A Life Cycle Look at Hyperloop Sustainability

Even though the Hyperloop has often been marketed to be a next generation, greener alternative, much of its design and operation remains secret. According to Energy and Emissions Analysis of the Hyperloop Transportation System, even though there has been significant research on predicting the energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions of rail-based systems, the results of calculations have been published with no explanation of the methodology. Further, in most studies, the energy consumption of rail-based systems have only been correlated to maximum operating speed while not considering distances. This paper makes one of the first attempts to evaluate its viability by looking at energy use and emissions through a clear life cycle approach. 

To calculate these numbers, the paper builds a framework that splits Hyperloop’s energy demand into operating energy and embodied energy. Operating energy has two parts. The first is propulsion energy, which includes acceleration, constant speed, and braking while working against drag forces in the tube. The second is vacuum energy, which covers the pumping needed to keep the tubes at low pressure, the one time removal of air, and the operation of airlocks during boarding and exits. Equations for these processes were applied to test routes such as Mumbai to Pune, Dubai to Abu Dhabi, and Chicago to Pittsburgh, showing how geography and distance affect outcomes.

The results showed that vacuum pumping, not propulsion, makes up most of the operating costs and accounts for nearly two thirds of total energy use.  Embodied energy was almost evenly divided between the infrastructure of tubes and stations and the rolling stock of pods and magnets.  While Hyperloop performed better than airplanes on short regional routes like Mumbai to Pune, it was less efficient than both airplanes and high speed rail on longer routes such as Chicago to Pittsburgh. In fact, it was estimated that the embodied energy of Hyperloop, which comes mainly from aluminum, copper, steel, and rare earth magnets, is about 61 percent higher than that of airplanes. This is because the system relies heavily on energy intensive materials for the pods and powertrain. This suggests that the environmental benefits of Hyperloop depend strongly on design choices, leakage control, and route length.

From my perspective, the value of this study is not in giving final answers but in beginning the process of quantifying environmental parameters. By openly laying out the formulas with their justifications, it creates a foundation that can be refined, which will be important as Hyperloop technology continues to develop. With the policy research team at Guadaloop, there is a real opportunity to build on this work by taking them into account when making environmental evaluations more accurate across different regions and grades. Only through that iterative process will we be able to judge whether Hyperloop can truly deliver on its sustainability claims.