Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

singulargaysock t1_iy3qhnw wrote

Reply to comment by A40 in 'Landmark achievement': Rolls-Royce and easyJet hail successful hydrogen jet engine test by Wagamaga

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