Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A40 t1_iy3hf6e wrote

Make hydrogen locomotives a thing. And shipping. And hydrogen made with green energy, not coal/oil.

71

singulargaysock t1_iy3qhnw wrote

or just electrify and modernize our rail network… y’know… like the rest of the world?

51

A40 t1_iy3riip wrote

I'm in Canada: it'd take new nuclear power or hydro dams (and there aren't accessible rivers) and two or three third-world strip mines to electrify rail here.

Paris to Berlin: 1054 km

Halifax to Vancouver: 6,150 km

31

Beenforevertiltoday t1_iy40bqv wrote

Hear me out, just make it a nuclear powered train, fallout meets snowpiercer style.

37

idigclams t1_iy4cwxw wrote

I’d like a seat toward the front of the train, please.

7

adamketchum t1_iy4k7m3 wrote

Moscow to Vladivostok: 9,289 km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway

Running trains on Hydrogen will also require a lot of new infrastructure, and far more electricity generation such as nuclear, hydro, or whatever since going through electrolysis and fuel cells is much less efficient than using the electricity directly. Something like 30 % efficient I think.

There might be a place for hydrogen trains, for example long distance rural lines with low usage and smaller trains (not good at freight), but it is not an obvious decision and should not have widespread adoption. All of the complicating factors with hydrogen and the greater continuous costs make electrification the best choice in the long run.

12

lestofante t1_iy7l6hd wrote

When they build that they did not have current technology.
Yes you need special infrastructure, but for a mega project like that would be the small issue.
In the end is a simple "what is cheaper to build and/or maintain", and surely there are cases where the the diesel wins, and could be replaced with hydrogen, if hydrogen cist will be low enough.
Electrification may even be better in the long run, but if the project cost much more and there are no money, a country may decide that something is better than nothing, and electrify on a later time

1

Formendacil t1_iy4r35p wrote

Yeah, but Sweden has roughly the same amount of railway per capita, and yet it is 84,2 % electrified, more electrified than South Korea and Japan, whereas Canada is 0,2 % electrified, and Sweden and Canada are roughly as wealthy. Australia is also roughly as wealthy, even sparser, culturally closer, and yet it has large, well used electrified commuter rail systems similar to those in Europe and Asia, whereas Canada does not

4

A40 t1_iy53y9w wrote

Distances are different. Canada is thousands of miles across and very sparsely populated compared to Europe.

2

Formendacil t1_iy56nm9 wrote

Firstly, countries such as Sweden, Finland and Norway also have low densities, not all of Europe is is the Rhine valley or Southern England. secondly, most Canadians live in a relatively small part of it anyway, meaning that densities are similar to modestly populated parts of Europe in a lot of Ontario and Quebec. Thirdly, Australia has much more electrification and much more well used passenger rail in spite of being even sparser. Sure, the distance between Perth and Sydney is impractical for high frequency rail, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be climate friendly, efficient transport in the dense areas

3

A40 t1_iy5eod7 wrote

I was wondering about gas storage cars on the trains, like old-timey coal tenders. Liquid hydrogen tanks?

1

Formendacil t1_iy5r9zk wrote

I mean, yeah, sure, maybe, but electrification is a proven, efficient technology. It’s just not as impractical as you make it out to be. It’s used in low density and moderate density areas all around the world with no problem

1

Xe6s2 t1_iy5rghi wrote

Energy efficient small modular magnetic bottles might work better

1

FalconX88 t1_iy54lrd wrote

Distances in Canada are much longer, and once most of it runs on diesel there's not really a point to electrifying small parts of it since all the equipment is not made for it anyway.

1

Formendacil t1_iy589nk wrote

I mean, most countries run on a mix of diesel and electric. Japan isn’t all electric. Both Germany and France are only half electrified. Switzerland is basically the only moderately large network which is entirely electrified

1

FalconX88 t1_iy59dhl wrote

Again, distances. Easy to electrify a large and heavily used part of the network in Germany or France and then use diesel on the lesser used lines where it doesn't make sense to build the infrastructure. Of course you will then operate a mix of diesel, electric, or hybrid.

If you have distances like in Canada it's not easy to electrify a decent percentage of your rail network and then it makes more sense to just stick primarily to diesel.

−1

Formendacil t1_iy5aznb wrote

If you electrify the Windsor-Quebec city corridor along with the GO-trains and Exo trains, that would be a pretty significant electric system. I can say this for sure, if that kind of corridor existed in the Nordic (except for maybe Denmark) it would without a doubt be electrified, Toronto and Montreal are large cities an intermediate distance apart

3

fasda t1_iy58ahh wrote

And what about the corridor between Toronto and Quebec city? That's only 800 Km and contains a large majority of Canada's population. And only two or three mined worth of copper isn't all that much.

3

Kinexity t1_iy4cybq wrote

Hydrogen is inefficient, hard to store/transport and requires complex infrastructure. Overhead electric is the best for trains.

