Edit: Was responding to a post from December. Noticed the time stamp and several further pages of conversation after I hit reply.
So please disregard.
It looks like the cab the base locomotive had when it was still an SD40-2F (CP9024). It had a wide body and the EMD three window cab. But I think we may be looking at an artist's impression and the future release could vary.
John
kgbw49 Is that a Dash 8-40CM cab with Draper Taper?
Is that a Dash 8-40CM cab with Draper Taper?
Sure looks like it.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Interesting paint scheme on the artist's rendering of CP's hydrogen locomotive:
https://sustainability.cpr.ca/about/highlight-stories/cps-hydrogen-powered-locomotive-pilot-project/
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Story in Newswire mentioned that there would only be 1200kW worth of fuels cells installed, with batteries to provide higher short term power. This is similar to the way most fuel cell cars work, the fuel cell stack is sized for supplying cruise power and batteries for acceleration.
In 2014, I got a ride in a fuel cell powered Toyota Rav4... Seemed to respond pretty much like a battery electric. Downside was that there were 3 or 4 hydrogen stations in SoCal, with one being at UC Irvine.
adkrr64I doubt CP has the manufacturing facilities to build their own locomotives, especially in volume. If they develop some unique intellectual property during the project and patent it, they can license it to the manufacturers.
Story in Newswire that they have decided on Ballard fuel cells.
MidlandMike The loco manufactures are already invested in diesel engine production. What is their incentive to experiment with radical change that might not pan out?
The loco manufactures are already invested in diesel engine production. What is their incentive to experiment with radical change that might not pan out?
I would opine that it's outside forces that would drive this move. "Green" stockholders and all. If they show they're making an effort, it'll keep such folks happy, for a while anyhow.
And you never know, they might hit on a workable solution.
matthewsaggie Alco, Baldwin and Lima all said the same thing a few years ago. Where are they now?
Alco, Baldwin and Lima all said the same thing a few years ago. Where are they now?
Probably regretting that they made the diesels that no one wanted.
GM experimented with electric locos, and maybe today would have tried again, however, they sold the locomotive business to another diesel manufacturer.
Agreed. That was kinda my point - develop the technology in house. These days I doubt any railroad has the ability to build in quantity.
The last locomotives CP built in their own shops were the 9100-series SD9043MACs. Didn't turn out so well.
Anyway, they probably don't have the capability or manpower to do such a project completely in-house anymore, and they certainly won't have anyone with experience around hydrogen fuel cells.
Just seems odd that the "customer" is doing the innovation part of it. It would be like my customer showing me how to operate a flatbed truck.. Maybe a wakeup call to the manufacturers.. you guys are supposed to be doing the innovating here when it comes to locomotive design and manufacturing.
tree68Nothing against the locomotive manufacturers, but if CP has the know-how, why should they pay the overhead/profit to the manufacturers if they can do it in-house?
I doubt CP has the manufacturing facilities to build their own locomotives, especially in volume. If they develop some unique intellectual property during the project and patent it, they can license it to the manufacturers.
Ulrich...one would think one of the locomotive builders would be doing it...
Nothing against the locomotive manufacturers, but if CP has the know-how, why should they pay the overhead/profit to the manufacturers if they can do it in-house?
Interesting that CP is doing this.. one would think one of the locomotive builders would be doing it. CP says they want to build a test bed hydrogen locomotive and then present it to the builders with "here's what we want.. build it". Good for CP for taking the initiative regardless of the reason behind.
Getting back on topic.....
CP appears to have selected a SD40-2F for their prototype hydrogen locomotive. CP/CMQ 9024 was loaded onto a heavy truck at Niobe, AB today. This unit has sat at the Ogden shops for some time before being moved the other day, and has been sandblasted and painted in grey primer.
Word on the street (from a CP source) is that this unit suffered a major engine failure some time ago, and has been gutted internally.
No word yet on its destination.
daveklepperOvermod, there is no "problem." I was referring to Eric's posting on increasing longevity, with the possibility of lower birthrate, and the effect on Social Security, not the posting on fuel-use and Climate Warming.
If you would, please quote a little of the actual context the next time you dangle grammatical catnip. It will help avoid ASSumptions of the kind I made...
And I'd concur... having read down a couple more column-inches... that the usually-despised "and/or" would be a good choice for the inclusive-or sense that was meant.
Overmod, there is no "problem." I was referring to Eric's posting on increasing longevity, with the possibility of lower birthrate, and the effect on Social Security, not the posting on fuel-use and Climate Warming. Increasing taxation, and/or reduced benefits, and/or raising the minimum retirement age can keep Social Security solvent. But if the birth-rate should fall, dosn't immigration make-up for it or can it do so?
And I always appreciate your wise and thoughtful comments.
daveklepperEric, in my writing I use "and" when I mean and (&), "or'" when I mean exclusive or, and "and/or" when both possibilities are present and/or are meant to be present.
The point being that the prospective change in rail carbon usage would have relatively 'limited' impact on actual overall carbon emissions.
Now, we can discuss whether the prospective reductions are meaningful (perhaps on the 'every little bit helps' model) or are more on the scale of virtue signaling, but the discussion changes from the number of lb. or kg. carbon 'not released' to the percentage reduction of overall transportation-carbon reduction. (ISTR a recent report of successful adaptation of synthetic fuel from renewable sources as aviation fuel, but it is relatively unlikely that hydrogen carrier in any form would be adaptable to commercial turbofan propulsion (and hypersonics still pose more security risk than they would provide economically-viable transportation service) so the prospective development of zero-net-carbon is even more leveraged as beneficial.)
That of course does not mean that zero-carbon technology shouldn't be advanced, or that selective hydrogen use and distribution shouldn't be undertaken. But if actual stabilization of rate of increase in atmospheric carbon is a true priority it should be clear that zero-net-carbon will have a far greater impact for far less money and far less risk.
Eric, in my wrining I use "and" when I mean and (&), "or'" when I mean exclusive or, and "and/or when both possibilities are present and/or are meant to be present.
I'm not complaining or criticizing; just wished to suggest anther option.
tree68 Interesting that they consider natural gas as a renewable resource. Last I knew, it was a fossil fuel...
Interesting that they consider natural gas as a renewable resource. Last I knew, it was a fossil fuel...
If you read the fine print it seems they are referring to 'biogas', which is produced from renewable sources like manure, or perhaps municipal sewage.
I'm surprised at the claim of zero NOx emissions, even with urea aftertreatment.
Took a while to find this.
Railway Age article that contains interesting details of some of the options and suppliers,from an interesting source:
https://www.railwayage.com/news/zero-emission-locomotives-on-u-s-railways/
tree68 Keep in mind that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement system - it's a safety net. I do quite well with my retirement annuity. Social Security is a bonus.
Keep in mind that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement system - it's a safety net.
I do quite well with my retirement annuity. Social Security is a bonus.
And the US DoD makes those numbers look like a rounding error
Erik_Mag Euclid The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic. In 2019, the US consumed 18.27 billion gallons of aviation fuel and 3.656 billion gallons of railroad fuel.
Euclid The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic.
The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic.
In 2019, the US consumed 18.27 billion gallons of aviation fuel and 3.656 billion gallons of railroad fuel.
The points I made in the above post would apply to either fuel use. They certainly do apply to the railroad fuel, which is the point of this thread.
Erik: Good point.
With family size: Social Security is another factor that reduces the needs for large families to take care of parents in their old age. OTOH, Social Security is effectively a Ponzi in the money to pay retired folks comes from younger working folks. A birthrate below replacement rate will require adjustments to the program that could include higher taxes on workers, lower benefit payments or raising the retirement age (note "or" is intended to be inclusive "or" not exclusive "oro").
Family sizes in LDNs decrease dramatically as their economic outlook and educational opportunities improve, all without draconian measures being imposed.
Erik_Mag Population control can also be enhanced by restricting immigration, though there is a lot of disagreement about whether it is appropriate. Keep in mind that a large number of "first world" countries have a birth rate less than replacement rate.
Population control can also be enhanced by restricting immigration, though there is a lot of disagreement about whether it is appropriate.
Keep in mind that a large number of "first world" countries have a birth rate less than replacement rate.
Restricting immigration only helps the overpopulation problem in one place, all those people who aren't immigrating still exist, they are just somewhere else. And since they are somewhere else it is not your problem if they starve.
Family planning and educating women tend to lower the birthrate, but there is still quite a bit of opposition to those tactics from certain parts of modern Earth society.
Another area plans to switch to alternatives to diesel (Scotland) by 2035. Battery and hydrogen cell will be used on lines where electrification infrastructure costs can't be justified by traffic.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/01/01/scotland-banks-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trains-for-zero-emission-railway-by-2035/
The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic. So, if someone could develop and alternate fuel that was significantly cheaper, they would become fabulously wealthy. This incentive thus attracts the most brilliant minds constantly seeking substitute fuels that reduce cost enough to replace diesel fuel.
I believe there is a common, but faulty, conclusion that anything we decide we want can be developed and made practical and available. All we need to do is decide to develop it. This seems to be the underlying belief in all of the alternative energy dreams. But what this overlooks is that there are real obstacles that may have no immediate solution, so they may only become achievable after long periods of time of trial and error and depend on many concurrent other developments moving forward in their own scale of progress. It is not as if these breakthroughs have never been desired and that alone is what holds them back. In many cases, they have been wanted and pursued for centuries without success.
Alternative energy in particular seems to be regarded as something we can have now just because we decided we want it. So, it follows that all that is needed is to pay to develop it now. But the doors that must be opened to achieve that are closed and locked, waiting for their time when many other new developments converge and finally open those doors. You can’t just buy a breakthrough because you want one.
In the meantime, successful development is possible if one condition yields and that condition is that the winning alternative must be cheaper than diesel. That has to go out the window. And without that there is no market incentive, so to solve that problem, the solution is market coercion such a government mandates. But even mandates must have a convincing justification.
Mandates alone can be a road leading to fabulous wealth coming from the sale of products that are mandated, but not able to be made cost effective. All that government mandates require is the public perception of necessary purpose. And what better purpose can there be than saving the planet from total destruction that is sure to happen within only a decade or so?
One must decide whether this call to action to save the planet is really based on true need, or on a pretext for need, which will then be forced by mandate.
Paul MilenkovicI am unfamiliar with why it takes courage to discuss population growth.
To a certain extent, "population control" can be enhanced by certain nominally acceptable methods. Encouraging legalized abortion, for example, is one. So is increasing the cost to bear and raise children effectively. However, many social programs intended to benefit mothers and children can have the effect of enhancing 'successful reproduction' -- even serial reproduction -- often with outright social subsidization or 'mandatory tolerance' of the "right" to large families.
charlie hebdo Relevant to your Narragansett Bay piece: https://www.nbweconomy.org/economic-sectors/aquaculture/ There are links at end of article to studies. One hazard to aquaculture mentioned is AGW. Another is population growth. It takes some guts to discuss the latter factor.
Relevant to your Narragansett Bay piece:
https://www.nbweconomy.org/economic-sectors/aquaculture/
There are links at end of article to studies.
One hazard to aquaculture mentioned is AGW. Another is population growth. It takes some guts to discuss the latter factor.
I am unfamiliar with why it takes courage to discuss population growth. Please fill me in on some of the reasons for this.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
charlie hebdo https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337320303908 A technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337320303908
A technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
Yes, you are correct, the technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells will save the Earth. We have the word of a couple of people publishing in a for-profit Elsevier journal that this is indeed the case. I am greatly relieved that this problem has been solved and that you have brought this to the attention to all of us on this Forum.
Euclid"Clean Meat" appears to be on the horizon ... Consumer acceptance might be a problem, but maybe just the worry that it might be in the food supply, indistinguishable from real meat, will discourage consumers from eating real meat, and thus satisfy the green goal of reducing meat consumption.
I always think of ostriches when someone brings up alternatives to 'cattle' and 'hog' meat. My father had a broker who was always calling up to propose various wild-hair schemes to make the world a better place, and he introduced me to the Great Emu Farming Scam when it was only about 2 generations in. According to the tale, emus produce a large percentage of lean red meat, similar "enough" to beef that lots of consumers could be induced to eat it, and if enough of a production system could be developed, perhaps 10% as an initial target of American beef production could be supplanted. (This being calculated 'correctly' as cleaned and dressed tonnage, not 'on the claw' or whatever you ought to call it for the live stock...)
Of course, to 'get there' you needed a very large number of rather big and not very bright birds ... first to breed up to large herds, and then support the desired volume of 'harvested' or culled stock. And to this end, the fairly bright idea of unenlightened self-interest was brought forth. The great 'business opportunity' was not to breed birds for meat, but as microchipped breeding pairs to sell to entrepreneurs who would ... breed more microchipped breeding pairs to sell toe engrepreneurs who would breed more microchipped breeding pairs to sell to ... well you get the idea.
By the time this scam had had about its 19th MLM-style 'doubling' I was in Springhill with B&S, and lo and behold! one of Mr. Boucher's brothers-in-law WAS a practicing emu raiser. I wish now that I'd taped him when he got on the subject of 'those $@#&$ birds' -- there were thousands of issues that would cause them to 'fail to thrive', like some hideous labyrintspel of aviculture ... almost all of which would result in them 'throwing up their heads and yelling' and then falling dead on the spot. Whether or not anyone actually went beyond test-marketing that stuff -- I did see a few trials in supermarkets here and there -- I never found out. But it certainly isn't being touted as an alternative to the proven problems with conventional meat, at least where I can see.
I have been trying to comment here for about a day and a half -- here and on that other thread about hydrogen firing. Every time I get a few sentences in, that Kalmbach-sanctioned iPhone-virus scam triggers and wipes out everything. Isn't it interesting that it only happens when on this forum ... not in Classic Trains, not on MR. I don't find that circumstantial...
charlie hebdoMany areas of the oceans have been over-fished, such as the North Sea. Solutions to all of these except energy are not on the horizon.
I did considerable work on an aquaculture startup in Newport, RI in the early '80s; this involved suspending a carefully-designed network of ropes (using repurposed 600-gallon HDPE syrup barrels from Brazil as floats!) and encouraging mussel growth in 3D in the plankton column. We had about 40 acres of Narragansett Bay under culture at the time we finished the initial processing train (using, of all things, Dutch machinery specialized for mussel culture) and this was scalable well beyond that. One of the studies (I regret I didn't keep cites on it) pointed out that if this approach were implemented in the various bays and coves along the Eastern Seaboard, that alone would provide enough fully-renewable protein -- and good-tasting protein, not some vegetable Soylent Yellow horror -- to feed the current world population effectively. (Note that there are many other applicable coastlines elsewhere in the world...)
This of course is a bit idealistic, and some of the factor costs of production don't scale as economically with greatly increased volume -- but it would be perfectly feasible to conduct a large number of parallel harvesting operations, and processing the output for storage and shipping is not highly difficult in parallel either. The principal issue we encountered with 'quality' was opportunistic parasitization by things like pea crabs (we had a joke marketing approach that called these "George Washington Crabs" the way the C&O was "George Washington's Railroad" and that if you found one in your mussel it was to be considered a rare delicacy...) but separating these in processing, or indeed using them as 'additional assimilable protein', poses little real difficulty.
