Hydrogen Powered Locomotives?

How long until you guys think we'll see hydrogen powered locomotives?

Just picture the HindenBurg crashing at a railroad crossing and you will see that ain't gone happen.

They are being built and tested..

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/011008/ ... 9420.shtml

http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gy ... oid%3A4557

I'm quite surprised the Long Island hasn't tapped this asset. They could pay ten times the going cost for the engine, which nobody would know hot to maintain and buy the hydrogen fuel at twice the cost of diesel. Sounds like a winner for the MTA.

Since this has nothing to do with the LIRR...

I mean hydrogen fuel cells such as the Honda FCX Clarity. I am not talking about the Hindenberg and just an FYI one of the reasons it went up so quickly was because of the coating on the outer skin, NOT the hydrogen. Also, hyrdogen is not twice the cost of diesel an unlike diesel it is effectively not a depletable resource and as time progresses fossil fuels will get more expensive while hyrogen will most likely get cheaper due to economies of scale.

A hydrogen powered locomotive would be able to run in an out the the tunnels without fear of toxic diesel fumes because the only the that comes out of a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Also, hydrogen fuel cells make tons of power for their size. The Honda FCX Clarity's fuel cell produces enough electricity to power 10 average American homes. Just imagine how much power one in a locomotive could provide and also probably put back into the 3rd rail/cantary.

Just a thought for the future, wanted to get some opinions

LongIslandTool wrote:I'm quite surprised the Long Island hasn't tapped this asset. They could pay ten times the going cost for the engine, which nobody would know hot to maintain and buy the hydrogen fuel at twice the cost of diesel. Sounds like a winner for the MTA.

hammerfang wrote:I mean hydrogen fuel cells such as the Honda FCX Clarity... Just a thought for the future, wanted to get some opinions

If it was practical and could be profitable, they'd be doing it already. Right now, it's not a cost-effective technology for locomotives.

Fuel cells has been "right around the corner" technology since I graduated from engineering college in 1964. First of all hydrogen doesn't come out of a well or from a mine or from trees. Its always associated with some other compound such as methane in CH4 or water in H2O. It takes a lot of energy to make it usable as H so that the fuel cell can extract some energy turning back into water, which, by the way is also a greenhouse gas. Think of hydrogen as rocket fuel that's less corrosive than some of the other stuff they use to use but no less dangerous to handle. General Motors back in the 50's experiment with a Sterling cycle engine but to maximize thermal efficiency they used hydrogen as a working fluid. The trouble was I think that the molecule was so small they couldn't keep the stuff from leaking out even through the steel cylinders.

I think the whole thing is PR bs plus a lot of wishful thinking among political science and english majors trying their hand at engineering.

I understand the complexity of using hyrdogen as power source, but I think it is the way of the future. The technology is still in its infancy, but anyone who thinks we'll still be using fossil fuels as our primary source of energy for transportation purposes needs to wake up.

I hate to sound like a nut, but I really believe the technology is possible.
I believe that oil companies and the government tries to squash any groundbreaking things.
For example, did you know that the average person can build a small generator that runs on magnets?
Would not give off much power, but it could be used as a charger for a reusable battery...
Here is a video, I dont think its a hoax, seems like it would work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uVuK2E ... annel_page

SaintSpellCheck wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uVuK2E ... annel_page

I'm not sure what the above video has to do with hydrogen fuel, but if the gentleman would be so kind as to patent and then explain his invention using scientific principles, I'd be grateful. Until then, I'm inclined to label it another misinformed hoax.

BN (pre-merger) and Union Pacific have experimented with natural gas-fueled locomotives, both conventional and turbine, so there's some experience with gas storage on the rails. There's also research into hydrogen fuel cells being performed at businesses, universities and national laboratories around the country. And of course, the hydrogen fusion reactor is always lurking around the corner - no word on its arrival yet.

However, the most efficient way to run a train is to string wires and power them electrically, due to the economies of scale available, the ease of transmitting high-voltage electricity, and no need to carry around a prime mover, alternator and fuel tank. It can be powered by coal, nuclear, hydropower, biomass, wind, solar... even hydrogen. Always has been the best use of power, and until someone comes up with a practical robo-train with motorized freight cars to eliminate the locomotive altogether, it'll remain the king.

The biggest problem I have with the whole hydrogen fuel concept is the fact that no one who espouses it can make me understand how it isn't a net loss of energy. Start with the energy required for the electrolytic dissociation of seawater, then move to the energy required to refrigerate the hydrogen to just about -423 degrees to keep it liquid. Then add the energy required to ship the hydrogen to wherever it's needed. Net loss of energy, unless you're starting with nuclear - and then you might as well compare catenary.

The whole "combustion product is water" concept is fine - and so is the BTU/lb mass - until you look at the above reasoning.

-Will Davis

Mr. Davis took the words right out of my mouth.

Same goes for ethanol... we're spending so much money and wasting so much fuel just to manufacture the stuff that it's not saving us any money or doing anything for the environment.

With trains the choice is available to just electrify, that way you can generate tractive power anyway you want and not have to worry about hauling all sorts of exotic, expensive and dangerous stuff on board a train.

hammerfang wrote:How long until you guys think we'll see hydrogen powered locomotives?

Probably about when we see nuclear-powered aircraft…

----

In addition to the technical and safety issue listed above there’s the hydrogen fuel COST. I did some hydrogen production cost research then performed a few calculations. Arrived at price estimates for fuel-grade, compressed hydrogen gas produced by several different processes. (Prices are for 1.1 kg of hydrogen, the energy equivalent to 1 gallon of diesel):

Hydrogen reformed from natural gas: $4.89
Reformed from methanol: $5.03
Electrolysis (dissociation of water by electricity): $13.50

If the hydrogen is supplied as cryogenic liquid rather than compressed gas (required to get enough hydrogen fuel onboard to give a locomotive any kind of useful range) bump the above prices 40% - 50%.

Incidentally these price estimates are wholesale at the plant – taxes, transportation/storage charges, etc. have been neglected.

----

The dreamy-eyed liberals now running this country proclaim hydrogen is the “fuel of the future”. However from an engineering, safety and economic perspective hydrogen simply makes no sense. (I submit you will see entire American railroad system electrified before you'll see a hydrogen-fueled locomotive...!)