https://newatlas.com/transport/world-first-battery-electric-locomotive-fuel-consumption-wabtec/
Rail technology company Wabtec has demonstrated an electric locomotive that could help lessen the environmental footprint of heavy-haul freight services. The company's battery-powered FLXdrive locomotive was used as part of a hybrid system over a three-month trial, where it reduced the fuel consumption of the entire vehicle by 11 percent.
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
Long, and ongoing, discussion of this over on the Trains forums.
Note also the development of the EMD/Progress Joule locomotive, a different set of solutions for a different perceived niche.
I still don't understand what electric cars and locos buy us. They have to be recharged. That requires electricity. Electricity has to be generated. Most of our electricity is generated buy burning fossil fuels. Solar, wind, and hydro can only produce so much.
John-NYBWI still don't understand what electric cars and locos buy us.
Keep in mind that pure 'battery locomotives' have a relatively limited practical future in railroading, outside forced or political incentives. Even with increased energy storage density and better drives and controls, there remain issues such as safety of high-energy-density hydrophobic energy storage in the railroad environment -- we have a current thread in the Trains forum about a wreck in which asphalt was apparently ignited; that takes substantial doing! -- and effective battery cycling and life management.
There are other potential benefits involving power-grid establishment and management, some of which involve wayside power associated with onboard storage, but those will likely give most modelers MEGO syndrome...
Electricity can be considered as a 'carrier fuel' just like hydrogen. How to realize the 'electricity fairy' is indeed more difficult than everyone closing their eyes and really, really believing in fairies, or what it takes to make them real. Much of this, I have argued, involves distributed generation and distributed storage -- we were promised cheap superconducting storage as far back as the 1990s; I have some of the technical and engineering reports on CD somewhere.
It is increasingly being realized that the 'usual-suspects' methods of cheap renewable energy have a significant scam component. What replaces them both for what was traditionally considered 'baseline' vs 'peak' generation probably remains to be seen, and I suspect there will be at least one 'singularity' or 'great reset' on the way to whatever we get.
Didn't the New York Central at one time employ "tri-power" (internal combustion/third rail electric/battery locomotives in the New York City area prior to World War II? As far as wind and solar, ask someone that survived the second week of February in Texas how that worked out. You still have to have a SOURCE of electricity.
NHTXAs far as wind and solar,
AND natural gas.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-winter-storms-2021/2021/02/18/968967137/no-the-blackouts-in-texas-werent-caused-by-renewables-heres-what-really-happened
NYC_DES-3_529s by Edmund, on Flickr
Cheers, Ed
Almost trivial to weatherproof the wellheads and other facilities in natural gas production and distribution against protracted freeze... once you know to expect it. (And someone gives you, or makes sure you spend, the money to be ready to expect it again...)
As I understood it, both the NYC's and Lackawanna's tripowers were wired as 'battery' locomotives, with the external electrical connection and the diesel generator only charging the battery when connected. Jack Swanberg seemed to think that the DES-3 ran on third-rail except when 'momentarily' on unpowered track, in warehouses or 'explosion'-prone areas where third rail wasn't allowed, etc. It would be nice to know the correct technical history.
The PRR ran the corridor on electric power since 1938. Was it self contained? No. Is it practical? Maybe. Is it going to replace fossil fuels? No. The public is not going to scrap their autos and replace them with midget vehicles. Electricity is the most expensive power available. Wind turbines are killing birds in horendous numbers. Nuclear is out. Good luck making power without fossil fuels. Want something screwed up? Have the government make decisions on anything. There isn't one thing the federal government touchs they don't screw up and that is both partys.
https://newatlas.com/energy/gmg-graphene-aluminium-ion-battery/
excerpt.....Australian company Graphene Manufacturing Group (GMG) has announced exciting performance test results for a new type of aluminum-ion battery that can charge 10X faster than today's lithium-ion units, while lasting much longer and needing no cooling.
NHTX As far as wind and solar, ask someone that survived the second week of February in Texas how that worked out.
On the other hand, if you asked somebody in Iowa or Nebraska, where the temperatures were 30-40 dergrees colder, how that worked they would tell you it worked fine.