I think most of the issues with "world hunger" are largely political on the one hand and logistical on the other. Both should be addressed, but I suspect we may need more than one revolution or singularity before modern society actually steps up to a plate to accomplish what is technically possible.
I have spent many years agitating for something that ought to be a fundamental human right: free access to clean water. Here, too, there are surprisingly easy things -- my housekeeper's husband, when I lived in Englewood, worked with the CDC and developed a simple filter-based approach to solve the problems with schisto. Many other issues of water quality are similarly amenable to sensible and 'appropriate-technology' solutions. I helped set up a response to the Haitian hurricane crisis a few years ago -- instead of sending bottled water to be 'distributed' by profiteers, we sent crews of well-drillers and equipment to keep drilling clean wells, intentionally long past the time Haitian social institutions had recovered from the immediate crisis. Something I hope Biden and Harris prioritize is a return wholesale to the kind of Peace Corps activity that puts practical engineering, and practical resource management, in the hands of actual experts with actual morality and selfless dedication to bettering humanity -- perhaps we can shame other nations into doing the same. (Note that I think we learned from the Green Revolution and similar failures what 'not' to do in these regards, too...)
charlie hebdo MidlandMike mkwelbornjr Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again. The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space. Carbon isotope studies show the CO2 to be from fossil fuels. As a geologist I am aware of past climate extremes. Are you aware that they were mass extinction events. Luckily the present climate change could be mitigated by reducing carbon burning. mkwelbornjr To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd. How would replacing coal burning plants with solar and other new technologies "squelch all modern existence" ? Who said anything about meat? Thanks Mike for injecting some facts into to thread. The unspoken part of the crisis is over- population. This factor requires more energy, food and water. Producing meat, as opposed to vegetables and fruits requires more of the above. Many areas of the oceans have been over-fished, such as the North Sea. Solutions to all of these except energy are not on the horizon.
MidlandMike mkwelbornjr Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again. The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space. Carbon isotope studies show the CO2 to be from fossil fuels. As a geologist I am aware of past climate extremes. Are you aware that they were mass extinction events. Luckily the present climate change could be mitigated by reducing carbon burning. mkwelbornjr To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd. How would replacing coal burning plants with solar and other new technologies "squelch all modern existence" ? Who said anything about meat?
mkwelbornjr Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again.
The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space. Carbon isotope studies show the CO2 to be from fossil fuels. As a geologist I am aware of past climate extremes. Are you aware that they were mass extinction events. Luckily the present climate change could be mitigated by reducing carbon burning.
mkwelbornjr To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd.
How would replacing coal burning plants with solar and other new technologies "squelch all modern existence" ? Who said anything about meat?
Thanks Mike for injecting some facts into to thread.
The unspoken part of the crisis is over- population. This factor requires more energy, food and water. Producing meat, as opposed to vegetables and fruits requires more of the above. Many areas of the oceans have been over-fished, such as the North Sea. Solutions to all of these except energy are not on the horizon.
"Clean Meat" appears to be on the horizon:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-grown-meat/
Consumer acceptance might be a problem. But maybe just the worry that it might be in the food supply, indistinguishable from real meat, will discourage consumers from eating real meat, and thus satisfy the green goal of reducing meat consumption.
MidlandMike The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space.
The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space.
Water vapor is an even more important "green house gas" (GHG) than CO2 due to a higher concentration (up to 5% for wv, versus 0.04% for CO2) in the lower atmosphere and broader IR lines. The uncertainty of how much warming is caused by increased CO2 is driven in large part by how much the water vapor fraction changes with increasing CO2. Much of the remaining uncertainty is how cloud formation will be affected along with thunderstorms.
Keep in mind that Mars has more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth, but it doesn't have the water vapor or other GHG's that are present in the Earth's atmosphere. Venus is literally sitting under an ocean's worth of CO2.
IMHO, the best way to de-carbonize electricity production is to switch to a combination of nuclear and roof top solar + batteries.
mkwelbornjrEvery human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again.
mkwelbornjrTo squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd.
Erik_Mag We also need to add in the costs of the back-up generation to handle wide-spread calm periods.
One of our local amateur radio repeaters is completely off the grid, relying on solar panels, a small wind turbine, and batteries to provide 24/7 power for the repeater.
We're into the time of the year when the operator of the repeater occasionally has to trek in to the repeater site with a generator to charge the batteries, as wind and solar can't keep up.
RKFarmsWhat actually is "most efficient" when the external costs of destruction of environment by coal mining and burning are not considered? ...... On the other hand, windmills only take about 1/3 of an acre out of production for each installation, and the visual pollution is a very subjective thing.
......
On the other hand, windmills only take about 1/3 of an acre out of production for each installation, and the visual pollution is a very subjective thing.
Did a quick back of the envelope calculation and 1/3rd of an acre of a Powder River coal seam would be equal to what a 5MW wind-turbine can produce in 30 to 40 years. For the wind turbine we need to calculate the amount of damage from making the concrete, steel, copper and rare earths. IIRC, the wind turbine industry uses about a half billion dollars worth of lubricating oil each year. We also need to add in the costs of the back-up generation to handle wide-spread calm periods.
TANSTAAFL
Our regional landfill burns the methane produced in gensets which feed the grid.
Another such landfill is using the waste heat from the gensets to heat/cool greenhouses in which some one fifth of NYS's hothouse tomatoes are grown.
There are options.
YoHo1975Would it not be entirely plausible to have a set of locomotives where power was provided by diesel only when absolutely required and otherwise ran on overhead generation and battery?
Now it could be argued, and perhaps sensibly, that full dual-mode (where the power when drawing from external sources is much higher than that fir constant-horsepower sizing of the electrical drive) makes sense at a certain level of 'penetration' of electric supply, for example on grades currently requiring helpers or in services where higher speed would be required. But I think for a considerable time the same premise Conrail applied to the original dual-mode-lite (which was, sensibly, that you assign a given diesel consist rating to a given train and the consist behaves the same if on electric power) would be the most cost-effective for general operation. That imposes no requirement for operating electrical supply at any point, but seamlessly accommodates any level of implementation, specifically 'punctate' electrification where there are a great many interruptions in physical supply or changes in infrastructure, for example if using 50kV overhead in areas with many low overhead clearances.
And yes, it also seamlessly encompasses any desired percentage of zero-carbon generation instead of 100% internal-combustion power.
.
Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again. There will always be some waste from living life. A modern coal plant can be highly clean burning. The mercury can be trapped and contained. To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd. Next up...only one kid per family to reduce global warming. Windmills create widespread visible pollution. Whats the point of saving land if you are going to clutter it with manmade object.
The most efficient process for the lowest cost will always win out.
mkwelbornjrThe pressure is a political agenda.
Any national program will usually find itself between competing political agendas. Some agendas are based in scientific evidence, and some are based on preserving status quo and coporate profits.
mkwelbornjrIts funny that few even know coal plants exist...they are usually surrounded by lush wilderness...
Is it those few people, or the coal plants that are surrounded by lush wilderness?
mkwelbornjrIn a modern coal plant 99.9% of the waste is reused for gypsum.
Not even close. The Sulfur can be recycled into gypsum. What about ash, mercury, NOX, and of course CO2.
OM has a good point, what works nicely on a small scale may be a real bear to work on a large scale. Similarly, a chemical process that is relatively safe on a small scale may be a major hazard on a large scale.
Predictable response to the various ongoing research projects of actual experts.
charlie hebdoA technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
A different promising method for reasonably prompt hydrogen release is to form nanoparticles of solid NaBH4 with a thin coating of carbon and nickel as a less-expensive catalyst, which in a surplus of water has the same 3D effective geometry without difficulty in release of the gas from the catalyst 'framework'.
