
Next stop, hydrogen-powered trains - hhs
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200227-how-hydrogen-powered-trains-can-tackle-climate-change
======
kwhitefoot
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-
na...](https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-
reforming) 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.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171208171749.htm).

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
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
> 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
> 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.

------
Confiks
What I often don't see mentioned in the discussion about using hydrogen power
is solving the volumetric capacity problem of storing hydrogen.

One potential solution is to instead use formic acid as stable energy storage.
There have been recent advances in catalysts that make it feasible to convert
hydrogen to formic acid and back again. Formic acid is stable, not very toxic,
and has an energy capacity of 1.77 kWh/L.

The only party I know of that is trying to bring this to market is Dens [1],
formed out of a student group at the University of Eindhoven [2]. Their
website is a bit high on the rhetoric (including trying to coin "hydrozine"),
and their mockups looks like, well, mockups, but there are real technology
advances behind this, for example their trial with a city bus [3] (Dutch).

[1] [https://dens.one/our-products/](https://dens.one/our-products/)

[2] [https://teamfast.nl/technology/](https://teamfast.nl/technology/)

[3] [https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/deze-
stadsbus-i...](https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/deze-stadsbus-in-
eindhoven-rijdt-nu-op-mierenzuur-en-dat-is-behoorlijk-revolutionair~bb027b8b/)

~~~
08-15
Formic acid, being more oxidized, has lower energy density than methanol. In
what way is it better than methanol?

~~~
Confiks
It isn't purely about the (energy density of the) chemicals themselves, but
also about the available reformation / hydrogenation processes. As far as my
limited knowledge goes, the processes for methanol have seen more development,
but formic acid has a potential for simpler and smaller systems in less
demanding circumstances (pressure, heat). [1] was the first comparison I
stumbled upon.

[1]
[https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110536423-002](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110536423-002)

------
eisa01
Another option to expensive full electrification is partly electrifying the
tracks, and running on battery in between

That’s the current Norwegian plan for electrifying the Northern Norway line as
its the cheapest option

[https://www.railjournal.com/technology/norway-to-replace-
die...](https://www.railjournal.com/technology/norway-to-replace-diesel-
traction-with-battery-trains/)

~~~
tyfon
They're still considering hydrogen too, however hydrogen
production/distribution is really inefficient and as of today not very carbon
neutral [1].

When you count the whole supply chain it has about the same efficiency as a
diesel.

Pumping hydro electricity into a battery is much more efficient.

I guess there would also be issues transferring the hydrogen to the trains, we
already struggle (struggled, the H-stations for cars are closed after an
explosion here) with multiple cars filling up in turn. The pumps would just
freeze and you had to wait for half an hour to fill up the next car.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production)

------
fold_left
> In 2016, Germany unveiled the Coradia iLint, the world’s first hydrogen-
> powered train, which can run for 600 miles on a single tank of fuel – on par
> with the distances that traditional trains achieve on a tank of diesel

> The train’s hydrogen power system produces sufficient power to take the
> train 50 to 75 miles. The train, called Hydroflex, is the UK’s first to be
> powered by hydrogen

The iLint seems to be much further advanced. In this Industry, what does a
Team in the Hydroflex's position normally do next in this position?

~~~
jillesvangurp
Long distance tracks are mostly already electrified in most places. In Germany
& the Netherlands, diesel trains are limited to the edges of the rail network
and there have been plenty of experiments with replacing those with hydrogen,
gas and even battery trains. Mostly those trains service short routes.

~~~
jessriedel
What keeps all the tracks from be electrified? If it's just cost, what would
make it cheaper to use fuel cells?

~~~
adrianN
Electrifying rarely used tracks makes little economic sense. There is a huge
up-front cost and you have significantly increased maintenance costs. Hydrogen
powered trains can be rolled out incrementally.

~~~
jessriedel
Makes perfect sense, thanks.

------
LatteLazy
Classic britian: out electric train is 4 years later than the German one, with
a tenth the range for double the price.

~~~
dgellow
If that can make you feel better, Germany also has its own classic clusterfuck
:)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport)

------
natmaka
AFAIK this is good because some renewable energy sources cannot produce
continuously (solar, wind), and therefore storing their production is a major
challenge. As stated in this article generating hydrogen can be done with
electricity. Moreover fuel cells may also power trucks and even cars.

~~~
greatpatton
The main issue is the overall efficiency of the process. Creating hydrogen by
electrolysis is about 80% and then a fuel cell electric efficiency is 60-70%.
So overall the whole process is not very good.

