World's first zero-emissions hydrogen passenger train to go into service in Germany.
20 replies, posted
[QUOTE][img]https://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/w468/0275c73514e634489dc2ad366071ea20d95161c4566e2e2ffeb63bc4c3554e2a.jpg[/img]
The hydrogen, or hydrail, train is set to run on the Buxtehude-Bremervörde-Bremerhaven-Cuxhaven line in Lower Saxony starting in December 2017, [URL="https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article158262466/Erster-Wasserstoff-Zug-der-Welt-faehrt-in-Deutschland.html"]Die Welt[/URL] reported on Tuesday.
The train - called the "Coradia iLint" - has been developed over the past two years by French company Alstom and was presented on Tuesday at the Berlin InnoTrans trade show.
The new Alstom train will be the first hydrogen passenger train to regularly operate on long-distance journeys.
With a full tank, the new locomotive will be able to [B]travel 600 to 800 kilometers.[/B]
The hydrogen train operates using a hydrogen fuel tank, stored on the roof of the train, that in turn powers a fuel cell to produce electrical energy. This technology provides a new environmentally friendly alternative to the diesel trains that are still used across much of Germany.
Source:
[url]https://www.thelocal.de/20160920/first-alstom-hydrogen-train-at-berlin-innotrans-tradeshow[/url][/QUOTE]
Its green credibility depends entirely on where the hydrogen was sourced from.
[editline]25th September 2016[/editline]
I don't see anything about it being sourced from renewable energy sources or from steam reformation of methane combined with CCS.
It runs on self-satisfaction.
It seems like a down grade if they already had electric trains.
Hydrogen vehicles are back?
I remember hearing a fair bit about it years ago but then it all went quiet
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;51102669]Hydrogen vehicles are back?
I remember hearing a fair bit about it years ago but then it all went quiet[/QUOTE]
Beyond the odd notion that a single hydrogen vehicle warrants the claim "hydrogen vehicles are back", I wouldn't see why hydrogen power couldn't be explored in novel areas while others (hydrogen cars) remain in the sidelines they've fallen into (perhaps justifiably).
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51102663]It seems like a down grade if they already had electric trains.[/QUOTE]
There are places where electric trains can't be run because of a lack of overhead cabling (also shunting locomotives) where diesel is used currently.
[QUOTE=Goz3rr;51102695]There are places where electric trains can't be run because of a lack of overhead cabling (also shunting locomotives) where diesel is used currently.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't it make more sense to just build the overhead cabling? Hydrogen is expensive, and you would need substantially large batteries onboard the train if you wanted to use regenerative braking.
[QUOTE=Morgen;51102784]Wouldn't it make more sense to just build the overhead cabling? Hydrogen is expensive, and you would need substantially large batteries onboard the train if you wanted to use regenerative braking.[/QUOTE]
That's stupidly expensive. Electrifying new york forced PRR to take out the largest loan in history at the time, and that was just for one division. Electrifying literally every inch of the world is ridiculous. Just maintaining it would be hugely expensive and would only really be possible in urban areas.
And hey, when peak oil hits, something's gotta change. This makes a lot of sense really, the only alternative is Ace 3000 style steam. I'm convinced third gen steam is just as reasonable, just as green and more efficient if you take today's hydrogen production into account, but hey
Yeah, it's ridiculously expensive. I expect hydrogen (or another carbon free liquid fuel like ammonia) to be the mainstay of trains, particularly on long freight routes.
[editline]25th September 2016[/editline]
Hydrogen isn't very expensive reformed from methane.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;51102669]Hydrogen vehicles are back?
I remember hearing a fair bit about it years ago but then it all went quiet[/QUOTE]
Because hydrogen is a bitch to produce (put nearly 4x the energy in than what you get out), a bitch to store (it can't be stored anywhere near populated areas, at least in my country, because of safety concerns) and a bitch to use (it doesn't have a particularly high energy density, so to get the same amount of energy as a bucket of diesel, you'd need a tank the size of a refrigerator pressurized to 700 bar
[QUOTE=Morgen;51102784]Wouldn't it make more sense to just build the overhead cabling? Hydrogen is expensive, and you would need substantially large batteries onboard the train if you wanted to use regenerative braking.[/QUOTE]
Correct, but there's plenty of places where overhead cabling isn't an option. Take the Trans-Siberian Railway or railway yards for instance
[editline]25th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;51102833]Yeah, it's ridiculously expensive. I expect hydrogen (or another carbon free liquid fuel like ammonia) to be the mainstay of trains, particularly on long freight routes.
