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.
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.
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.
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Then you must be very outdated on your knowledge.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.
And what do you know? They’re both pressure vessels. Why would one cost significantly more than the other? With modern technology, the cost of making hydrogen tanks should be fairly cheap.
What do I know? I’ve designed pressure vessels as a job.
No. The material requirements for a H2 pressure vessel is vastly more expensive for the reasons I stated above.
H2 reacts with everything, Extreme low carbon stainless is required, on top of the tank wouldn’t last long due to hydrogen embrittlement.
Hydrogen being the smallest element literally just permeates through every material.
My current profession involves large equipment. Especially electrically driven equipment.
The mining industry would pay BILLIONS… scratch that… TRILLIONS of dollars if hydrogen source was achievable, if they could reduce the need to vent their mines, if their equipment could output only water…
They already pay $$$$$$ for fully electric mining equipment. I’ve personally worked on those machines and many others like fully electric passenger buses.
They’ve all abandoned H2. Batteries are the future. H2 is not.
Unless someone can use H2 in a kind of fusion process to generate power… H2 will never be a thing. In combustion or Fuel cell form.
Again, if I was a good idea, we’d be doing it already. No new technology in either materials, chemistry or combustion have come to light that could possibly make H2 viable.
It’s a green-washing farce until someone can crack open the hydrogen atom.
Much of the focus with hydrogen vehicles is using Type III or Type IV which have inner linings and don’t have the problems with leakage or embrittlement. Eventually, the goal is the switch to all-composite Type V which don’t need inner linings. And FYI, this is the same system used for CNG. So costs are in fact, very similar to each other.
The mining industry would pay BILLIONS… scratch that… TRILLIONS of dollars if hydrogen source was achievable, if they could reduce the need to vent their mines, if their equipment could output only water…
The rest of your post is either just pure Ludditism or ridiculous pro-battery fanboyism. It’s objectively false. In fact, you’re quite literally implying that the original story we’re talking about is a work of fiction. You should be embarrassed to have written such nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
this is why im against hydrogen cars, but it does make a lot more sense for trains (and possibly jets).
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.
LOL
Hydrogen tanks are literally just tanks. They should not cost much more than say, a CNG tank.
Wow… why advocate for something of which you clearly have absolutely no knowledge about.
And what do you know? They’re both pressure vessels. Why would one cost significantly more than the other? With modern technology, the cost of making hydrogen tanks should be fairly cheap.
What do I know? I’ve designed pressure vessels as a job.
No. The material requirements for a H2 pressure vessel is vastly more expensive for the reasons I stated above.
H2 reacts with everything, Extreme low carbon stainless is required, on top of the tank wouldn’t last long due to hydrogen embrittlement.
Hydrogen being the smallest element literally just permeates through every material.
My current profession involves large equipment. Especially electrically driven equipment.
The mining industry would pay BILLIONS… scratch that… TRILLIONS of dollars if hydrogen source was achievable, if they could reduce the need to vent their mines, if their equipment could output only water…
They already pay $$$$$$ for fully electric mining equipment. I’ve personally worked on those machines and many others like fully electric passenger buses.
They’ve all abandoned H2. Batteries are the future. H2 is not.
Unless someone can use H2 in a kind of fusion process to generate power… H2 will never be a thing. In combustion or Fuel cell form.
Again, if I was a good idea, we’d be doing it already. No new technology in either materials, chemistry or combustion have come to light that could possibly make H2 viable.
It’s a green-washing farce until someone can crack open the hydrogen atom.
Either you’re the dumbest engineer in the field or you just made all that up. Seriously, your post is just a load of bull.
We already have an entire system for these types of tanks. They go from Type I to Type V: https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composites-end-markets-pressure-vessels-2023
Much of the focus with hydrogen vehicles is using Type III or Type IV which have inner linings and don’t have the problems with leakage or embrittlement. Eventually, the goal is the switch to all-composite Type V which don’t need inner linings. And FYI, this is the same system used for CNG. So costs are in fact, very similar to each other.
Funny because that’s exactly what is happening. Billions are being spent right now:
https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/hydrogen-energy-transition-deals-record-pe-vc-2022
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/japan-invest-107-bln-hydrogen-supply-over-15-years-2023-06-06/
https://rollcall.com/2023/04/20/hydrogen-energy-gets-ready-for-its-close-up-as-us-funds-flow/
Eventually, this will likely reach into the trillions of dollars: https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/press-room/new-deloitte-report-emerging-green-hydrogen-market.html
The rest of your post is either just pure Ludditism or ridiculous pro-battery fanboyism. It’s objectively false. In fact, you’re quite literally implying that the original story we’re talking about is a work of fiction. You should be embarrassed to have written such nonsense.