Hydrogen Motive Power

The issue though is the sheer volume of stuff that is being moved, even if it is by rail or a Tripe E

 

If you are suggesting that the growing volume of stuff being moved around the world is unsustainable, I agree.

 

The Voyagers were designed over 20 years ago, maybe there is a way to upgrade to the latest hybrid seamless switching between OH electricity and low emission Diesel traction as some of the Crosscountry routes are now partly electrified?

Looking at info on the refurbished class 769 trains
https://www.porterbrook.co.uk/innovation/case-studies/the-flex-family

The Class 319 units are converted to Class 769 adding low emission (Stage IIIB compliant) MAN diesel engines with upgrades in mind.
"The modular design of the powerpack rafts means the vehicle can be adapted for future energy modes. Diesel engines can be replaced by battery packs and hydrogen fuel cells to create a zero emission self-powered unit."
Currently the hydrogen fuel cells and storage tested mainline on the ex class 319s are not compact enough to fit in the underbody "rafts", but they are aiming for the end of 2021.

 

It was suggested that an extra car could be added to each Voyager, this would have addressed their capacity issues. It could also have carried a pantograph, transformer etc that would have allowed them to run on electricity when they were on electrified lines

 

Very valid point. With the additional issue that one principal means of separating H2 is not merely energy inefficient, but is effectively an extention of the Cat-cracker tech of fossil fuel production i.e. about as far from "clean" as is possible to get. There's a world of difference between the ethos of decarbonising our economy and attempts by the fossil fuel industry to continue 'business as usual', behind a 'green' fig leaf. Can't blame 'em for trying, I s'pose, but as always, we need to look behind the headlines.

All methods utilising electricity can (obviously) only be considered as 'clean' as the method by which the necessary juice is generated in the first place. Unsurprisingly, much effort is being expended on establishing more efficient means of clean H2 production and while incremental progress is being made, I'm not aware of any equivalent of the sort of 'step change' coming with solid state battery tech. Hydro (including tidal) generation is 'clean', but could still benefit greatly from improvements in the efficiency of H2 generation.

So why bother with hydrogen? Simple. Energy density. Hydrogen fuel cell tech is substantially heavier than (current) Lithium batteries, but in applications such as rail, shipping or HGV traction, that's not the disadvantage it is with lighter vehicles.

 

The class 769 conversion is running years late, and I don’t trust timescales from Porterbrook or Brush, while Bombardier killed off “Operation Thor” by quoting ridiculously high prices for the new carriages that would have been required to make the Voyaturds hybrid.

More generally, I’m frustrated that a proven and effective technology is being ignored in favour of less efficient technologies that are unproven on rail and/or are incompatible with U.K. loading gauge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

2nd point 1st. Maersk managed to reduce their CO2 emissions (amongst others) very substantially, without any great gee-whizzery, by the simple expedient of knocking a couple of knots off the cruising speed of their container fleet. The only significant alteration made was to the bulbous bow, to reoptimise performance at the lower speed. There are interesting developments in vertical 'sails' which take advantage of oceanic trade winds to significantly reduce (not replace) fuel consumption. Given the premium value to the shipping industry of deck space, the key word here is 'vertical'.

I've been mulling the 1st point and concur with the view that CO2 isn't the only (possibly not even the main) issue. Recalling the clear skies, courtesy of the lack of jet aircraft 'con trails', both when Eyjafjallajökull* went pop in 2010 and at the start of the current pandemic, the climactic effects of discharging something as apparently innocuous as water vapour (typically considered about the least worrying waste by-product of jet engines) into the upper atmosphere, where such concentrations oughtn't to be, clearly needs far greater investigation. It's worth noting that the sole waste by-product of hydrogen fuel cells is also pure water, hence my comment about greater investigation.


*Bob bless the person who invented 'cut and paste'.

 

They didn't have the capacity to build steel vehicles and had disposed of the jigs, and the proposed order was for only part of the fleet IIRC. 22x also don't have power distribution in or between units, so an additional cost was/would be a bus line (?) distributing power across the existing and new cars. Integrating any new vehicle and bi-mode software wouldn't be/have been easy either.