[/QUOTE]
I don't, it's nowhere near practical enough. Personally I have much higher hopes for synthetic fuels, which when created from the right energy source are carbon neutral and would allow us to reuse large parts of the existing infrastructure around the world
[QUOTE=Goz3rr;51102836]Because hydrogen is a bitch to produce (put nearly 4x the energy in than what you get out), a bitch to store (it can't be stored anywhere near populated areas, at least in my country, because of safety concerns) and a bitch to use (it doesn't have a particularly high energy density, so to get the same amount of energy as a bucket of diesel, you'd need a tank the size of a refrigerator pressurized to 700 bar[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you don't really want this train to crash.
Which coincidentally happened in Germany not too long ago.
[QUOTE=Drury;51102870]Sounds like you don't really want this train to crash.
Which coincidentally happened in Germany not too long ago.[/QUOTE]
This is what happens if a tank of natural gas (150 bar) starts venting because of high pressure:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSzIQtCmPaU[/media]
Note that up until that point the tank hadn't ruptured or anything, it was venting off because of the pressure increase as a result from the tank heating up. For whatever reason they decided to make it vent sideways instead of upward.
[QUOTE=Morgen;51102784]Wouldn't it make more sense to just build the overhead cabling? Hydrogen is expensive, and you would need substantially large batteries onboard the train if you wanted to use regenerative braking.[/QUOTE]
They might have an ammonia production plant near the train that cant get rid of its Hydrogen or something.
Else, Im also clueless why they went with Hydrogen.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51102831]That's stupidly expensive. Electrifying new york forced PRR to take out the largest loan in history at the time, and that was just for one division. Electrifying literally every inch of the world is ridiculous. Just maintaining it would be hugely expensive and would only really be possible in urban areas.
And hey, when peak oil hits, something's gotta change. This makes a lot of sense really, the only alternative is Ace 3000 style steam. I'm convinced third gen steam is just as reasonable, just as green and more efficient if you take today's hydrogen production into account, but hey[/QUOTE]
If electrification is out of the question then I could see hydrogen potentially being useful maybe. There's always the option of battery electric train cars though. Eliminates the struggles and costs of handling hydrogen, and you can just electrify the stations.
Electrification, Why not just do both. You did mention the solution after all. Batteries. There's nothing saying a train cannot be fitted with regenerative braking to recharge the batteries while braking and deep cell batteries to run while not connected to the "main lines" essentially like those bus's you see in Russia that are both tram and bus but instead on a train.
Battery powered locomotives have been around for a long time (in fact there was one from the 1830s), but the prohibitive cost of batteries and the fact that a modern locomotive consumes vast quantities of energy means its normally cheaper to have diesel locomotives.
Hydrogen might work out in the long run? We would have to wait and see on how the technology developed
Isn't 40% of Britain's railways electrified?
[QUOTE=Morgen;51103178]If electrification is out of the question then I could see hydrogen potentially being useful maybe. There's always the option of battery electric train cars though. Eliminates the struggles and costs of handling hydrogen, and you can just electrify the stations.[/QUOTE]
It's not out of the question, just practically impossible to do ubiquitously. Imagine trying to maintain a relay station every few hundred kilometeres and several thousand miles of cable or third rail through the nevada desert or the Rockies. Shit ain't happenin'
kind of makes a lot of sense for trains to use hydrogen fuel systems
[QUOTE=Sableye;51105255]kind of makes a lot of sense for trains to use hydrogen fuel systems[/QUOTE]
A lot more sense than hydrogen cars, but still not a lot of sense by default imo
It's a combination of a greener fossil fuel vehicle and a battery-charged one due to the energy requirements in creating the hydrogen from natural gas. Barely a better option than diesel, probably not much more practical than battery-charged now that batteries have gotten awesome.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.