4 ms·

It might decarbonise the railway but not the supply chain. Currently the only practical large scale source of hydrogen is methane, mostly by steam reforming:

It might decarbonise the railway but not the supply chain. Currently the only practical large scale source of hydrogen is methane, mostly by steam reforming: Steam-methane reforming reaction CH4 + H2O (+ heat) → CO + 3H2 Water-gas shift reaction CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 (+ small amount of heat) See https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-na... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production. There are possible methods to produce hydrogen without releasing CO2 but they are not in widespread use, for instance, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171208171749.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171208171749.h.... So this looks like it is a way to keep the petro/gas industry in business instead of electrifying the network. One of the justifications in the article was avoiding the expense of electrifying rail routes that had few passengers; perhaps a more rational response would be to close the line and use buses instead (which could also be hydrogen if necessary but which can already be battery electric).

Freak_NL 7y ago
Replacing rural train links with buses invariably means significantly reducing mobility for a lot of people. It is also akin to a signed death-warrant for a locality that prospers from tourism and/or houses commuting families. That can be a valid choice for some localities, but it is a choice with far-reaching consequences. Travelling with a pram or a wheelchair using public transport is doable by train. By bus it is fine for a short ride (up to a few kilometres), but with increasing distance it becomes undoable for more and more people. Another group of people heavily affected are those with incontinence or bowel diseases. Trains usually have accessible toilets on-board (usable with wheelchairs as well), buses don't. A rational response is to explore all possibilities for keeping a train link operational in a sustainable manner.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  > signed death-warrant for a locality that prospers from tourism If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? > Travelling with a pram or a wheelchair using public transport is doable by train. By bus it is fine for a short ride (up to a few kilometres), but with increasing distance it becomes undoable for more and more people. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I no longer live in the UK. Where I do live (Norway) travel by medium distance bus with a pram or wheel chair is not a problem because buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. Buses are also more flexible, new routes are vastly easier to set up than new routes for trains.
  - Freak_NL 7y ago
    > If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? Sometimes the line is profitable as it is, but not profitable enough for electrification. It's a big investment with high maintenance costs. There are a bunch of lines like these in the Netherlands (Harlingen Haven — Leeuwarden is one I am quite familiar with). Tourism is often seasonal, so while it does add up in terms of profit (or breaking even), for electrification to be a sensible investment you are talking double or triple the amount of passengers. > buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. But no accessible toilets (big issue for many disabled people, and anyone travelling with kids), and travelling with an infant in a pram really limits your bus-range (I have an infant son and avoid buses if at all possible). Also, the dedicated spaces are great, but if there is a wheelchair there already you have to take the next bus instead (unless you have a collapsible stroller, but then the kid is older already). This is fine for incidental travelling, but not for a frequent commute. In trains you can almost always make do; in a bus you're not even allowed on when the dedicated spaces are taken, because of (valid) safety concerns. Buses are great if that's all that's available and all that ever has been available, but shutting down a train line impacts the lives of many people — some of whom wouldn't have chosen to live in town without a train link in the first place.
pjc50 7y ago
Exactly. I would say it was better to go the other way: use the syngas reaction to turn H2 from electrolysis into convenient CH4. Also absorbs some carbon from the atmosphere or other processes. Of course, that only makes sense if there isn't cheap fracked gas out there ... At the moment, all H2 power schemes are greenwashing for natural gas.
jokoon 7y ago
> So this looks like it is a way to keep the petro/gas industry Yeah that also was my thought. About steam reforming, it seems it still emits CO2, so it's far from being green. So the greenest transport there is, is train and trams powered by nuclear energy, including merchandise. This small train would seem pretty relevant in certain cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway for example in places where you want to diminish truck traffic, in dense areas. But overall electrified rail was always a green transport until auto companies lobbied to remove rail. But again, those are long term investments, and capitalism never likes it.

Freak_NL 7y ago

Replacing rural train links with buses invariably means significantly reducing mobility for a lot of people. It is also akin to a signed death-warrant for a locality that prospers from tourism and/or houses commuting families. That can be a valid choice for some localities, but it is a choice with far-reaching consequences. Travelling with a pram or a wheelchair using public transport is doable by train. By bus it is fine for a short ride (up to a few kilometres), but with increasing distance it becomes undoable for more and more people. Another group of people heavily affected are those with incontinence or bowel diseases. Trains usually have accessible toilets on-board (usable with wheelchairs as well), buses don't. A rational response is to explore all possibilities for keeping a train link operational in a sustainable manner.

kwhitefoot 7y ago
> signed death-warrant for a locality that prospers from tourism If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? > Travelling with a pram or a wheelchair using public transport is doable by train. By bus it is fine for a short ride (up to a few kilometres), but with increasing distance it becomes undoable for more and more people. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I no longer live in the UK. Where I do live (Norway) travel by medium distance bus with a pram or wheel chair is not a problem because buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. Buses are also more flexible, new routes are vastly easier to set up than new routes for trains.
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  > If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? Sometimes the line is profitable as it is, but not profitable enough for electrification. It's a big investment with high maintenance costs. There are a bunch of lines like these in the Netherlands (Harlingen Haven — Leeuwarden is one I am quite familiar with). Tourism is often seasonal, so while it does add up in terms of profit (or breaking even), for electrification to be a sensible investment you are talking double or triple the amount of passengers. > buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. But no accessible toilets (big issue for many disabled people, and anyone travelling with kids), and travelling with an infant in a pram really limits your bus-range (I have an infant son and avoid buses if at all possible). Also, the dedicated spaces are great, but if there is a wheelchair there already you have to take the next bus instead (unless you have a collapsible stroller, but then the kid is older already). This is fine for incidental travelling, but not for a frequent commute. In trains you can almost always make do; in a bus you're not even allowed on when the dedicated spaces are taken, because of (valid) safety concerns. Buses are great if that's all that's available and all that ever has been available, but shutting down a train line impacts the lives of many people — some of whom wouldn't have chosen to live in town without a train link in the first place.

pjc50 7y ago

Exactly. I would say it was better to go the other way: use the syngas reaction to turn H2 from electrolysis into convenient CH4. Also absorbs some carbon from the atmosphere or other processes. Of course, that only makes sense if there isn't cheap fracked gas out there ... At the moment, all H2 power schemes are greenwashing for natural gas.

jokoon 7y ago

> So this looks like it is a way to keep the petro/gas industry Yeah that also was my thought. About steam reforming, it seems it still emits CO2, so it's far from being green. So the greenest transport there is, is train and trams powered by nuclear energy, including merchandise. This small train would seem pretty relevant in certain cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway for example in places where you want to diminish truck traffic, in dense areas. But overall electrified rail was always a green transport until auto companies lobbied to remove rail. But again, those are long term investments, and capitalism never likes it.