One problem in both cases is that a significant amount of water over "stoich" is required for this process of hydrogen liberation to work properly (in part this relates to proper working conditions for the carrier after hydrogen has been liberated), and even on a mobile platform the size and weight of a locomotive this constitutes a sizable weight that largely remains with the spent boron tetrahydroxide. This can function effectively as ballast, but requires a larger volume; it should be pumpable for weight distribution. I assume at least some of the water resulting from fuel-cell generation will also be recovered in this volume, to the extent it is not lost as vapor.
I have my doubts that NaBH4 will be an entirely safe carrier fuel in these applications, since even small leaks in moist atmosphere will produce exothermic hydrogen at a high enough rate to reach explosive limit in confined spaces. Carrying a large required volume of water almost guarantees a great deal of fun in a wide range of potential accident conditions, possibly involving a repeated generation of largely invisible flame at elevated temperature. I am not sure how this can be practically mitigated on a cost-effective locomotive of practical size, but it's certainly worth discussing and testing.
With the few have discussions on using alernatives to diesel/electric when those hear about EMD's FL9 technology. If those discuss stringing out cateraies when more discussions on whom is to pay for setting up the lines or where the power is to come from as what to do in an outage.
Having read through the article, I'm not quite what the advancement buys with the exception of providing hydrogen for fuel cells. I would imagine that in most cases, there would be more useful energy fromthe original alcohol.
The one advantage of hydrogen over batteries is a quicker "fill-up", otherwise batteries are a cheaper means of storing electrical energy.
Pertinent to your comment, an announcement from one of our top research facilities (hardly just some "trendy" news:
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2020/12/21/improved-hydrogen-fuel-production/
I have no doubt that Cummins will be in the forefront of expanding their equipment into what the Canadian government is calling for. They can recognize the similarities and differences needed to implement a high-horsepower powertrain instead of recharge of light BEV railcars, and I wouldn't hesitate to say "if anyone can do it right, they can".
The key to meaningful zero-carbon here, though, remains the production and supply infrastructure, which Cummins might help define but likely could not finance. It remains to be seen how much the government of Canada will put up to achieve what is necessary for their zero-carbon vision -- and whether the successors to the current government continue to pay for that rather than a carbon-neutral alternative that is orders of magnitude less expensive per ton-mile and more flexible.
The Coradia hydrogen cell trainsets are performing from Bremerhaven to Cuxhaven to Buxtehude, as well as a battery-powered trainset somewhere near Lake Constance. I believe the former have been in service around one year,the latter two years, both by Bombardier. Italy is also ordering the hydrogen trainsets and infrastructure.
And others are developing fuel cell trains,such as Hyundai and Cummins:
https://www.cummins.com/new-power/applications/trains
Erik_MagGiven the hindsight of the last ten years, GE would have been better off using Lithium batteries instead of the high temperature metal halide batteries they were working on.
And then we take up the merry world of potential wreck damage consequences...
One of the 'first best uses' of dual-mode-lite electrification is to string wire in tunnels, using whatever current and tension the clearances and available power including wayside storage will permit. This minimizes the amount of actual emission in the tunnel, or can theoretically reduce emission in the 'parts' of a tunnel most difficult or longest to clear, even if it is not sufficient to allow combustion engines to be idled/isolated or indeed shut down while that part of the power on a given train is traversing the bore.
(Incidentally a hydrogen locomotive has the advantage that its 'tunnel pollutant' is largely heat. Against this though are the explosive limits of hydrogen in an enclosed space, should there be leakage... and a combined lithium and hydrogen fire started in a tunnel might add a new chapter to the annals of epic rail disasters. I don't say this to be alarmist, just to note that cheap PSR-style maintenance priorities and freight-horsepower concentration of hydrogen fuel don't make for good safety just as GPU-style priorities and poor implementation of equipment didn't leading up to TMI.
I think GE made a mistake in not pushing the hybrid locomotive as a way of increasing capacity of very llong tunnels, e.g. BNSF's Cascade tunnel. By running the prime movers at half power, and using batteries to get back the other half, there would significantly less exhaust fumes and radiator heat to deal with.
Given the hindisght of the last ten years, GE would have been better off using Lithium batteries instead of the high temperature metal halide batteries they were working on.
SD60MAC9500 Overmod Just as a note: this is the 'real' first best use of that 'battery road locomotive' now going for test; it will not be wasted on you that its dedicated running consist is like a large, better-constructed version of the one-unit hybrid locomotive, with the added flexibility of using the battery part separately controlled if that becomes desired. And yes, hybrid pairs and triples are likely to become a 'next big thing' in practical road power, "at long long last". GECX 2010 has the ability to temporarily increase it's rating from 4400HP to 6000HP with the energy recaptured from DB. The current BP44C4 does not provide that it's just one way to reduce fuel use.. GECX 2010 has the ability to "boost" it's motors for acceleration, and use the additional power for grades.. The most convenient way to reduce emissions is to get avg speed up turning equipment faster.
Overmod Just as a note: this is the 'real' first best use of that 'battery road locomotive' now going for test; it will not be wasted on you that its dedicated running consist is like a large, better-constructed version of the one-unit hybrid locomotive, with the added flexibility of using the battery part separately controlled if that becomes desired. And yes, hybrid pairs and triples are likely to become a 'next big thing' in practical road power, "at long long last".
Just as a note: this is the 'real' first best use of that 'battery road locomotive' now going for test; it will not be wasted on you that its dedicated running consist is like a large, better-constructed version of the one-unit hybrid locomotive, with the added flexibility of using the battery part separately controlled if that becomes desired.
And yes, hybrid pairs and triples are likely to become a 'next big thing' in practical road power, "at long long last".
GECX 2010 has the ability to temporarily increase it's rating from 4400HP to 6000HP with the energy recaptured from DB. The current BP44C4 does not provide that it's just one way to reduce fuel use.. GECX 2010 has the ability to "boost" it's motors for acceleration, and use the additional power for grades.. The most convenient way to reduce emissions is to get avg speed up turning equipment faster.
Completely wasted, I guess, is that rairoads and manufacturers have concluded that 4000-4400 HP is the max usable for 6 axles......
Electroliner 1935 Voldamort
Voldamort
How dare you speak our Dark Lord's name.
Overmodcharlie hebdo Why do you invoke the name of our loser and soon to be ex potus? Because, to judge by so many previous threads, there are people here who will love to 'consider the source' when appraising the technologies and start making this about you-know-who's approaches rather than the merits or potential use. As this is your thread, I'm keeping discussion focused solely on the tech involved in making the idea work.
Why do you invoke the name of our loser and soon to be ex potus?
Because, to judge by so many previous threads, there are people here who will love to 'consider the source' when appraising the technologies and start making this about you-know-who's approaches rather than the merits or potential use.
As this is your thread, I'm keeping discussion focused solely on the tech involved in making the idea work.
I thought we were headed toward HARRY POTTER land with Voldamort (He who shall not be named)
SD60MAC9500Personally this is the route that should've been investigated even further. GE had it right with GECX 2010. Capturing DB energy and the ability to reuse it as additional propulsion..
caldreamer hydrogen can be made by electrolysis of water. A water tank car behind the locomotive which is equipped with hydrogen fuel cells and batteries. The output is hhydrogen and oxygen which can be released into the atmosphere. Bingo, cheap sustainable power. Hydrogen fuel cells are used on all space craft to produce power. This is a proven technology.
hydrogen can be made by electrolysis of water. A water tank car behind the locomotive which is equipped with hydrogen fuel cells and batteries. The output is hhydrogen and oxygen which can be released into the atmosphere. Bingo, cheap sustainable power. Hydrogen fuel cells are used on all space craft to produce power. This is a proven technology.
