12 ms·

It seems likely that hydrogen will replace diesel in trains. Companies like Alstom[1], PESA[2] and Talgo[3] are developing hydrogen trains. Germany has already

It seems likely that hydrogen will replace diesel in trains. Companies like Alstom[1], PESA[2] and Talgo[3] are developing hydrogen trains. Germany has already started deploying them on a small scale[4], while Poland is planning to[5]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Coradia_LINT#iLint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Coradia_LINT#iLint [2] - https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/poland-pesa-presented-a-hydrogen-locomotive-at-trako/ https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/poland-pesa-presented-a-hydr... [3] - https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/talgo-to-launch-hydrogen-train-trials/ https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/talgo-to-launch-hydrogen-train... [4] - https://constructionreviewonline.com/news/construction-of-hydrogen-train-fuelling-station-begins-germany/ https://constructionreviewonline.com/news/construction-of-hy... [5] - https://www.orlen.pl/en/about-the-company/sustainable-development/ORLEN-Group-Hydrogen-Strategy-2030/News-about-hydrogen/pkn-orlen-set-to-build-hydrogen-hub-in-wloclawek https://www.orlen.pl/en/about-the-company/sustainable-develo...

TeeMassive 5y ago
I'm not against using Hydrogen but the problem is always what are they producing Hydrogen with and how is it more efficient energetically and emission wise?
- pantalaimon 5y ago
  Most Hydrogen is produced from Methane by steam reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    That will change, obviously.
- gopalv 5y ago
  > what are they producing Hydrogen with and how is it more efficient energetically and emission wise? Even if it is just Blue hydrogen being burnt here, the splitter plants can have some carbon capture in it which would be impossible to install on a moving train (beats diesel and also direct LNG burning). That said, with trains there's no real argument against electrification. The wheels have been electrically driven for a few decades now. It's not like they need to come up with motors or work out batteries.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Hydrogen can be produced electrically from water. A positively stupendous amount of electrolysis equipment will need to be built out, but there will be demand for as much as can be produced. Burning hydrogen produces mainly water. Burned in an engine, it also produces nitrous oxides, so probably some ammonia would be dissolved in to scavenge that. Liquid hydrogen takes up a lot more room than kerosene. The insulated liquid-hydrogen tank is quite a lot bigger than the kerosene tank -- maybe it is a whole other car -- but so what? Room on a train is cheap. What matters is weight. The tank is light, and the weight of LH2 needed to go the same distance is much less. The difference is weight that doesn't itself need to be transported. Furthermore, the LH2 can be produced and banked on-site at the railyard, and during peak-production hours, so cheaply. So, a win all around. Not as big a win as LH2-powered aircraft, but better, and much easier to retrofit.
  - Nick87633 5y ago
    Just because the tank is light, doesn't mean that a completed fuel carriage will be much lighter than any other car.
    - aurizon 5y ago
      A tanker that holds 80,000 pounds of kerosine will hold about 8000 pounds of LH2 in the same dimensionality. 0.07 = density of LH2, Density of water 1.0, kerosine 0.7 +/- varies with grade. So it take 10 times the cubeage plus Dewar grade insulation. At a permeant depot they will have a super refrigerator to condense boil off into LH2. They are trying to get a viable clathrate hydrate to hold a higher density form of bound but not reacted Hydrogen
