Transfer efficiency of energy is the keystone to this project. If we can’t transfer kinetic energy of one branch to the other, we’re just dumping gigawatts into Entropy.

There is no data readily available on possible energy transfer efficiencies, although I have far from performed due diligence. Instead, let’s look at the implications of different hypothetical transfer efficiencies.

The only thing we have on our side here is potential energy, stored in the form of dense rock at high elevation. In an ideal situation (perfectly frictionless track, complete transfer of kinetic energy from incoming cargo to outgoing cargo), the scenario looks something like this:

Once the system is brought up to full speed, 96% of the power at each station is transferred to accelerate the outgoing cargo. The remaining 4% is transferred to usable energy. Based on full output, this results in a generation of 64 GW.

Of course, ideal conditions are not possible. While VacMagLev has minimal friction losses in transit, we have to assume that some of our power generated by regenerative braking will be lost to entropy. How much power loss greatly affects the system’s performance.

In the following examples, we lower the operating capacity of the line. Since energy is proportional to the square of velocity, and operating efficiency is assumed as a constant regardless of energy use, a lower-velocity system should see significantly less entropy. Also note there is an additive effect of these efficiencies. At a 90% transfer efficiency, we experience losses in one cycle of the Colorado – New Orleans – Lake Superior hub of

1 – (0.90*0.90*0.90) = 27%

For each assumed energy transfer efficiency, we look at two scenarios: first, what is the maximum system velocity that will leave us with an energy-neutral system. Secondly, what is a reasonable system velocity that also produces energy? Results are as follows:

Energy Transfer Efficiency	Velocity with 0 power consumption, m/s	Design Velocity & Design power generation
100%	---	900 m/s, 64 GW
95%	812	750 m/s, 9 GW
90%	601	350 m/s, 12 GW
85%	457	300 m/s, 6 GW
80%	327	200 m/s, 3 GW
70%	28	---
50%	---	---

It’s almost laughable that we consider 200 m/s and 3 GW as modest, but that’s exactly what we can get if we can improve kinetic energy transfer to 80%.