Where do you plan to get the onboard energy for this water electrolysis?.. H2 will continue to be reformed from Hydrocarbons. As it's the cheapest process both feedstock side, and energy consumption wise to sequester H2 from HC.. Not only that.. Another massive source of H2 are Coal deposits. Coal beds produce Methane, another large supply of available cheap gas .. Coal is being put out to pasture for power generation.. Though don't be surprised if UGS or CGS systems develop to take advantage of massive cheap coal deposits to produce H2 from Methane reforming.
Personally this is the route that should've been investigated even further. GE had it right with GECX 2010. Capturing DB energy and the ability to reuse it as additional propulsion..
Erik_MagI'd also wonder about squeezing a few more ton miles per gallon by doing the diesel equivalent of the Wright R-3350 turbo compounds, with the exhaust turbines driving alternators and compressors driven by motors, with the alternator output and compressor input power shared with the traction power supply.
You could also use the compressor for 'secondary air injection' to reduce emissions on starting, which might allow fairly frequent shutdown to avoid idling the prime mover -- which leads to a discussion of whether the engine prelube ought to be clutched here rather than on the starter where Cat puts it.
Incidentally I think that one of the special requirements on quick fuel-cell response involves rapid effective pressurization of all the tracting to the cells ... which a straight-electric compressor system, or OTS parts therefrom if no compression-ignition engine is present, might easily be made to provide...
As Arte Johnson said: 'Veeeeery interesting!'
SD70Dude I would hope that any hydrogen fuel cell unit would load as quickly as an SD40-2, and not like a Dash-9.
I would hope that any hydrogen fuel cell unit would load as quickly as an SD40-2, and not like a Dash-9.
As OM said, the fuel cells could be made to laod almost instantly, though I suspect that some auxiliary equipment would be needed to make it so. I know that the original hydrogen fuel cell Toyota Rav4's did have a battery to handle peak demands.
A potential advantage of a hybird diesel electric is that the battery would allow the diesel engine to load at whatever rate is best for emissions, but tractive effort would be available right away. I'd also wonder about squeezing a few more ton miles per gallon by doing the diesel equivalent of the Wright R-3350 turbo compounds, with the exhaust turbines driving alternators and compressors driven by motors, with the alternator output and compressor input power shared with the traction power supply.
Mentioning his name as a preemptory strike? Seriously?
I don't pretend to be an expert on everything. I doubt that you have the actual credentials (including experience) in as many areas as you appear to claim. Even in my own field, I recognize my limitations. That is generally a mark of humility and wisdom. The opposite is a feature of something else.
charlie hebdoWhy do you invoke the name of our loser and soon to be ex potus?
Overmod Nothing like the old ad hominem, is there? Ah well, trolls everywhere in this brave new world. No point in trying enlightenment, I guess, especially on the wilfully ignorant. We'll see what happens, in due time. That won't be affected by anything here. However, for those actually interested in the technology, consider this: https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/project-selections-foa-2300 Just don't put the word 'Trump' in any of the ensuing discussions.
Nothing like the old ad hominem, is there?
Ah well, trolls everywhere in this brave new world. No point in trying enlightenment, I guess, especially on the wilfully ignorant.
We'll see what happens, in due time. That won't be affected by anything here. However, for those actually interested in the technology, consider this:
https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/project-selections-foa-2300
Just don't put the word 'Trump' in any of the ensuing discussions.
Touche on the ad hominem, though to be technical, I commented on your behaviors (as several others have privately) while you invoked a name, incorrectly. Why do you invoke the name of our loser and soon to be ex potus? Irrelevant.
SD70DudeI would hope that any hydrogen fuel cell unit would load as quickly as an SD40-2, and not like a Dash-9.
Most of the 'delay' is involved with pollution control in accelerating the diesel engine (which is ideally done over a comparatively long time at comparatively low imposed load). A famous example of what is required was an experiment -- a very unfortunate experiment -- by Volkswagen, which put a dashpot on the vehicle accelerator so that transition to WOT took ~30sec. Including transitions between transmission shifts. This was an example of a vehicle with 0-60 times that required a calendar.
Even a fuel-cell locomotive without hybrid assist can produce high current as fast as the 'battery' of cells can deliver it -- probably in less time than the resulting power can be communicated to traction motors without producing slip; certainly more quickly than EMDs. The effect is likelier more significant in design of locomotives for more effective flat switching, but I'm sure it promises to be attractive in dedicated 'fuel-cell/battery' consists.
The case for on-board reformers is a bit more complicated, in that response can be rapid if the acceleration can be predicted accurately 'in advance' to let the reformer produce sufficient hydrogen for the fuel cells to use during the initial acceleration profile. Power would be limited by reforming rate if high power were demanded without advance processing, but this may still be quicker than 'clean' diesel-engine acceleration under load.
Euclid Everybody wants to maximize their income no matter why they want the money. My question is how will the investors maximize their income by adding costs to the industries they invest in? Has the railroad industry never done a cost/benefit analysis on electrification? Have they just now discovered that electrification is a gold mine that can be used to fund social causes? Or is the whole publicity for research to reduce carbon just a symbolic public gesture to push back against new regulations that require converting fuels?
Everybody wants to maximize their income no matter why they want the money. My question is how will the investors maximize their income by adding costs to the industries they invest in?
Has the railroad industry never done a cost/benefit analysis on electrification? Have they just now discovered that electrification is a gold mine that can be used to fund social causes?
Or is the whole publicity for research to reduce carbon just a symbolic public gesture to push back against new regulations that require converting fuels?
Another charity, the Rockefeller Foundation, has just divested itself of all oil stocks. Or course the irony is that Rockefeller was the founder of Standard Oil, which controlled the US oil industry over a century ago. While the stated goal for disinvestment may be social, they are justified by the fact that oil sector investments have had spotty returns over recent years.
Edit: More to your original question as to how increasing a company's cost will increase returns. Apparently the investors think the railroads will face the need to change anyway, and want them to be ahead of the crunch. I wonder if in an earlier generation, there were investors thinking a railroad needed to buy diesels, while the management was still hanging on to steam.
Enlighten and troll away guys, this is getting good!
Blah, blah, blah. Yes, now you are a designer of new designs in transportation. Really? And everyone else, even the company staff that are trained and experienced are just morons now. Your self-styled expertise on everything under and beyond the sun is has become laughable.
charlie hebdoTimes have changed.
But the practical future is still going to be in room-temperature, liquid fuel with neutral carbon impact -- and a major contender in that will be properly-treated B100, probably including feedstock from algal sources if you need some forward-looking exotic production setup with large potential atmospheric-CO2-uptake gains. So what if it takes a few years for railroads to understand the definition of operating folly -- they've certainly flirted with worse self-destructive and ultimately wasteful silliness over the past decade!
I seriously doubt if this is just some publicity stunt by CP, CN etc. and the truckers as well as some aircraft manufacturers. Times have changed. Sour grapes appears to be the meme du jour.
charlie hebdoThe point of all of this movement to non-carbon propulsion is clear and serious.
And that's assuming the distribution architecture is built-out and costed-down. We can joke all we want about reduced cryonic requirements in Canadian climate, but any distribution architecture involving the required mass of fuel required -- and remember the volume associated with that mass -- will be considerable, and substantially more than, say, LNG -- as well as posing ongoing and unavoidable dangers alternatives don't have.
Here is a Government resource on hydrogen costing correctly formulated (as a well-to-wheel cost analysis)
In my opinion, like so much else 'hydrogen-related' -- this is a publicity stunt more than any kind of future optimization.
