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.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337320303908
A technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.