Hydrogen powered locomotives

[edbenton]

Hydrogen and Oxygen hell if the Cylingers would even hold the Pressure in the Engine.  Sorry my 8th grade Physics teachers as a teaching experiment showed what can happen when your NOT careful with those 2 elements.  He took 200ML of H2 Gas and Combined it with 100ML of O2 Gas in a Pressure  chamber rated for 2000 PSI with an internal Ignition source.  IT FAILED to hold the explosion.  He had fun explaining to the Principal how the Steel got into the Celiing of the Room and the Yard that piece was 50 feet away.  The Tank he used was sealed no bulkheads or anything we were watching the explosion thru screwed in camera lens he had put into it.  BTW he had done this experiment for 10 years had the tank tested every year with no issues. 

 

So I would not want to be the First Engineer that had to put a LH2 fueled Locomotive into Notch  out there either. 

[oltmannd]

blue streak 1

 

Burgard540:

 

This reminds me of all the fanfare about a decade ago regarding the "hydrogen economy" and how we will all be driving hydrogen powered cars...This article sounds pretty similar.  It sounds all nice until the actual details of mass hydrogen production (which is a energy loss via electrolysis), the massive new hydrogen distribution infrastructure needed to be built, and, as others have pointed out, the huge issue of hydrogen storage since it will leak through anything.  Steel storage tanks are a no go with the embrittlement issues, perfect for high pressure vessels (note sarcasm).

 EXCELLENT analysis.

Did these guys do an actual cost analysis of the differences between electrification of rail lines vs the WHOLE cost of R&D for the new locomotives, infrastructure for hydrogen fuel distribution, etc?   Even with copper so expensive, I'm sure running some wires or a third rail is cheaper.

An item not mentioned in electrification is now the messinger or contact wire can be a copper covered steel wire. That reduces the amount of copper needed  [ less than 30% ].

Everytime some alternative energy proposal comes out, the only ones that have a chance of success on a massive scale are the ones that utilize existing infrastructure.  For instance ethanol (not from corn).  The company Coskata, for example, uses a process of turning organic waste (like wood, switchgrass, etc) into ethanol.  The collection, distribution, and end using vehicles require little if any modification.

Nasty stuff?  Just imagine liquified natural gas and multiply the problems 4 - 5 times. I don't want my car powered by the stuff much less a 20,000 gal tanker between 2 locomotives.  Unless the suppliers put in an odorant you would never know you had a leak.

 

 

 

 

It's my understanding that odorants don't work in LNG, so doubtful they'd be available for hydrogen.  I'm guessing the temps are so low that they'd come out of solution and solidify long before the gas was liquefied.

[Burgard540]

Addendum:

To clarify, I'm not writing off hydrogen as a possible future energy carrier.  There are numerous problems yet to be solved in a economical way before the possibility of hydrogen powered locomotives or cars become a common reality.  The article leaves the reader with the impression that this possibility is just around the corner barring a few billion dollars of investment.

What people forget is that using hydrogen for energy is in fact really using hydrogen as a "battery."  However, instead of storing the electrical energy directly, the hydrogen must be run through a fuel cell to create electricity.  Another a few steps in energy conversion, with associated losses.  The other way is to burn the hydrogen in a more conventional internal combustion engine.

Energy flow:

Heat Energy (fossil fuels, nuclear, etc) - to steam - to turbine - electic generator - hydrogen via electrolysis - energy required to store hydrogen (especially if liquefied) - electricity generated from fuel cell - electric motors to create mechanical energy at the wheels

This seems a little convoluted considering:

Heat Energy (fossil fuels, nuclear, etc) - to steam - to turbine - electic generator - electricity distribution grid - electric motors to create mechanical energy at the wheels

Or:

Hydro-electric generators - to grid - to electric motors to create mechanical energy at the wheels

Why overcomplicate the energy conversion process and induce the progressive losses associated with each extra step?

Of course there are other possible means of generating electricity (hydro, wind, solar, tidal, etc) and if potentially we have a unlimited source of electricity production then the losses nearly irrelevant.  Gasoline still packs 64% more hydrogen per liter than a liter of pure hydrogen.  Energy density of hydrogen is a quarter of hydro-carbons by volume, thus requiring larger fuel tanks (unless the efficiency is much greater). 

Do I believe hydrogen will be used for energy in the future? Yes, but in smaller niche type uses, not in the massive way gasoline and diesel fuel is used.  For hydrogen to be used large-scale (assuming the production and storage issues are solved) will require not only the massive infrastructure changeover but also replacement of the current fleet of rolling stock (cars, trucks, locomotives, etc).  A process that will take at a minimum multiple decades and trillions of dollars.  I'll stick with Occam's razor, the simpler and more robust energy source will win out in the end.  Hydrogen is not the simplest.

[Thomas 9011]

Hydrogen suffered the same problem propane did back in the 80's when they wanted to run locomotives off of propane. It takes a lot of propane or hydrogen to power one locomotive. Hydrogen and propane also do not get very good gas mileage. A typically 4 unit lash up going 200 miles would probably need 10 cars full of propane or hydrogen to make the trip. Both gases are horrible in the Winter. Storing so much propane or hydrogen to fuel these locomotives could be a big problem.

As one person already noted,in a accident you would be in the middle of a huge explosion if those cars broke open. This was the main reason hydrogen power cars were shunned off in the US. A wreck with a hydrogen leak would probably result in a explosion or a big fire likely killing the people in the car. Gasoline although very flammable is under little or no pressure in the fuel tank and not likely to burst open in a accident. With hydrogen or propane it is pressurized and more likely to burst when damaged.