This all begins and ends before we take up the larger issue of how much rail-related carbon emissions have a real impact on any of the mechanisms of AGW or 'climate change'. It's cute to say 'every little bit helps' but there are far more important places to concentrate efforts on carbon reduction -- better architectural heating and cooling being one major place, although I think money there should be devoted more to efficient ground-source utilization rather than, as Biden is thinking, better insulation and structural retrofit.
At least Mr. Creel didn't mention thorium!
OvermodI have yet to see a study that actually shows an electrification that will 'pay for itself' without subsidy, perhaps substantial subsidy. Even the electrification west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh foundered on the absence of continued Government assistance, and it is hard to imagine an electrification project of greater marginal return on investment.
As I recall, the study did show that it will pay for itself in savings with a payback period of about 10 years.
I don't remember anything about government subsidy in the report, but remember that the financial analysis centered around tax credits Conrail was eligible for due to substantial earlier losses. So not too applicable to profitable roads at the time like Union Pacific.
The issue that scuttled it was that the rate of return just wasn't high enough. Conrail had more lucrative (i.e., more important) places to invest capital with higher rates of return than extending electrification would provide, such as continuing to replace the decrepit locomotive fleet and roadbed that they had inherited.
The point of all of this movement to non-carbon propulsion is clear and serious. And like EVs, it may happen faster than we can imagine. I doubt if CP et al. are considering electrification, cells or batteries just for the heck of it. Ditto with trucks. Ditto with some applications of autonomous.
Overmod There have been plenty of proposals to use dynamic-braking electricity to electrolyze water, compress the resulting gases, use them in subsequent combustion or fuel cells, etc.
There have been plenty of proposals to use dynamic-braking electricity to electrolyze water, compress the resulting gases, use them in subsequent combustion or fuel cells, etc.
The energy efficiency of the process makes this a non-started when LI-ion batteries have better than 90% round trip efficiency. The 1939 GE STEL did use dynamic braking heat for heating the boiler.
There was a battery for space applications that electrolyzed water and stored the H2 and O2 for use in a fuel cell. Which reminds me, back in the Gemini days, batteries were considered the minimum weight option for missions less than four days and fuel cells for longer than that. Somewhere past that, solar cells were lower weight than fuel cells.
SD70DudeI recall reading that the Conrail study favoured expanding the electrification as a long term investment, but the high initial cost could not be justified.
Tumbler Ridge never did make sense on a purely economic basis, it was too short and required locomotives to be changed. That electrification was only built to avoid the problem of diesel exhaust in the long tunnels, and even that turned out to be a non-issue as the line was never operated at the full capacity the designers planned for.
Electrification provides benefits in the form of increased capacity (faster trains with more powerful locomotives for the same fuel cost) and lower locomotive maintenance costs. I recall reading that the Conrail study favoured expanding the electrification as a long term investment, but the high initial cost could not be justified.
SD70DudeThe studies that have been done tend to show that while electrification provides benefits, it will take decades to pay for itself.
The point I keep trying to make is that creeping implementation of catenary is perhaps the only thing that stands a chance of 'private financing' -- and even there, I suspect that lavish "public assistance" of some form or other, most probably taking the form of income-tax credits to railroads (or, much less likely, property-tax abatements based on local or in-state investments) would be an essential part of adoption.
I think two particularly instructive 'case studies' are the Tumbler Ridge electrification and the Conrail 'dual-mode-lite' study that Don Oltmann and others have documented. In my opinion (expressed here perhaps ad nauseam to some by now) updating the latter to current technology and requirements is, or should be, of great interest compared to 'ordinary' kinds of electrification project.
The studies that have been done tend to show that while electrification provides benefits, it will take decades to pay for itself.
The point that is being danced around here is that nothing about a 'hydrogen locomotive' is a particularly difficult exercise -- I'm sure that there is some recent work on making something like a SOFC with less expensive materials, but even extrapolating the system in a Coradia LINT to required battery-charging scale presents no particular engineering difficulties ... other than intelligent detail design.
Where the real problems lie is in the logistics of onboard fuel storage and delivery, and much, much, much more importantly in the cost-effective logistics of producing and providing the fuel effectively across the portions of the system where these locomotives are to run. I trust you all recall that this last was quite properly noted as the 'thing of greatest importance' in the practicality of the "hydrogen-powered transit" equipment -- everywhere it has now been put into service.
I was amused by a prior post that seemed to indicate that water would be dissociated, the hydrogen stored in some way, and the oxygen discarded. If you are using hydrogen as a carrier fuel, there are better options for all those steps. A major point of hydrogen is that, despite all the drawbacks, it does 'combust' with high energy release to produce only water ... when done with proper heat transfer in the presence of only oxygen as oxidizing agent. A good fuel-cell design does this well, at comparatively low temperature rise -- but more efficiently with oxygen than with air that is about 4/5 nitrogen.
There have been plenty of proposals to use dynamic-braking electricity to electrolyze water, compress the resulting gases, use them in subsequent combustion or fuel cells, etc. None of them has ever advanced to a practical demonstration, let alone a road locomotive useful in general service, to my knowledge. That should tell you that a proper distribution architecture is a far likelier approach than opportunistically making the fuel like a huge defective imitation of the kind of regenerative-braking scheme (itself recognized as false economy on a grand scale) touted for, say, the original Milwaukee electrification.
Just as with steam-turbine electric planning -- the important part is to assure joint-venture partners to provide 100% of the fuel and distribution well in advance of even preliminary locomotive testing ... or even development investment. It will be interesting to see how well the Canadians comprehend this over the next few months.
From the trucking industry:
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/nacfe-releases-guidance-report-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-heavy-duty-trucks/
EuclidOr is the whole publicity for research to reduce carbon just a symbolic public gesture to push back against new regulations that require converting fuels?
I think you found the answer right there.
Railroads have done enough electrification over the years that they should be able to know where the make or break point is financially.
SD70Dude Isn't TCI the same outfit that tried and failed to take over CSX 10 or 15 years ago?
Isn't TCI the same outfit that tried and failed to take over CSX 10 or 15 years ago?
Yes.
CMStPnP SD70Dude If you build new catenary it is easy enough to use taller poles in open areas. But in some tunnels and bridges the clearance is already tight enough that you can't add wires without reducing the equipment clearance or enlarging the space. Why can't you switch to third rail for tunnels using shoes? Didn't some of the FL-9's have both pantographs for overhead and shoes for third rail and they could flip between the two as a power source? Is that something that can be done at higher speed or is it limited to lower speeds? From my understanding the shoes were activated at speed via pneumatic cylinders and could run on either over or under rail pickup systems. I read the locomotive could switch between pantograph and shoes while in the trackage of Grand Central Terminal but that is operating at slower than mainline speed not sure how that works at higher speeds or if speed is even an issue.
SD70Dude If you build new catenary it is easy enough to use taller poles in open areas. But in some tunnels and bridges the clearance is already tight enough that you can't add wires without reducing the equipment clearance or enlarging the space.
Why can't you switch to third rail for tunnels using shoes? Didn't some of the FL-9's have both pantographs for overhead and shoes for third rail and they could flip between the two as a power source? Is that something that can be done at higher speed or is it limited to lower speeds? From my understanding the shoes were activated at speed via pneumatic cylinders and could run on either over or under rail pickup systems. I read the locomotive could switch between pantograph and shoes while in the trackage of Grand Central Terminal but that is operating at slower than mainline speed not sure how that works at higher speeds or if speed is even an issue.
The pantographs used in GCT were to contact an overhead 3rd rail, where slip switches put long gaps in regular 3rd rail. FL9s ran on 3rd rail just to get thru the terminal tunnels, and was only for slow speed operation. Of course 3rd rail was only for low voltage operation to limit ground arcing.