The wind turbines there are designed to work in below zero temps. Texas just decided to cut corners and, against advice, decided to not require cold weather contingencies for their power grid "becasuse it never gets cold in Texas". Just like every house in Texas has the plumbing running through the ceiling and freezes up every cold spell (I lived in Houston). Meanwhile, every person living above the Mason Dixon line survives winter after winter of cold weather without that problem because the houses and plumbing are designed to withstand cold weather.
Texas isn't an example of why it won't work, its an example of how not to to design a power grid.
The big barrier is the ability to store energy from peak production periods to use in peak demand periods. That may mean battery storage systems or hydroelectric storage systems.
Once they figure that out, then the power source isn't an issue. At that point it just becmes the huge infrastructure expense of building an electric railroad. It can be done, Europe and much of Asia have electric railroads, its just whether the US companies are willing to spend the big bucks on building it.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
The New York Central's tri-powers were only good for a couple of hours under heavy load away from the third rail, even with the engine feeding the batteries, according to Al Staufer's "New York Central Later Power", page 496.
If today's technology were employed to build a battery powered locomotive equaling one of our current 4400 horsepower, fossil fueled diesels, has anyone figured out how many vehicles would be necessary to carry the batteries and how long it would take to charge/recharge them-or would a diesel be running continuously on recharge, to get across one crew district? Would solar provide enough recharge? Or, would we have to string wire or lay third rail anyway?
Anyone remember the gensets? The "Green Goats"? Freight railroading is a bloody-knuckled business that must have the ability to go when the need is there-not when the batteries are charged.
LastspikemikeThe whole scheme is totally crazy. Don Quixote crazy. Windmills and solar just cannot supply the power capacity.
Since you do not understand the solution, it is probably a good thing you are not one of the tens of thousands of engineers and PhDs working on it.
Just go ahead and keep on criticizing the brilliant people that know what they are doing and are working towards the solution. My older sister is one of them, she is a PhD mathematician, and she has been working on the figures and projects for years. It is completely feasible. Sorry. You are wrong.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I too believe the true solution is nuclear power but until the lights start to go out and we have a Texas February over one of the coasts, heads in the sand will rule. I am not familiar with the Hinckley nuclear power plant in the U.K. In the late 1980s, I lived in Suffolk, about five miles from Sizewell where they had one reactor, Sizewell A, with plans to go all the way to H. Only B got built while I was there. Too many people would rather be "safe" sitting in the dark and freezing than to expand or even use nuclear power, as they choked and gagged on coal smoke.
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike The whole scheme is totally crazy. Don Quixote crazy. Windmills and solar just cannot supply the power capacity. Since you do not understand the solution, it is probably a good thing you are not one of the tens of thousands of engineers and PhDs working on it. Just go ahead and keep on criticizing the brilliant people that know what they are doing and are working towards the solution. My older sister is one of them, she is a PhD mathematician, and she has been working on the figures and projects for years. It is completely feasible. Sorry. You are wrong. -Kevin
Lastspikemike The whole scheme is totally crazy. Don Quixote crazy. Windmills and solar just cannot supply the power capacity.
+1
Ray
Lastspikemike High powered hybrid drives are as old as the military submarine. Nothing new there. Didn't work then and still doesn't.
High powered hybrid drives are as old as the military submarine. Nothing new there. Didn't work then and still doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
Lastspikemike Hydrogen isn't a "fuel" at the moment. It's a battery and a pretty inefficient one. Most hydrogen "fuel" is just natural gas without the carbon bonds to exploit. Then where do you put that carbon? Electrolysis production of hydrogen "fuel" reminds me of perpetual motion "technology"......
Hydrogen isn't a "fuel" at the moment. It's a battery and a pretty inefficient one. Most hydrogen "fuel" is just natural gas without the carbon bonds to exploit. Then where do you put that carbon? Electrolysis production of hydrogen "fuel" reminds me of perpetual motion "technology"......
Then can you please explain what powers the Alstom Coradia iLint?
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/coradia-ilint-worlds-1st-hydrogen-powered-train
DrWThen can you please explain what powers the Alstom Coradia iLint?
The economics for hydrogen as a 'cost-effective' fuel are not there; it will take more than one 'break-through' combined with government action or 'incentives' pro and con to make the technology cost-competitive with more logical 'renewable-powered' alternatives.
On the other hand, once the distribution architecture is built out -- and this was a careful part of iLINT as a system -- some interesting sources to provide the hydrogen become feasible, including the reforming AIP in the Spanish S-80 boats, and the whole phenomenon of blue hydrogen.