38

A40 t1_iy54f5g wrote

Distances are different. Canada is thousands of miles across and very sparsely populated compared to Europe, for instance.

Overhead electric on 5,000+ km of freight rail? (That's as the crow flies.) Not at all practical.

1

[deleted] t1_iy5b2ef wrote

How much do you think gas pipelines cost to install and maintain?

8

A40 t1_iy5ej8z wrote

I was wondering about gas storage cars on the trains, like old-timey coal tenders. Liquid hydrogen tanks?

3

Vickrin t1_iy59co5 wrote

Do you know how much hydrogen you'd need to travel 5000kms?

Just put up some power lines...WAAAAY more practical.

4

myflippinggoodness t1_iy5b3py wrote

Can you feed the electrical system directly off the track? Then, any issues that would cause? Also, how's that holding up in Canadian winters?

Gah this seems tricky and costly but mby(?????) A good idea?? Fckn advanced shiprec is.. Advanced 🤦‍♂️

1

Vickrin t1_iy5cjcj wrote

Hydrogen is just a poor fuel compared to hydrocarbons.

Hydrogen takes up space and is heavy in the quantities you'd need.

Electricity is great because you don't need to ship it with your goods.

People trying to reinvent the train should just try trains first.

Japan has an amazing train network and yet nobody is copying them.

3

myflippinggoodness t1_iy5dy00 wrote

On Japan's trains--VERY TRUE, they have an awesome setup for densely populated urban areas.. but everything here is so spread out, and there's the weather to contend with too.. I mean, I'm thinking heavy supply transit more than just ppl transit.. ah fuck it, soup the shit outta Canada's current transcontinental rail systems. That's probably step 1

3

Vickrin t1_iy5epcy wrote

>but everything here is so spread out

Build longer tracks?

Japan's rail system covers the entire country. It's not just metro areas.

4

A40 t1_iy5ejua wrote

I was wondering about gas storage cars on the trains, like old-timey coal tenders. Liquid hydrogen tanks?

0

Vickrin t1_iy5ewxj wrote

Hydrogen is not energy dense, it would require extremely high pressure storage which is heavy as hell and expensive.

2

A40 t1_iy5fzn0 wrote

Diesel has an energy density of 45.5 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), slightly lower than gasoline, which has an energy density of 45.8 MJ/kg. By contrast, hydrogen has an energy density of approximately 120 MJ/kg, almost three times more than diesel or gasoline. What this really means is that 1 kg of hydrogen, used in a fuel cell to power an electric motor, contains approximately the same energy as a gallon of diesel (rmi.org). site

As for storage weight: train, locomotive. Expensive: probably, until it's a mature industry.

1

Vickrin t1_iy5hgyq wrote

1kg of diesel can sit in a metal tank, at room temperature, no pressure needed.

Do you know how much space 1kg of hydrogen takes up?

Liquid hydrogen needs to be stored at -250c at 1 bar or more of pressure. This requires high strength storage. This means your 1kg of hydrogen ends up actually weighing a hell of a lot more than 1kg. Keeping it cool also requires energy which means you get even less out of your hydrogen fuel.

Sure you could store it as a gas but that would require 350-700 bar of pressure which requires even MORE expensive storage.

It's not as simple as the raw maths.

Can you imagine the damage if a train derailed with high pressure hydrogen tanks? Diesel doesn't explode and neither does electricity.

3

A40 t1_iy5nvj8 wrote

Thanks for the info!

So a hydrogen jet engine is... less than useless?

1

Vickrin t1_iy5ohqn wrote

Exploring the concept is never wasted, people might learn something.

Putting a hydrogen engine in an aircraft is not going to be a viable option for the forseeable future.

Aircraft are probably one of the hardest things to move to a green fuel source.

Batteries are also awful when it comes to aircraft.

2

Xe6s2 t1_iy5r1zo wrote

Plus hydrogen leaks the most out of all fuels. Magnetic bottles would work better imo.

1

Funktron3000 t1_iy6tud0 wrote

What if we just used it at lower pressures and filled blimps with it?

1

lestofante t1_iy7knjd wrote

Not really, Remeber, the most powerful rocket are hydrogen+oxigen.
The bigger the amount you want to store, the less is the coat of the container, as container weight grow as square(perimeter), while volume contained grow as cube.
A hydrogen train make a lot of sense and they have been already successful experimented, but will never take off until cost of diesel is cheaper.

1

AzzaClazza t1_iy7zccq wrote

1kg of liquid hydrogen takes up 14L of volume, plus the tank itself.

1

Vickrin t1_iy98rkb wrote

And a tank that can hold hydrogen weighs a lot

1

aaaaaaaarrrrrgh t1_iy4v0el wrote

>hydrogen locomotives

Electrification is easier and better

2

A40 t1_iy5438b wrote

Distances are different. Canada is thousands of miles across and very sparsely populated compared to Europe. Electrifying 5,000+ km of freight rail is not at all practical.

2