Murphy Siding I find this from the article rather interesting:"Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which are under investor pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions..."Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
I find this from the article rather interesting:"Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which are under investor pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions..."Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
TCI (The Childrens Investment) Fund wants to maximize income for their charitable work. I guess they don't want the children to grow up in a world with an impending climate crisis.
SD70Dude For now, I think the railroads would be better off investing in more double track and yard capacity improvements, to reduce the amount of idling time and instances when trains are stopped and started again, which wastes fuel compared to continuously moving at a more constant speed.
For now, I think the railroads would be better off investing in more double track and yard capacity improvements, to reduce the amount of idling time and instances when trains are stopped and started again, which wastes fuel compared to continuously moving at a more constant speed.
By that measure Bill Ackman and Paul Hilal are not professionals, yet they are the first ones who come to mind when I think of "institutional investors".
Murphy Siding "Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which are under investor pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions..." Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
I knew there would be some interesting dynamics involved with the idea. Great discussion.
BaltACD So how much battery or capacitor is necessary to supply the in excess of 6500kw that can be needed when two current era diesel units are hauling a train at max load?
So how much battery or capacitor is necessary to supply the in excess of 6500kw that can be needed when two current era diesel units are hauling a train at max load?
A conservative rule of thumb with Li-ion batteries is to keep discharge rates 1C or lower, i.e. 6MW would require at least 6MWHr battery capacity. Present Li-ion batteries are running around 5 tonnes/MWHr (5.5 tons/MWHr), so 6MWHr would run around 33 tons.
Some of that pressure comes from the TCI group, which is also exerting pressure on the UP as a major stockholder there as well. The point is eventual elimination of diesel fuel use through electrification and/or hydrogen cells, as I also posted concerning the latter.
BaltACDSo how much battery or capacitor is necessary to supply the in excess of 6500kw that can be needed when two current era diesel units are hauling a train at max load?
This is also the average current that would have to be shoveled across intermittent 'charging contact' means, whether split between charging and traction power or dedicated to the battery (as on one of the '20s tripower locomotives).
(Peripherally this will tell you why I think the 'future' is in using the battery in a hybrid configuration with dual-mode-lite diesel electric power, rather than as a pure BEV...)
Regarding the "investor pressure," I too find this puzzling. I assume the railroads are currently compliant, so why is there pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Where is the pressure actually originating from? Does reducing greenhouse gas emissions create revenue or does it consume it? If it creates revenue, why did they wait until they came under pressure to act? If it consumes revenue, how much are they willing to spend?
Overmod tree68 Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries. The problem is that it's the charging that is the limiting time constraint on what can be 'taken' from an outside source by a chemical cell or battery. It's possible that an array of supercapacitors could be charged at the appropriate current drawn from a short length of catenary, and this then used to charge any 'chemical' battery storage at a more appropriate rate as well as for continuing traction. The limiting factor then gets to be the ohmic heating of the wire and the pantograph contact patch, and some of the other considerations seen in high current draw across a sliding contact. There is additional cost in providing the necessary intelligent crossbar switching between the charged supercaps and 'massively parallel' charging arrangement inside the battery, but I and others think that a 'traction battery' should already be constructed this way on general principles. I would also note that the 'catenary' for a typical PSR sort of train need not be either particularly stable or expensive, except for the quality of the trolley wire and its connections to power. The speed involved will likely be under 45mph, and a great deal of poor contact could be easily 'desparked' with intelligent charge management with little issue other than opportunity loss of charging during the 'debouncing'. So this could be wired cheaply to start, and then improved for full electrification at any future time warranted.
tree68 Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries.
The problem is that it's the charging that is the limiting time constraint on what can be 'taken' from an outside source by a chemical cell or battery.
It's possible that an array of supercapacitors could be charged at the appropriate current drawn from a short length of catenary, and this then used to charge any 'chemical' battery storage at a more appropriate rate as well as for continuing traction. The limiting factor then gets to be the ohmic heating of the wire and the pantograph contact patch, and some of the other considerations seen in high current draw across a sliding contact. There is additional cost in providing the necessary intelligent crossbar switching between the charged supercaps and 'massively parallel' charging arrangement inside the battery, but I and others think that a 'traction battery' should already be constructed this way on general principles.
I would also note that the 'catenary' for a typical PSR sort of train need not be either particularly stable or expensive, except for the quality of the trolley wire and its connections to power. The speed involved will likely be under 45mph, and a great deal of poor contact could be easily 'desparked' with intelligent charge management with little issue other than opportunity loss of charging during the 'debouncing'. So this could be wired cheaply to start, and then improved for full electrification at any future time warranted.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries.
NYC used track pans to pick up water (they built the tenders to hold lots of coal, not much water).
Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries.
Overmod While probably unpublished and perhaps in development 'stealth mode' I think the Rail Propulsion Systems (Fullerton) 'commuter hybrid module' may already contain "buildable" answers to many of these concerns and issues. Hybrid car design has long wrestled with the tradeoff of recovering as much energy as possible vs. retaining enough 'headroom' for braking without need for serious grid-style heat dissipation in dynamic braking. Extending to even short-contact wayside source/sink provides what may be highly useful resources.
While probably unpublished and perhaps in development 'stealth mode' I think the Rail Propulsion Systems (Fullerton) 'commuter hybrid module' may already contain "buildable" answers to many of these concerns and issues. Hybrid car design has long wrestled with the tradeoff of recovering as much energy as possible vs. retaining enough 'headroom' for braking without need for serious grid-style heat dissipation in dynamic braking. Extending to even short-contact wayside source/sink provides what may be highly useful resources.
I would think that "Trip Optimiser" level of siuation awareness would get 90+% of the benefits as tractive/braking energy is much more predictable than an automobile.
Nice to see someone actually working on a hybrid module for railcar use. Being able to recover braking energy and providing extra power for acceleration would have significant benefits in reducing fuel consumption, schedule time and brake wear (the NCTD Sprinter cars were showing much more brake pad wear than expected). One other advantage with a hybrid is that the prime mover will not be cycled as rapidly as it would in a non-hybrid railcar.
Trains Newswire:
Canadian Pacific has announced a program it says will develop North America’s first line-haul hydrogen-powered locomotive, retrofitting a current locomotive with hydrogen fuel cells and batteries to drive the traction motors.
“This is a globally significant project that positions CP at the leading edge of decarbonizing the freight transportation sector,” Keith Creel, CP's President and Chief Executive Officer said in a press release. “CP will continue to focus on finding innovative solutions to transform our operations and adapt our business, positioning CP and our industry as leaders for a sustainable future.”
CP has previously tested lower-emission locomotives using biofuels and compressed natural gas, as well as battery-powered units. As it notes in its press release, virtually all freight locomotives in North America are diesel-powered, representing railroading’s most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
The move comes as Canadian Pacific is among railroads facing pressure from investors to reduce greenhouse gases, which has increased interest in hydrogen technology as well as revived talk of mainline electrification [see “Canadian National, Canadian Pacific seek alternatives to diesel-electric locomotives,” Trains News Wire, Dec. 17, 2020]. And hydrogen-powered passenger trains are being tested in Europe and elsewhere [see “Development of hydrogen-powered trains continues …,” News Wire, Dec. 14, 2020].
BNSF was involved in development and testing of a hydrogen-powered switch engine in 2009 [see “BNSF unveils hydrogen-powered locomotive,” News Wire, June 20, 2009].