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        The measure of fuel you need to carry is not weight, but energy content. It takes a much smaller weight of LH2 to match the energy content of diesel. So, correspondingly less than 10x volume. It is this better "gravimetric energy density" that makes LH2 an attractive fuel in many cases. You end up needing only about 2-3x tankage space, including the insulation. Better gravimetric energy density doesn't make so much difference for a train, so its other advantages -- production on-site, zero emissions, carbon-neutral -- are more important. At the trainyard, the LH2 would be banked in an underground tank where insulation is easy. It is not necessary to refrigerate it after it is liquified. It will gradually boil off, so you just make more anytime the level goes down, whether from boil-off or pumping out to a locomotive tank.
wolfgang000 5y ago
Bad idea in mi opinion, this is a solved problem, overhead wires, the amount of energy lost between the converting water into hydrogen and then back into water to get electricity can be as high as 70%, it's just a bad idea when you can use that energy directly using wire to get the same job done
- sva_ 5y ago
  Overhead wires are not a solution on a large scale, and also an eyesore.
  - mcv 5y ago
    Overhead wires are most definitely a solution on a large scale, and are used as such all over the world. And especially in Europe.
    - sva_ 5y ago
      0% chance that Germans would tolerate these in their landscapes. Also, how do you think this would work with a train going 400kmh+?
      - mcv 5y ago
        They already do, and yes. How about looking at the facts first?
      - peristalique 5y ago
        How do you come to this conclusion? All high speed lines in Germany (ICE) are powered by overhead wires.
        sva_ 5y ago
        Okay I was wrong. I thought it meant something different. > All high speed lines in Germany (ICE) I suppose almost all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_TD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_TD
nicoburns 5y ago
I think the vast majority of trains will go electric. This is already a mainstream technology (unlike electric cars). Overhead wires or 3rd rails in most places, with batteries where that's not possible or economic. Perhaps hydrogen will have it's niche though (perhaps on low-use railways?).
- hedora 5y ago
  Hydrogen fuel cells and batteries are roughly comparable technologies. The main difference is that you can use the power grid to "charge" the fuel cell while it's in motion. You simply generate hydrogen at its destination, then rapidly pump the hydrogen into tanks when it stops. So, the higher the duty cycle of the vehicle, the more sense hydrogen makes. Also, hydrogen has higher energy density (volume and weight per unit energy are both lower). For those two reasons, I'd guess long haul, heavy use lines would be the first use case for hydrogen, and that batteries won't ever be particularly competitive for those use cases.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Hydrogen also requires quite a bit of infrastructure that hasn't been built out, whereas railways generally have an electrical supply already. I suspect that will make batteries a lot more competitive in the short term. Hydrogen could make sense if it can overcome those hurdles. But with improvements in battery technology (solid state lithium batteries seem to be coming soon) I wonder if it will ever be better enough to gain adoption.
fulafel 5y ago
How would you argue to convince someone that it's more likely than not? The existence of r&d initiatives is a signal but doesn't seem sufficient to make the case.
panick21_ 5y ago
Never understood how this makes sense. Just make they hydrogen into methanol or whatever and use mostly existing tech instead.