You compress the CO2 to 35atm and sequester it, or react the carbon to a form that can be utilized (e.g. as graphite or carbonate).
Yes, but the power for the batteries is produced by fuel cells that exploit the energy released when hydrogen reacts with oxygen. Thus, the fuel is hydrogen.
DrWYes, but the power for the batteries is produced by fuel cells that exploit the energy released when hydrogen reacts with oxygen. Thus, the fuel is hydrogen.
That is the reason they are called "hydrogen fuel cells", and not "hydrogen batteries".
The hydrogen is the fuel.
Then there is also the FP&L NextGreen project using hydrogen as the fuel. These use sunlight to create the hydrogen fuel, then use the hydrogen to create electricity. As these get improved, they might be able to use solar energy to create electricity after the sun has gone down. This is in its infancy, but it is exciting.
Hydrogen can be produced by electricity from a "green" source, like hydro, wind or solar. In fact, it addresses the issue of storing the energy, at least at a micro level. Hydroelectricity also provides a water source necessary for the production of hydrogen:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0360319985900321
It's probably the way of the future, if they can reassure governments about the safety issues.
Simon
Hello All,
Not to let facts get in the way of a good argument...
railandsailThe company's battery-powered FLXdrive locomotive was used as part of a hybrid system...
railandsail...it reduced the fuel consumption of the entire vehicle by 11 percent.
Current (excuse the pun) battery technology is still relatively heavy compared to their storage potential for usable energy (weight to power ratio).
As noted from the OP this is a hybrid system.
Some form of onboard power generation is still needed to make these hybrid systems work- -steam, diesel, gasoline, kerosene, nuclear fission, hamsters on a wheel.
The reason modern highspeed trains are powered by a constant externally generated source is because any independent onboard power generation equipment or storage devices adds weight to the vehicle.
Extra weight requires more power to push down the rails.
This all culminates at a "point of diminishing returns".
railandsail...heavy-haul freight services.
In this scenario, we are not talking about high-speed passenger service. Torque over speed is the objective.
Throughout time man has sought the most efficient use of fuels- -bushels of oats needed to "power" a draft animal to plow an acre of land, Cubic Feet per Minute (CFM) of water to power a mill, to our modern standard of distance traveled given an amount of fuel (Miles Per Gallon/liter).
An 11% gain might not seem that much but amortized over time and cost it does add up to a positive net sum.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
11% is huge!
LastspikemikeIt's when hydrogen is produced using electricity that it becomes a battery and not a fuel.
That's like saying if you use an electric dragline to mine coal, then the coal is a battery.
Your statements make no sense at all.
Look at the size of this "Battery Charger"....
Man, are these specs impressive. A 100 cubic yard bucket... I cannot even imagine that.
SeeYou190That's like saying if you use an electric dragline to mine coal,
That brings to mind about a decade back when I learned that working dragline models are a thing;
for example, https://youtu.be/U5QvThlym74
Working scale models of Ransome Rapier W2000 (Big Bob) & Bucyrus Erie 1150 (Oddball) on display at St Aidan's where the full size 1150 remains as a tourist attraction which is open on selected days of the year. The footage of them walking has been sped up 4x to reduce the length of the video.
Oh, anyone fancy a pedal-powewed dragline?
https://youtu.be/0PslENxRbww
Kevin, the dragline is a false analogy. The fossil energy is already "in" the coal that it mines; the electric energy only moves it, as would electric locomotives on a coal train.
What lastspikemike means is that "green" hydrogen is usually produced by electrolysis, and usually from a grid or industrial source (see why those hydrogen trucks are being tested in Switzerland!) and therefore producing carrier hydrogen can be thought of just like 'charging a chemical battery' with that electricity.
LastspikemikeThe dynamic braking system can indeed push power back into the overhead catenary but if insufficient power is already there in the lines the regenerative braking power cannot be pushed there.
With AC synthesized drive the implementation is a bit more complex but no more concerned with 'insufficient power'.
A great deal of thought went into high-speed nonregenerative braking in the design of the British APT-E (in those days it was assumed that most high-speed trains would use gas turbines) and those engineers developed a hydrokinetic axle brake that did not involve frictional wear or damage to treads, or multiple axle-mounted rotors in the gauge along with motor gearboxes, etc.
