Hydrogen is the future!

https://www.redlandscommunitynews.com/n ... b4fe2.html

Kind of late with this article, but it is an example of how the U.S. could follow Redland's example and use hydrogen powered trainsets or even new or rebuilt locomotives running on hydrogen. Other nations around the world are taking order for hydrogen powered trainsets too, so the U.S. should be following this example since these kinds of trains have no diesel emissions and will ultimately save the environment by reducing the amounts of diesel emissions.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:10 pm https://www.redlandscommunitynews.com/n ... b4fe2.html
Kind of late with this article, but it is an example of how the U.S. could follow Redland's example and use hydrogen powered trainsets or even new or rebuilt locomotives running on hydrogen. Other nations around the world are taking order for hydrogen powered trainsets too, so the U.S. should be following this example since these kinds of trains have no diesel emissions and will ultimately save the environment by reducing the amounts of diesel emissions.

Very interesting and hopefully great for the future.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-cheap-wa ... g-hydrogen
But hydrogen gas can be generated two ways; "(1) electrolysis of water which uses 50 kWh per kg of H2, and (2) steam reforming of methane and other hydrocarbons, nearly all of the industrial H2 produced today (about 100 million kg in the USA alone) is obtained by this method."
Note, a kg is equivalent to 2.2 pounds, that's around 22.7 kWh per pound of H2.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
"Electricity generation within the USA sources;
Fossil fuels (total) 63.6%
Nuclear 19.4%
Renewables (total) 16.9%
Other sources 0.4%"
So over 60% of the electricity powering the hydrogen electrolysis devices burns fossil fuels.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/greenhouse_gas.htm
"The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%.
It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.) Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons."
And after the hydrogen is combined with oxygen with the new trains power units, the waste product or exhaust would be water vapor. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas by far. Will making more of it be great or terrible for the environment?

Again, it is Stadler bringing this technology to the USA with a FLIRT style train. Would Amtrak even consider using this technology with new trains for the NEC and the branch lines off it?

unless the hydrogen is produced with clean generated power it is just as polluting as a diesel engine.

Not necessarily. It is easier to control pollution from a single point source than from a multitude of sources. In other words, a coal plant that sends electricity to a car or train may actually produce less pollution for the same end-user power than with each of those burning its own fuel in its own engine.

MattW wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:04 am Not necessarily. It is easier to control pollution from a single point source than from a multitude of sources. In other words, a coal plant that sends electricity to a car or train may actually produce less pollution for the same end-user power than with each of those burning its own fuel in its own engine.

There is no such thing as a single point source for pollution. Take that coal plant for example, not all the pollution associated with it comes from burning coal. The miners who dig the coal use energy for various machines. The trucks and trains that move the coal from the mine to the power plant use energy. The workers at the power plant use energy for machines to get the coal to the boilers, and remove the ash after the coal is burned. The electricians use energy in various machines building and maintaining the power lines between the power plant and your home or workplace. That's just a simple list of various points of pollution getting electricity to your home, I did not include the energy used to make all the various machines. No source of pollution lives in complete isolation from other pollution sources.
Let's stop thinking they exist within our debates.

Since many diesels, especially those of class I freight railroads, are being rebuilt with tier 3 or 4 low-emission engines, why can't most diesel engines for Amtrak, freight railroads, and diesel multiple units be rebuilt with hydrogen-powered engines? It would be more efficient than a low-tier diesel emission engine since even though it would not be as much, there would still be some diesel emissions which would require burning fossil fuels which are becoming more depleted as we speak. Whereas if these engines used hydrogen-powered engines, there would be virtually no diesel emissions from most railroads around the country, and if this practice spreads, then the world.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:23 am Since many diesels, especially those of class I freight railroads, are being rebuilt with tier 3 or 4 low-emission engines, why can't most diesel engines for Amtrak, freight railroads, and diesel multiple units be rebuilt with hydrogen-powered engines? It would be more efficient than a low-tier diesel emission engine since even though it would not be as much, there would still be some diesel emissions which would require burning fossil fuels which are becoming more depleted as we speak. Whereas if these engines used hydrogen-powered engines, there would be virtually no diesel emissions from most railroads around the country, and if this practice spreads, then the world.

Producing hydrogen gas creates emissions, using hydrogen gas to make electricity creates emissions. Even wind farms and solar panels create emissions. Maybe not CO2 emissions, but there is always some unwanted pollution being created. There is no magic matter interaction that is completely emission free.

What kinds of emissions other than water molecules would hydrogen-powered trains make in that case?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrail

Also to be more specific:

Hydrail is the generic (not capitalized) adjective term describing all forms of rail vehicles, large or small, which use on-board hydrogen fuel as a source of energy to power the traction motors, or the auxiliaries, or both. Hydrail vehicles use the chemical energy of hydrogen for propulsion, either by burning hydrogen in a hydrogen internal combustion engine, or by reacting hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell to run electric motors.

And to describe hydrogen fuel:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Hydrogen fuel is a zero-emission fuel burned with oxygen. It can be used in fuel cells or internal combustion engines .

But hydrogen is made with huge amount of electricity it is not found as ready gas : Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram (kg), but the most common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent on a price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of gasoline), which translates to an operating cost of $0.21 per mile.

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:39 pm But hydrogen is made with huge amount of electricity it is not found as ready gas : Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram (kg), but the most common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent on a price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of gasoline), which translates to an operating cost of $0.21 per mile.

In that case, what would be the operating cost for using tier 3 or 4 low emission diesel engines?

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:08 pm What kinds of emissions other than water molecules would hydrogen-powered trains make in that case?

Running electric motors turning steel wheels over steel rails has heat emissions caused by friction and less than 100% electric motor efficiency. Applying brakes to stop the train creates heat emissions. Heat no matter how small it is, contributes to warming the earth. Ever touched an electric cable with lots of amps running through it. It can get fairly warm to touch. Is there any heat coming out of your computer's case? Friction is everywhere on our planet. Heat kills more life on earth than carbon dioxide.

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:05 am

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:08 pm What kinds of emissions other than water molecules would hydrogen-powered trains make in that case?

Running electric motors turning steel wheels over steel rails has heat emissions caused by friction and less than 100% electric motor efficiency. Applying brakes to stop the train creates heat emissions. Heat no matter how small it is, contributes to warming the earth. Ever touched an electric cable with lots of amps running through it. It can get fairly warm to touch. Is there any heat coming out of your computer's case? Friction is everywhere on our planet. Heat kills more life on earth than carbon dioxide.

Ok. Thank you for informing me. Even though friction from applying the brakes would still cause heat emissions for any train, I still suggest the use of hydrogen-powered trains especially in the U.S. since their emissions would be less than that of most of the diesel engines and multiple units currently roaming the rails.

For those who feel that Hydrogen is the future, may I suggest watching this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=715s

And the point he didn't cover is that all the numbers assume potable (drinkable) water.

amazing how americans continue to forget that yes, electrification is a thing, and yes, it does work