[BaltACD]

Not that I am backing Hydrogen .... but 150 years ago people were wondering how to get rid of the stench and unsightly mess of that black stuff the oozed out of the ground in various parts of the world.

If hydrogen is to become a viable fuel ... it will, but only in it's own time as the problems that have already been identified are economically solved.

[tdmidget]

Well there ya go. A few more hairbrained schemes and we can be just like Iceland. Bankrupt and economy in shambles. Oh wait, we're half way there.

[Paul of Covington]

   I'm not by a long shot defending the viability of hydrogen for railroad use, but some of the problems mentioned are not insurmountable.   I understand that Iceland is using hydrogen in automobiles.   Of course, they probably don't drive long distances, and since most of their electricity is from geothermal energy, its cost would be fairly low.   I don' t know, but assume that the tanks hold pressurized but not liquid hydrogen.    Again, Im not advocating the concept,  just saying don't dismiss it so quickly.

[blue streak 1]

Burgard540

This reminds me of all the fanfare about a decade ago regarding the "hydrogen economy" and how we will all be driving hydrogen powered cars...This article sounds pretty similar.  It sounds all nice until the actual details of mass hydrogen production (which is a energy loss via electrolysis), the massive new hydrogen distribution infrastructure needed to be built, and, as others have pointed out, the huge issue of hydrogen storage since it will leak through anything.  Steel storage tanks are a no go with the embrittlement issues, perfect for high pressure vessels (note sarcasm).

 EXCELLENT analysis.

Did these guys do an actual cost analysis of the differences between electrification of rail lines vs the WHOLE cost of R&D for the new locomotives, infrastructure for hydrogen fuel distribution, etc?   Even with copper so expensive, I'm sure running some wires or a third rail is cheaper.

An item not mentioned in electrification is now the messinger or contact wire can be a copper covered steel wire. That reduces the amount of copper needed  [ less than 30% ].

Everytime some alternative energy proposal comes out, the only ones that have a chance of success on a massive scale are the ones that utilize existing infrastructure.  For instance ethanol (not from corn).  The company Coskata, for example, uses a process of turning organic waste (like wood, switchgrass, etc) into ethanol.  The collection, distribution, and end using vehicles require little if any modification.

Nasty stuff?  Just imagine liquified natural gas and multiply the problems 4 - 5 times. I don't want my car powered by the stuff much less a 20,000 gal tanker between 2 locomotives.  Unless the suppliers put in an odorant you would never know you had a leak.

 

 

[Burgard540]

This reminds me of all the fanfare about a decade ago regarding the "hydrogen economy" and how we will all be driving hydrogen powered cars...This article sounds pretty similar.  It sounds all nice until the actual details of mass hydrogen production (which is a energy loss via electrolysis), the massive new hydrogen distribution infrastructure needed to be built, and, as others have pointed out, the huge issue of hydrogen storage since it will leak through anything.  Steel storage tanks are a no go with the embrittlement issues, perfect for high pressure vessels (note sarcasm).

Did these guys do an actual cost analysis of the differences between electrification of rail lines vs the WHOLE cost of R&D for the new locomotives, infrastructure for hydrogen fuel distribution, etc?   Even with copper so expensive, I'm sure running some wires or a third rail is cheaper.

Everytime some alternative energy proposal comes out, the only ones that have a chance of success on a massive scale are the ones that utilize existing infrastructure.  For instance ethanol (not from corn).  The company Coskata, for example, uses a process of turning organic waste (like wood, switchgrass, etc) into ethanol.  The collection, distribution, and end using vehicles require little if any modification.

 

 

[tomikawaTT]

As anyone who has any experience with handling hydrogen can tell you, it's nasty stuff.

Because H2 is the smallest molecule, it will seep right through things that will never lose an atom of hdrocarbon.  Because the only practical way to store it is as a cryogenic liquid it constitutes a freezing danger.  Because it recombines vigorously with oxygen, the possibllity of a large-scale BLEVE in the event of accident should give people a reason to lose sleep.

Note that the article came out of a meeting of bright-eyed enthusiasts.  Has anyone actually built even a reasonable-size working scale model of the technology?  People may be, "Looking into," this.  They look into all sorts of things - but they end up putting hard cash into comfortable old technology that works.

I won't say that hydrogen will never prove to be a practical railroad fuel - until the First of Never is a long long time.  I will say that the oddsmakers here in Sin City wouldn't touch this with YOUR ten foot pole.

Chuck

[oltmannd]

It's sort of like the old Steve Martin routine: "You can have a million dollars and never pay taxes!"  Step one of the plan: "First, get a million dollars."

This is hydrogen as an electrical energy storage system.  The first step is "First, develop a distribution and storage system".  Not so simple....

So, instead of making electricity and the feeding it over a grid to the train, you make electricity, use it for electrolysis, transport the hydrogen to the locomotive, and combine it back with oxygen in a fuel cell.  Might not be so awful in terms of efficiency, but first, "get a million dollars"

[SledDawg]

Article on a tech that I was unaware of:

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature122016/

Note the interesting discussion about the disadvantages of electrification:

"Thompson also sees hydrail as the obvious solution to what he stresses is a dead technology: "Electric rail is rolling toward a train wreck and no-one is taking any notice. In a weak, recovering economy, copper is already at an all-time high, costing four times more than four years ago, while the burgeoning Chinese, Indian and Brazilian economies will see that it continues to rise."

Thompson extrapolates that merely the incremental electrification of just one mile of track in the US is likely to cost $12m, with the cost heading the same way as copper's - up."

Thoughts?

Dave G.