For replacing some 22x vehicles' diesel with battery, I suspect Penzance to Wakefield is a long way for a battery to last, even with short recharges from regenerative braking and under the wires around Bristol Parkway and Birmingham?

Patrick

 

Interesting note in April's Modern Railways that orders in Germany are going for battery electric rather than hydrogen as was once envisaged.

Patrick

 

The article is subscription only. Might relate to https://www.euractiv.com/section/railways/news/e-trains-gain-upper-hand-over-hydrogen-locomotives/
Where the German VDE said battery-powered trains could be up to 35% cheaper than their hydrogen alternatives.
Will not help Alstrom sell more of it's Hydrogen trains which are operational in Germany.

But the Euroactive website said this was based on various assumptions, which may not be correct?.
The UK is also pushing for Hydrogen use in buses. The main problem will be Hydrogen generation and distribution, if this could be sorted Hydrogen trains and buses may be feasible.
There is the possibility of clean Hydrogen generation in off shore wind generators, but not likely before 2025.

 

Two points in the linked article stand out. Firstly is the cost of hydrogen, more accurately, the current cost. The suggestion that these could be mitigated by (and I paraphrase) utilising H2 produced by other than clean tech is frankly laughable, as it nullifies the entire logic of the exercise re decarbonisation. You can stow that in the 'daft suggestions locker', along with bio-diesel.

It's worth noting that hydrogen production on the scale required for widespread adoption of fuel cells is entirely novel, what with 1st gen airship tech coming to a grinding halt, post Hindenburg and R101.

The question mark hanging over large volume production isn't that we don't know how to separate H2 cleanly, it concerns establishing a vastly more efficient generation process. Incremental increases in efficiency of current methods are happening all the time, with the overall viability of the process (obviously) dictated by the cost of the necessary electricity, which (again, obviously) is dependant on how that's generated.

Substantial progress, already at a truly commercial level, is being made with tidal generation, not least off the Northern Isles in Scotland, where the other 'raw ingredient' for hydrogen generation isn't exactly scarce either. At this juncture, I state that there will be no thread drift concerning Scottish independance from me! Bearing in mind that the process for welding aluminium in air was cracked by a Canadian couple in their garage, anyone who fancies becoming richer than Rockerfella would be well advised to investigate a better means of electrolysis.

Secondly the question of servicing costs definitely bears further investigation. To the best of my knowledge, the clever bit of fuel cell tech is a discrete component with 'no user serviceable parts'. Hydrogen goes in on one end, electricity and clean water come out t'other, doing so through the planned life of the unit. I wonder whether this factor isn't more than the consequence of handling unfamiliar technology? Don't forget that railways everywhere haven't had to deal with a fundamental change of this magnitude since the onset of ICE tech, around a century ago.

I've opted for what I believe to be a reasonably "neutral" introductory information source outlining the subject. Scroll down to the paragraph 'How Fuel Cells Work" for links to more detail: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cells

 

It doesn't matter if the hydrogen is produced with off peak electricity or not, it is still fantastically wasteful. Any government talking up of hydrogen is just proof that the politicians do not care about global warming.

 

Scania trucks are also pulling out of hydrogen power for long distance trucks
https://www.rechargenews.com/transi...out-h2-for-long-distance-transport/2-1-951345
But Volvo, Daimler and Iveco so far are still testing trucks.

The latest plan is to use offshore turbine with a built-in electrolyser at an existing wind farm which will produce green hydrogen, several companies are pressing ahead with tests with the aim to start mass production in about 2025.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55763356
This, if it works, will make Hydrogen powered short distance buses, trucks and the converted class 319/679 and 321/600 EMUs (currently under test) viable, although batteries will also be required to store energy from braking and give a boost when starting.
Trouble is a lot of the technology is untested.

 

There are two discrete points here. If speaking in terms of overall energy efficiency, you're perfectly correct. Electrolysis currently operates at about 27% overall, which taken at face value, I'll grant you, doesn't sound anything to get too excited about. True, too, the principals of entropy apply as much to clean tech as to burning forests. The relevant issue are the costs (in the broadest sense) associated with waste by-products, losses involved for any given process.