TeeMassive 5y ago

I'm not against using Hydrogen but the problem is always what are they producing Hydrogen with and how is it more efficient energetically and emission wise?

pantalaimon 5y ago
Most Hydrogen is produced from Methane by steam reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
- ncmncm 5y ago
  That will change, obviously.
gopalv 5y ago
> what are they producing Hydrogen with and how is it more efficient energetically and emission wise? Even if it is just Blue hydrogen being burnt here, the splitter plants can have some carbon capture in it which would be impossible to install on a moving train (beats diesel and also direct LNG burning). That said, with trains there's no real argument against electrification. The wheels have been electrically driven for a few decades now. It's not like they need to come up with motors or work out batteries.
ncmncm 5y ago
Hydrogen can be produced electrically from water. A positively stupendous amount of electrolysis equipment will need to be built out, but there will be demand for as much as can be produced. Burning hydrogen produces mainly water. Burned in an engine, it also produces nitrous oxides, so probably some ammonia would be dissolved in to scavenge that. Liquid hydrogen takes up a lot more room than kerosene. The insulated liquid-hydrogen tank is quite a lot bigger than the kerosene tank -- maybe it is a whole other car -- but so what? Room on a train is cheap. What matters is weight. The tank is light, and the weight of LH2 needed to go the same distance is much less. The difference is weight that doesn't itself need to be transported. Furthermore, the LH2 can be produced and banked on-site at the railyard, and during peak-production hours, so cheaply. So, a win all around. Not as big a win as LH2-powered aircraft, but better, and much easier to retrofit.
- Nick87633 5y ago
  Just because the tank is light, doesn't mean that a completed fuel carriage will be much lighter than any other car.
  - aurizon 5y ago
    A tanker that holds 80,000 pounds of kerosine will hold about 8000 pounds of LH2 in the same dimensionality. 0.07 = density of LH2, Density of water 1.0, kerosine 0.7 +/- varies with grade. So it take 10 times the cubeage plus Dewar grade insulation. At a permeant depot they will have a super refrigerator to condense boil off into LH2. They are trying to get a viable clathrate hydrate to hold a higher density form of bound but not reacted Hydrogen
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The measure of fuel you need to carry is not weight, but energy content. It takes a much smaller weight of LH2 to match the energy content of diesel. So, correspondingly less than 10x volume. It is this better "gravimetric energy density" that makes LH2 an attractive fuel in many cases. You end up needing only about 2-3x tankage space, including the insulation. Better gravimetric energy density doesn't make so much difference for a train, so its other advantages -- production on-site, zero emissions, carbon-neutral -- are more important. At the trainyard, the LH2 would be banked in an underground tank where insulation is easy. It is not necessary to refrigerate it after it is liquified. It will gradually boil off, so you just make more anytime the level goes down, whether from boil-off or pumping out to a locomotive tank.

wolfgang000 5y ago

Bad idea in mi opinion, this is a solved problem, overhead wires, the amount of energy lost between the converting water into hydrogen and then back into water to get electricity can be as high as 70%, it's just a bad idea when you can use that energy directly using wire to get the same job done

sva_ 5y ago
Overhead wires are not a solution on a large scale, and also an eyesore.
- mcv 5y ago
  Overhead wires are most definitely a solution on a large scale, and are used as such all over the world. And especially in Europe.
  - sva_ 5y ago
    0% chance that Germans would tolerate these in their landscapes. Also, how do you think this would work with a train going 400kmh+?
    - mcv 5y ago
      They already do, and yes. How about looking at the facts first?
    - peristalique 5y ago
      How do you come to this conclusion? All high speed lines in Germany (ICE) are powered by overhead wires.
      - sva_ 5y ago
        Okay I was wrong. I thought it meant something different. > All high speed lines in Germany (ICE) I suppose almost all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_TD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_TD

nicoburns 5y ago

I think the vast majority of trains will go electric. This is already a mainstream technology (unlike electric cars). Overhead wires or 3rd rails in most places, with batteries where that's not possible or economic. Perhaps hydrogen will have it's niche though (perhaps on low-use railways?).

hedora 5y ago
Hydrogen fuel cells and batteries are roughly comparable technologies. The main difference is that you can use the power grid to "charge" the fuel cell while it's in motion. You simply generate hydrogen at its destination, then rapidly pump the hydrogen into tanks when it stops. So, the higher the duty cycle of the vehicle, the more sense hydrogen makes. Also, hydrogen has higher energy density (volume and weight per unit energy are both lower). For those two reasons, I'd guess long haul, heavy use lines would be the first use case for hydrogen, and that batteries won't ever be particularly competitive for those use cases.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Hydrogen also requires quite a bit of infrastructure that hasn't been built out, whereas railways generally have an electrical supply already. I suspect that will make batteries a lot more competitive in the short term. Hydrogen could make sense if it can overcome those hurdles. But with improvements in battery technology (solid state lithium batteries seem to be coming soon) I wonder if it will ever be better enough to gain adoption.

fulafel 5y ago

How would you argue to convince someone that it's more likely than not? The existence of r&d initiatives is a signal but doesn't seem sufficient to make the case.

panick21_ 5y ago

Never understood how this makes sense. Just make they hydrogen into methanol or whatever and use mostly existing tech instead.