I would not build a system of this kind without using something like the Carnegie-Mellon system of having GIS/GPS coordination of sufficient resolution and metadata as to permit real-time extrapolation of power requirements in advance and appropriate 'power planning' to meet it. Energency accommodation using that as a baseline can then be arranged more sensibly...
rdamon: the answer is probably 'yes' in several respects. In my opinion it would be difficult to extend the existing transit way systems to freight-train current draw, but for asynchronous recharge, especially as a fill-in for areas where overhead is difficult, impractical, or resisted by NIMBYs, it may be attractive. I would note that there is no great reason AC could not be used on one of the segmented-contact systems if desired.
Overmod This is one point I make; another is that a 'charging-based' system can also use sections of reduced voltage or even limited current as effectively as possible, essentially for the cost of the battery-hybrid locomotive. It then becomes relatively straightforward to improve the relatively small areas of overhead restriction, or skip impossible gaps, as necessary -- if the goal is to limit carbon combustion sensibly while preserving operating flexibility, this offers an attractive option.
This is one point I make; another is that a 'charging-based' system can also use sections of reduced voltage or even limited current as effectively as possible, essentially for the cost of the battery-hybrid locomotive. It then becomes relatively straightforward to improve the relatively small areas of overhead restriction, or skip impossible gaps, as necessary -- if the goal is to limit carbon combustion sensibly while preserving operating flexibility, this offers an attractive option.
I would think that a charge controller would have a pretty good idea of when the battery would need charging, when it would supply power, when regenerative braking is needed, etc. Optimal use would have the battery charged from regenerative where ever possible, but take power from the catenary if needed.
For optimal battery life, we'd want to limit discharge to ~1C, which implies maybe 4MWhr battery capacity (might cost $800k? and weigh 20tons?). Charge controller would strive to keep state of charge between 20% and 80% except in rare cases and most of the time keep it in the 40% to 70% range.
The cost breakdown in the 1991-92 SCRRA study on electrifying SoCal freight RR's showed that half of the cost was mitigating clearance for double stacks and 50kV catenary. The cost estimate then was $4B, which implies $2B was for improving clearances and that would buy a whole bunch of batteries.
Batteries could also be of help in reducing or eliminating power draw during peak load times.
Could the work done by Alstom for ground power that is only activated under the light rail train be used on a larger scale?
https://www.alstom.com/our-solutions/infrastructure/aps-service-proven-catenary-free-tramway-operations#:~:text=Alstom's%20APS%20ground%2Dlevel%20power,or%20along%20the%20entire%20line.
Erik_MagAn electric locomotive with internal battery could run with pantographs down in those areas and thus not need the increased clearance over the top of the rails.
An option with the 'fast parallel charging' system is to do asynchronous regenerative braking, using single-phase catenary only for the brake runs, cumulatively feeding some sort of low-internal-resistance wayside storage that is then connected to the units for massive parallel charge in a short time.
If you build new catenary it is easy enough to use taller poles in open areas. But in some tunnels and bridges the clearance is already tight enough that you can't add wires without reducing the equipment clearance or enlarging the space.
We are assuming the caternary would clear doublestacks, correct?
Not out of the question, but it may cost more to buy the needed battery tenders than put up wires.
One of the cost drivers with catenary is providing clearance for the wires in tunnels and where tracks go under bridges or other structures. An electric locomotive with internal battery could run with pantagraphs down in those areas and thus not need the increased clearance over the top of the rails.
UlrichWhat about electric locomotives coupled to battery tenders? At each or every other division point where crews are changed, switch out the spent battery tender for a new one.. I think this would be far better than stringing catenary for thousands of miles.
Slightly less awful would be swapping modular batteries with some kind of semi- or automated equipment, leaving the 'rest' of the consist intact. I know several companies have done considerable research and design work on this in a service and maintenance context; it would not take "that" much to make it a wayside thing.
The problem is that the idea of modular batteries that slide out in a group for easy replacement on the Rhino barbecue-grill tank model has never gained much traction anywhere, any time, and I don't see this being the first. Add the cost of rapid charging all the batteries, having enough units (either locomotives or modules) for any demand, dealing with various issues of battery life and health and capacity... you'll rapidly appreciate having adequate combustion-engine capability to take the train in a pinch, and the added weight and length of diesel-electric power generation on one or two locomotives is a relatively small addition to straight-battery drain from a pure BEV consist...
Note that a battery hybrid between two 'mother' diesels, which I think is 'the charm', could easily have its batteries swapped out, say at a point where power has been depleted but a substantial grade or other region with high resistance needs to be involved, or a "larger" battery installed. Again, you wouldn't switch the consist around, and you wouldn't want to have to reboot the PTC system, etc.
One "alternative" is rapid massively-parallel charge of the strings of cells and supercaps through a special harness, which could be made with the right cooling system, in the range from about 20% to 80% that causes the least overall damage or degradation, in just a few minutes if the location can be supplied cost-effectively with that power density. I'd think it would be better to keep the harness (and not use 'all of its connections every time' in cases where something's not fully optimal) rather than have to meddle with whole cells and connectors ... let alone whole battery locomotives or B-tenders ... at that location.
What about electric locomotives coupled to battery tenders? At each or every other division point where crews are changed, switch out the spent battery tender for a new one.. I think this would be far better than stringing catenary for thousands of miles.
I'll predict now that the answer is "diesels using only DEF for NOx reduction, running on some form of properly-treated B100 with appropriate additives, using a battery-equipped (or battery) road-capable locomotive for hybrid powertrain". With dual-mode-lite on that battery locomotive for compatibility at 'rated horsepower' from 12.5/25/50kV 60Hz AC catenary as extended, wherever extended.
Hydrogen is a boutique fuel, a means for recharging a battery vehicle. It is exquisitely dependent on a sensible fuel generation and distribution program, in all present cases extensively subsidized and underwritten by government. As a carrier fuel, it has a number of rather significant disadvantages that make it extremely unlikely to be competitive in other than railcar service. Since I do not ever see it being competitive for road vehicles, that puts a considerable crimp in expansion of the special distribution arrangements becoming cost-effective in more general terms.
The "best" carbon-neutral system is probably still catalyzed H2O2 and either methanol (one carbon to ~11 molecules of steam) or ethanol (2 carbons to ~14 -15 molecules of steam -- ethanol of course being a renewable fuel with alternative uses for most of its generation 'waste stream'. The problem was, is, and will remain that the H2O2 involved needs to be above circa 30% concentration to make the system work properly ... and as long as there is acetone, there would be TATP. I've said it before; I'll say it many times more: RATS!!!
(Amusingly, while SRC remains an alternative (remember the GE work with coal slurry in oil in the '80s?) torrefied wood, which has inherent ash remaining and is not particularly cost-effective to use as a solvent-refining feedstock, is probably not -- except perhaps in power generation for electrified lines, which really doesn't count. But if solid-fuel combustion becomes practical anywhere, I suspect Tom Blasingame will be poised and ready to build and arrange for it.)
The British are now in some kind of push to develop fusion as a commercial power source by 2040. I am perhaps their greatest covert supporter in this ... if they can do it. Again this is purely for electrification, and probably not close to wayside 'anywhere sane' regardless of pictures you may see.
It would be crazy if the Coalition for Sustainable Rail came up with something that was a part of the solution based on their biomass torrefaction work. One never can tell what the future holds!
CN leads in fuel efficiency because of lower grades, not because of Trip Op (which we aren't allowed to use if we have other notch restrictions) or anything else.
CN's Winnipeg-Edmonton mainline is the busiest freight line in the country, and would be the best place to start electrifying. But you would have to go all the way to the west coast to get real benefits and avoid having to change locomotives.
A battery locomotive with a range of say 200 miles or 16 hours would be a massive step forward, as you would not need to electrify a lot of yard, terminal and customer trackage.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.