The major problems with hydrogen-electric cars are that hydrogen tanks are expensive and difficult to build, and that refuelling stations aren’t exactly common.
Hydrogen-electric trains make much more sense, as the tanks scale well-- large tanks are more efficient storage than small ones-- and the fact that trains have set routes makes adding hydrogen infrastructure much simpler. As well, it likely wouldn’t be difficult to extend range by simply adding more tanker cars behind the engine.
This is great news, and I hope the pilot project goes well and is expanded
Hydrogen atoms/molecules are small enough that they slowly phase through the sort of steel you’d use in a CNG or LPG tank, embrittling the steel along the way. Hydrogen tanks need to be made of specially designed alloys, which makes every part of building them more expensive.
The square-cube law, combined with that fact, means that bigger is generally better with hydrogen tanks. Especially so if it’s cryogenic, which I don’t expect any vehicle tanks to be, not worth the effort, but refuelling depots, probably.
First is where the hydrogen comes from. Most commercially available hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. The most common process involves superheated steam, methane (aka natural gas), and a catalyst. Very little hydrogen comes from renewable energy via hydrolysis.
Second is efficiency. The total process of transforming renewable energy to hydrogen, storing and transporting the gas, then using it to move a locomotive is only about 30% efficient. There are significant losses at every stage, and it’s a very complex supply chain.
Now, compare this to very boring overhead electrified railroads, which have existed for over one hundred years. Modern systems can achieve nearly 85% efficiency from generation to locomotion, are cheap and easy to build, and have some of the most reliable rolling stock around since they’re essentially a really big slot car. The only downside is the big up-front investment in overhead lines, but that quickly pays for itself with the overall efficiency of the railroad system.
If you ask me, this is a bad idea. It’s somewhere between well intentioned but poorly thought through engineering, and the good old fashioned greenwashing of the fossil fuel industry.
This is just a FUD post. No one cared about green energy until recently. Everything was powered by fossil fuels until recently. And when people started to care, suddenly it becomes impossible because, wait for it, no one use green energy before! It is a circular argument.
It is a matter of when and not if hydrogen becomes a way of powering many types of transportation. Skeptics have their own agenda to oppose this and it is usually not a good one.
Then you must be very outdated on your knowledge. The things you’ve listed, they’re solved problems. You can buy hydrogen cars today with none of those issues. Criticisms of hydrogen cars now are just a repeat of BEV criticism back in the early 2010s.
This is just a FUD argument. The route in question can never be electrified because it is a lightly used route. The alternative is just diesel itself.
People who question hydrogen pretty much always have an agenda. Either they are secretly promoting fossil fuels, or believe in environmental fantasy that is detached from reality. Akin to how green parties shut down nuclear power development.
In the article they call this out as a good solution for low density lines that are unlikely to get overhang wires installed. In the case of the QC line, it’s using green hydrogen.
You’re probably right for the higher density lines.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
The major problems with hydrogen-electric cars are that hydrogen tanks are expensive and difficult to build, and that refuelling stations aren’t exactly common.
Hydrogen-electric trains make much more sense, as the tanks scale well-- large tanks are more efficient storage than small ones-- and the fact that trains have set routes makes adding hydrogen infrastructure much simpler. As well, it likely wouldn’t be difficult to extend range by simply adding more tanker cars behind the engine.
This is great news, and I hope the pilot project goes well and is expanded
Hydrogen tanks are literally just tanks. They should not cost much more than say, a CNG tank.
Hydrogen atoms/molecules are small enough that they slowly phase through the sort of steel you’d use in a CNG or LPG tank, embrittling the steel along the way. Hydrogen tanks need to be made of specially designed alloys, which makes every part of building them more expensive.
The square-cube law, combined with that fact, means that bigger is generally better with hydrogen tanks. Especially so if it’s cryogenic, which I don’t expect any vehicle tanks to be, not worth the effort, but refuelling depots, probably.
I’d pay to not smell diesel fumes on the train.
This is not as good of an idea as you may think.
First is where the hydrogen comes from. Most commercially available hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. The most common process involves superheated steam, methane (aka natural gas), and a catalyst. Very little hydrogen comes from renewable energy via hydrolysis.
Second is efficiency. The total process of transforming renewable energy to hydrogen, storing and transporting the gas, then using it to move a locomotive is only about 30% efficient. There are significant losses at every stage, and it’s a very complex supply chain.
Now, compare this to very boring overhead electrified railroads, which have existed for over one hundred years. Modern systems can achieve nearly 85% efficiency from generation to locomotion, are cheap and easy to build, and have some of the most reliable rolling stock around since they’re essentially a really big slot car. The only downside is the big up-front investment in overhead lines, but that quickly pays for itself with the overall efficiency of the railroad system.
If you ask me, this is a bad idea. It’s somewhere between well intentioned but poorly thought through engineering, and the good old fashioned greenwashing of the fossil fuel industry.
Third… Stainless Steel… EVERYWHERE.
Forth … Hydrogen Embrittlement
Seriously…
Between the Wars and Geopolitics for the past hundred years…
The amount of $$$$$$ spent on deep sea oil rigs/drilling/etc…
Hydrogen, the most studied element of all elements…
If it was even remotely possible to use Hydrogen effectively, we’d be doing it already…
This is just a FUD post. No one cared about green energy until recently. Everything was powered by fossil fuels until recently. And when people started to care, suddenly it becomes impossible because, wait for it, no one use green energy before! It is a circular argument.
It is a matter of when and not if hydrogen becomes a way of powering many types of transportation. Skeptics have their own agenda to oppose this and it is usually not a good one.
Well, FUD all you want.
I’ve actually worked on Hydrogen powered vehicles and there’s more than a few reasons they are being abandoned.
You can ignore the science all you want.
But you can’t wish physics to change, and science doesn’t care if you ignore it.
Then you must be very outdated on your knowledge. The things you’ve listed, they’re solved problems. You can buy hydrogen cars today with none of those issues. Criticisms of hydrogen cars now are just a repeat of BEV criticism back in the early 2010s.
This is just a FUD argument. The route in question can never be electrified because it is a lightly used route. The alternative is just diesel itself.
People who question hydrogen pretty much always have an agenda. Either they are secretly promoting fossil fuels, or believe in environmental fantasy that is detached from reality. Akin to how green parties shut down nuclear power development.
In the article they call this out as a good solution for low density lines that are unlikely to get overhang wires installed. In the case of the QC line, it’s using green hydrogen.
You’re probably right for the higher density lines.