The electromagnetic track brake is of fairly great antiquity; it can provide both eddy-current and frictional braking to a length of rail and does so regularly in many light-rail installations. I was not aware of a low-speed restriction on its use due to high energy density into a smaller length of rail; look at the kinetic energy to be dissipated at high speed vs. the rail (and relative mass thereof) passed over during that time...
KitbashOn30Oh, anyone fancy a pedal-powewed dragline?
I WANT ONE! I would have used the pedals for the drag drum. The poor kid needs to struggle at a couple of points winding the drag cable with his hand.
Thanks for that one... too much fun.
OvermodKevin, the dragline is a false analogy.
No it isn't. I am always right. I am never wrong about anything. Any time I might be wrong I actually am right.
See, I proved you wrong!
(I knew it was wrong when I posted it, but I love draglines)
OvermodProducing carrier hydrogen can be thought of just like 'charging a chemical battery' with that electricity.
It can be "thought" of in any number of silly ways. None of what has been said makes any sense at all. I was just adding to the ridiculousness.
If I really felt like joining in the conversation I guess I could argue that since energy is always transferred and changes form, anything is a battery.
Tree trunks, steaks, crude oil, Cap'n Crunch... all batteries.
SeeYou190If I really felt like joining in the conversation I guess I could argue that since energy is always transferred and changes form, anything is a battery.
Technically 'battery' is always plural; the actual thing that stores the energy is a 'cell' or 'element' -- it's originally a gunnery term. The point of a 'battery' is that it chemically stores or produces electrical energy -- if it merely 'accumulated electrons' and then released them as current we'd call it a 'supercapacitor' (or some marketing term with the same meaning). Since the first best use of hydrogen is in an electricity-producing fuel cell, it's appropriate to consider the (somewhat inefficient at present) idea of using electricity to dissociate water, then using the resulting hydrogen to make electricity as comparable to using the same electricity to 'charge' a chemical battery and then discharge it to get electricity.
There are of course advantages and disadvantages to the methods that distinguish them. It would bore everyone here even more if I went into them.
I think it is fairly obvious that the only way carrier hydrogen would ever be "cost-effective" is in an organized, 'woke' economy with very strong external incentives and considerable subsidization on a number of levels. On the other hand, if zero-carbon does turn out to be a workable big-lie sort of scam, hydrogen carrier becomes an attractive method of implementing it for many transportation purposes, more so than (say) the infrastructure needed for mass high-rate charging of obligate BEVs.
OvermodI think it is fairly obvious that the only way carrier hydrogen would ever be "cost-effective" is in an organized,
I need to carefully dance around my NDA here.
Hydrogen fuel cells can work if there is a natural energy source for producing the fuel. Possibilites being explored and experimented with include existing subterrainian H2 pockets, volcanoes, farm animal urine (stripping from NH3), using solar to get H2 from seawater, and good old geo-thermal.
I really cannot say anything else.
SeeYou190I need to carefully dance around my NDA here.
The source cost of the hydrogen (aside from idiot 'green' schemes involving uncatalyzed hydrolysis) isn't the critical issue -- the distribution architecture is.
I think the smart money is in blue hydrogen with pressure sequestration. It would be nice if the various methods of using process heat (especially geothermal and nuclear) had been better capitalized prior to now, as the distribution architecture for carrier hydrogen from them is likely to be a pain.
But no one will be as delighted as I am should naturally-separated hydrogen at scale prove practical... we're looking at that right now, following up on Chinese research from 2018.
The fact is that most of our assumptions today with respect to energy will probably not hold tomorrow.
For example, the search for energy efficiency is a continuous process and has led to an actual reduction in joules (per unit) since the beginning of times. Thinking about energy consumption in absolute terms is just ignoring history. Of course, our energy consumption can go up globally, but not at the unit level.
Second: cost of an energy source. The cost of producing energy is not absolute and is also subject to significant change as technology and volumes change. The cost of producing electricity via solar panels is going down - that's a fact - and who knows how fast that reduction will be.
Third: the power grid - not at all an absolute factor. Power grids are now North America wide and complement each other depending on usage and capacity. If one produces less or consumes more, the other source can compensate.
Making absolute statements about the future of energy use, sources and technologies is, let's say, pretty risky.