~~~
chrisco255
How's the energy storage density on Hydrogen though? One of the main problems
with Lithium is it's heavy and requires a lot of space to store energy.

~~~
calaphos
Extremely good for weight and extremely poor for volume. To reduce the gasses
volume storage is usually either highly compressed (200-700bar) or cryogenic
(30K), like in the space shuttles tank.

In both cases the volumetric density is still quite poor, cryogenic is about
70g/l, which is actually less than the weight of hydrogen chemically bound in
a liter of gasoline.

There exists some concepts of storing hydrogen chemically bound, e.g. to
hydrocarbons or metal hydrites which release the gas on high temperatures
(100-200°C).

~~~
Confiks
Formic acid might be a possible solution for the volumetric capacity problem,
although it is still very much in its infancy. See [1].

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22449894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22449894)

~~~
cheerlessbog
How is better than methanol?

------
wffurr
What about a separate tanker car? Seems like that would solve the range issue.

What about biodisel or syngas made with renewable energy instead of hydrogen?
Still carbon neutral operations.

~~~
brnt
Carbon neutral is a fossil industry marketing gimmick. The climate does not
care about provenance of CO2, it only cares about its presence.

We need to de-carbonize, and hydrogen produce by renewables such as wind
qualifies.

~~~
zokier
Growing biomass removes co2 from atmosphere. Burning carbon from that biomass
releases it back. Make the process efficient enough (with addition of external
power) and you end up with no added co2 in atmosphere. That's not just a
marketing gimmick.

Of course it is debatable if it is an efficient approach for doing things, but
the concept is sound

~~~
brnt
There is no net reduction of co2 emissions here, that's why its marketing.

The fact that sequestration in plants happens first does not make it better
for global warming if you then burn it right after.

Encouraging plant growth on top of a decarbonized energy cycle, now that will
make a difference.

~~~
wffurr
How is replacing fossil diesel with recycled atmospheric co2 not a net reduct
of emissions?

------
ajuc
3-car 200-passangers train going 160 km/h in Sweden uses 5.6 kWh per 1 km [1].
More than that when it accelerates, but it mostly happens near the stations
where there is electric network.

Or if the train stops there you can just detach used batteries and attach
freshly charged ones - should help if the charging is too slow (but it
shouldn't be - after all if the electric network is sufficient for powering
trains when they accelerate/decelerate and use several times more power than
on cruise - then it should be also sufficient for charging batteries powering
trains when they cruise).

That's 560 kWh or 112 of used Tesla battery modules 5 kWh each. You can buy
one for 1300 USD [2]. That's a recyclable resource (from used electric car
batteries) and it would cost about 150 000 USD to upgrade one train with
these.

150 000 USD is peanuts compared to multi-million USD prices per car of most
modern passanger trains [3].

It would also add 2.9 tonnes to the train, which isn't that much for 3 cars
train that weighs 165 tonnes [4].

You could add it as a small aerodynamic car trailing the train that can be
swapped on stations if needed (so you don't need to upgrade all the trains,
just buy enough of these cars to serve the unelectrified lines).

This would bypass the need for new hydrogen supply chain, would have much
better synergy with already electrified tracks, would allow to gradually
improve the system, and wouldn't need any carbon emission (unlike hydrogen
production).

It's also a proven technology unlike hydrogen power.

Sources:

[1] [https://www.quora.com/How-much-electricity-is-used-by-a-
trai...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-electricity-is-used-by-a-train-to-
run-1-km)

[2]
[http://store.evtv.me/proddetail.php?prod=TeslaBattModule](http://store.evtv.me/proddetail.php?prod=TeslaBattModule)

[3] [https://montrealgazette.com/business/local-
business/bombardi...](https://montrealgazette.com/business/local-
business/bombardier-transportation-wins-580m-contract-in-sweden)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_(train)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_\(train\))

------
dr_dshiv
Anyone know of efforts to enhance the efficiency of electrolysis with RF
resonance?

There is a relatively old patent, but I'm looking for recent scientific work.
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US4265721A/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US4265721A/en)

------
NoblePublius
The only industrial-scale process for making hydrogen starts with carbon fuel.
Come at me, Chevron lovers.

~~~
nerdponx
What's the net carbon emission from 1 kWh from a liquid hydrogen engine
compared to a modern diesel engine?

~~~
NoblePublius
Well, you need to burn a lot of diesel (or it’s equivalent) to produce, store,
and transport the hydrogen so I think it goes without saying that hydrogen
fuel is worse.

------
thepete2
I suppose hydrogen-powered trains can make some sense. Provided that it's
worth wasting the electricity (bc of inefficiency of hydrogen energy storage)
for a lower cost of energy capacity (no expensive lithium-ion batteries).

------
senectus1
I wonder how these would go in a heavy haulage scenario.

