J.F. Gieras, Z.J. Piech, B. Tomczuk, Linear Synchronous Motors: Transportation and
Automation Systems, CRC Press, 2016.
[58] J. Faiz, A. Nematsaberi, Linear electrical generator topologies for direct-drive marine wave
energy conversion – an overview, IET Renew. Power Gener. 11 (2017) 1163–1176,
https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2016.0726.
[59] H. Fan, K. Chau, C. Liu, L. Cao, T. Ching, Quantitative comparison of novel dual-PM
linear motors for ropeless elevator system, IEEE Trans. Magn. (2018) 1–6, https://doi.org
/10.1109/TMAG.2018.2842083.
[60] S.-G. Lee, S.-A. Kim, S. Saha, Y.-W. Zhu, Y.-H. Cho, Optimal structure design for
minimizing detent force of PMLSM for a ropeless elevator, IEEE Trans. Magn. 50 (2014)
1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2013.2277544.
[61] Q. Lu, Y. Yao, Y. Ye, J. Dong, Research on ropeless elevator driven by PMLSM, 2016
Eleventh International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies
(EVER), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6, , https://doi.org/10.1109/EVER.2016.7476386.
[62] Y.-w. Zhu, S.-g. Lee, Y.-h. Cho, Topology structure selection of permanent magnet linear
synchronous motor for ropeless elevator system, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on
Industrial Electronics (ISIE), IEEE, 2010, pp. 1523–1528, , https:// doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.
2010.5637992.
[63] R. Appunn, K. Hameyer, Modern high speed elevator systems for skyscrapers, Maglev-
2014, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014, p. 24.
[64] H.S. Lim, R. Krishnan, N.S. Lobo, Design and control of a linear propulsion system for an
elevator using linear switched reluctance motor drives, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron 55 (2008)
534–542, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2007.911942.
[65] H.S. Lim, R. Krishnan, Ropeless elevator with linear switched reluctance motor drive
actuation systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 54 (2007) 2209–2218, https://
doi.org/10 .1109/TIE.2007.899875.
[66] B. Zhang, M. Cheng, S. Zhu, M. Zhang, W. Hua, R. Cao, Investigation of linear
fluxswitching permanent magnet machine for ropeless elevator, 2016 19th International
Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5.
[67] M. Mueller, H. Polinder, N. Baker, Current and novel electrical generator technology for
wave energy converters, IEEE International on Electric Machines & Drives Conference
2007, IEMDC’07, vol. 2, IEEE, 2007, pp. 1401–1406.
[68] R.J. Cruise, C.F. Landy, Linear synchronous motor propelled hoists for mining applications,
Conference Record of the 1996 IEEE on Industry Applications Conference, Thirty-First
IAS Annual Meeting, IAS’96, vol. 4, IEEE, 1996, pp. 2514–2519.

190 | P a g e