Monetary efficiency is a whole different question. Here, your argument appears to be assuming market rates applicable to grid connected supplies, as opposed to say a stand-alone tidal-powered, or solar PV generating station, running 24/7* for the sole dedicated purpose of separating hydrogen. This may sound novel, but is directly analogous with arrangements already adopted by many oil refineries (whose owners haven't been slow to twig renewable energy is way cheaper than purchasing juice from the grid). The key factor in the equation is the overall cost per KW/h. Even at 27% efficiency, which recall is a figure which takes in the entire process, from raw ingredients to H2, if the necessary electricity is available cheaply enough, the energy density and portability of pressurised hydrogen adds sufficient value to render the operation economically viable.

To give an overview of the various means of H2 production, I offer this link:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cells

In the case of several methods listed in the link, it's important to note a key factor in decarbonisation relates to what emissions are associated with each and as far as efficiency goes, figures don't encompass the relative cost and efficiency of those industrial processes required to reach the starting point of H2 separation. Taken in that light, 27% efficiency, accounting for the entire process, is actually rather better than it might at first seem.

If one thing about the clean tech revolution has become clear to me, it's that there's no 'one size fits all', no magic bullet. Improvements in battery tech, right now, seem to be shifting the balance against hydrogenIt doesn't follow this will remain the case and I'd be hesitant to write hydrogen off too quickly. My own suspicion remains that batteries will suit anything from roller blades, up to the size of an HGV, fuel cells from a family saloon car up to a container ship.


*Yes, I am quite aware nowhere between the arctic and antarctic circles ever enjoys 24hrs continuous sunlight!

 

Thanks for the post. I'm no expert but as I understand it the cell itself has a 60% efficiency rate so it, combined with the necessary battery, reduce that 27% further.

My E.ON household electricity bill says my household electricity is 100% renewable, which really is nonsense because it comes from a mix of power on the national grid. Similarly my fear is that hydrogen will be described as 'green hydrogen' when, in reality, it comes from a mixed generation including fossil. The time for commercial quantities of discretely produced pure green hydrogen is some way off.

Patrick

 

Eon UK used to be part of the Central Electricity Generating Board, then Powergen, and recently Eon UK "sold" it's coal and oil generating plants at Willesden and Ratcliff e to Uniper, and so like BT (with openreach spun off) is now a marketing company, so being "economical" with the truth.
Notice
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/ar...n-compromises-net-zero-ambition-report-warns/
E3G "calls for an “honest” hydrogen strategy which recognises where green hydrogen is not the optimal pathway for decarbonisation"
In response
"A government spokesperson reiterated the government’s plans to expand hydrogen production to 5GW, supported by a £240m net-zero hydrogen fund and added: “Scaling up the production of low-carbon hydrogen is a key part of our plan to end the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2050. We have already supported a range of green hydrogen projects, and the UK will publish its first ever Hydrogen Strategy this year.”

Also noticed Eversholt although taking time to get it's hydrogen 321/600 Breeze train working on the mainline,

from

Eversholt has worded the press release carefully
"creating over 200 high quality engineering jobs in the North West, crucial for the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda"
"the first trains could be in service in 2024"
and
"When powered by green hydrogen, these trains offer true zero-emission mobility"

Eversholt is also keeping battery technology going and is to replace a diesel engine on an Hitachi train with a battery, so have updated in general railway chat the thread
Should railway electrification be extended beyond existing lines ?

 

The wholesale market for electricity is very sophisticated. National Grid is approaching the point where it is having to shut down wind turbines during periods of minimum demand. I think this may have already occurred during the first lockdown. If you have a variable electrical load (such as an electrolyser) which can automatically ramp up when conditions are right, you can negotiate a very favourable price for electrical energy. There also tends to be (on average) more wind at night when demand is low.

 

That's not the case in the UK.
"3.3. Diurnal variability
The UK wind resource shows a clear pattern of higher wind power output during daylight hours in comparison to overnight.".
https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf

 

Indeed so. During lockdown, the price has gone negative a few times. Octopus I know have passed this back to customers .... of whom I'm not one. This effectively meant punters were being paid to charge their EVs. I daresay, with the addition of grid-level storage (by whatever means) and the inevitable arrival of HM Treasury's hand in the pockets of EV owners, this situation is highly unlikely to last.

 

My apologies, I'm sure I had seen something written down recently which said the opposite.