adamketchum t1_iy4k7m3 wrote
Reply to comment by A40 in 'Landmark achievement': Rolls-Royce and easyJet hail successful hydrogen jet engine test by Wagamaga
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.
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
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments