Comments on: Ontario, Bombardier in talks for hydrogen commuter train http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/ Trends, happenings and innovations in the clean technology market Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:28:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jimmyjames http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-4052 jimmyjames Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:40:47 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-4052 anyone who claims nulear is not emissions free needs to give their head a shake. Any C02 emissions from mining or processessing of uranium are insignificant relative to a coal plant. Clearly the boneheads griping about nuclear have not been to sudbury in the 70's or 80's when there were no trees because of the pollution. To even imply that nuclear is a polluter on the same scale of coal is just ridiculous. This is the problem i have with environmentalists, they always take it to extremes, theres no common sense. I like doing good things for the envrionment i like to recycle, but im not a nazi about it. looking for every fatal flaw. anyone who claims nulear is not emissions free needs to give their head a shake. Any C02 emissions from mining or processessing of uranium are insignificant relative to a coal plant. Clearly the boneheads griping about nuclear have not been to sudbury in the 70′s or 80′s when there were no trees because of the pollution. To even imply that nuclear is a polluter on the same scale of coal is just ridiculous. This is the problem i have with environmentalists, they always take it to extremes, theres no common sense. I like doing good things for the envrionment i like to recycle, but im not a nazi about it. looking for every fatal flaw.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1378 Anonymous Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:02:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1378 If the Russians have elctrified the Trans-Siberian, as they have the Red Arrow between Moscow and St. Petersburg, they probably won't be electrifying any other long routes. In Europe, it costs €1million/km to electrify, and that's just the capital. The maintenance is very expensive. The Russians, like most of Europe are part of the UIC's hydrail study group. Track electrification is far too big an investment risk today. In Bordeaux there is discussion of removing existing overhead supply catenaries. Diesel faces high and growing prices; electrification is about (after 120 years of good service) to become irrelevant. The paradigm has already shifted. Plant extension engineers who have not noticed that will learn a VERY expensive lesson. El Hidrailero If the Russians have elctrified the Trans-Siberian, as they have the Red Arrow between Moscow and St. Petersburg, they probably won’t be electrifying any other long routes. In Europe, it costs €1million/km to electrify, and that’s just the capital. The maintenance is very expensive.

The Russians, like most of Europe are part of the UIC’s hydrail study group. Track electrification is far too big an investment risk today. In Bordeaux there is discussion of removing existing overhead supply catenaries.

Diesel faces high and growing prices; electrification is about (after 120 years of good service) to become irrelevant. The paradigm has already shifted. Plant extension engineers who have not noticed that will learn a VERY expensive lesson.

El Hidrailero

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1373 Anonymous Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:37:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1373 The reason for converting rail propulsion to hydrogen rather than continuing to electrify track is the capital and maintenance costs. The capital investment is about US$ 2 million per linear mile (€ 1 million / km, ±) in a technology that almost 120 years old. That's not an attractive investment for either taxpayers or investors. And then you've got to maintain it. Hydrail can be a fraction of that cost. The reason for converting rail propulsion to hydrogen rather than continuing to electrify track is the capital and maintenance costs. The capital investment is about US$ 2 million per linear mile (€ 1 million / km, ±) in a technology that almost 120 years old. That’s not an attractive investment for either taxpayers or investors. And then you’ve got to maintain it. Hydrail can be a fraction of that cost.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1377 Anonymous Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:28:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1377 I cannot see any reason to run a train with hydrogen instead of electricity. It's on a fixed route, on tracks. Putting up overhead power lines is a trivial cost that pays for itself rapidly. Hell, the Russians electrified the trans-Siberian railway. Why bother with the grave inefficiencies of the hydrogen cycle? Just more bunk from the people who pine for the hydrogen economy. I cannot see any reason to run a train with hydrogen instead of electricity. It’s on a fixed route, on tracks. Putting up overhead power lines is a trivial cost that pays for itself rapidly. Hell, the Russians electrified the trans-Siberian railway. Why bother with the grave inefficiencies of the hydrogen cycle? Just more bunk from the people who pine for the hydrogen economy.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1376 Anonymous Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:42:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1376 Curious how the eroi numbers on the following combination would turn out: - electricity baseload from RES (<a href="http://www.trecers.net/" rel="nofollow">CSP </a>preferably, because of scaleability, proven technology, competitive cost [especially when considering thus externalized cost of non-RES]) - direct drive electric in wheel motors (<a href="http://www.pmlflightlink.com/" rel="nofollow">DDIW</a>), with regenerative braking - <a href="http://www.techreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=biztech&sc=&id=16466&pg=1" rel="nofollow">direct methanol fuel cells</a>. These can use the fuel from <a href="http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.Forest_Energy/projects/Andreu_2005_WA_Senate_5883_files/frame.htm" rel="nofollow">sustainable forestry</a> and don't suffer the <a href="http://www.efcf.com/reports/" rel="nofollow">inefficiency</a> of hydrogen fuel cells - until dmfc's become available, <a href="http://www.hydrothane.be/" rel="nofollow">hydrogen in combustion engine</a> can be used. Since propulsion is essentially electric, source of electricity becomes a secundary issue. When making electricity generator modular, this issue can be easily addressed in sync with specific circumstances and emerging technologies. Emil M Curious how the eroi numbers on the following combination would turn out:

- electricity baseload from RES (CSP preferably, because of scaleability, proven technology, competitive cost [especially when considering thus externalized cost of non-RES])

- direct drive electric in wheel motors (DDIW), with regenerative braking

- direct methanol fuel cells. These can use the fuel from sustainable forestry and don’t suffer the inefficiency of hydrogen fuel cells

- until dmfc’s become available, hydrogen in combustion engine can be used. Since propulsion is essentially electric, source of electricity becomes a secundary issue. When making electricity generator modular, this issue can be easily addressed in sync with specific circumstances and emerging technologies.

Emil M

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1375 Anonymous Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:12:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1375 Thanks for calling me on that one. The media, and the public in general, too often say emission-free when referring to nuclear, but they do so in reference to greenhouse gas emissions. We shouldn't be so lazy, we should be specific, because as you point out there are emissions and, broadly speaking, the waste fuel could be considered emissions -- though no the type we envision spewing into the air. That said, with reference to CO2, nuclear is virtually emission-free. Yes, you could do a lifecycle analysis and say that's not the case, but a lifecycle analysis on anything reveals CO2 emissions. I believe, based on studies I've seen (and I'm assuming, here, that they're credible), that nuclear is quite competitive with solar and wind with respect to lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases. Definitely way better than coal and natural gas. Thanks for calling me on that one. The media, and the public in general, too often say emission-free when referring to nuclear, but they do so in reference to greenhouse gas emissions. We shouldn’t be so lazy, we should be specific, because as you point out there are emissions and, broadly speaking, the waste fuel could be considered emissions — though no the type we envision spewing into the air. That said, with reference to CO2, nuclear is virtually emission-free. Yes, you could do a lifecycle analysis and say that’s not the case, but a lifecycle analysis on anything reveals CO2 emissions. I believe, based on studies I’ve seen (and I’m assuming, here, that they’re credible), that nuclear is quite competitive with solar and wind with respect to lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases. Definitely way better than coal and natural gas.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1374 Anonymous Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:41:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1374 Interesting post. Just one nit: nuclear is not emissions free. Lower CO2 emissions than coal for sure, but radioactivity is emitted into the air and water during the mining and buring of the fuel, and of course there is the long-term highly radioactive pollution left behind. Interesting post. Just one nit: nuclear is not emissions free. Lower CO2 emissions than coal for sure, but radioactivity is emitted into the air and water during the mining and buring of the fuel, and of course there is the long-term highly radioactive pollution left behind.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1372 Anonymous Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:03:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1372 Batteries are environmentally problematic, they don't work very well when its cold either, nor do current generation fuel cells. Electrifying the tracks is probably best but very, very expensive and disruptive; we missed that chance in the 50's really. A hydrogen combustion loco could be a very good solution and relatively simple as a technology. Don't forget that by the end of 2008 the Hydro Quebec Eastmain project will have added 307% in output. Canada easily has the hydro-electric and water resources for this sort of thing and the portability of H bodes well for the vast distances we have. Batteries are environmentally problematic, they don’t work very well when its cold either, nor do current generation fuel cells. Electrifying the tracks is probably best but very, very expensive and disruptive; we missed that chance in the 50′s really. A hydrogen combustion loco could be a very good solution and relatively simple as a technology. Don’t forget that by the end of 2008 the Hydro Quebec Eastmain project will have added 307% in output. Canada easily has the hydro-electric and water resources for this sort of thing and the portability of H bodes well for the vast distances we have.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/comment-page-1/#comment-1371 Anonymous Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:10:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2007/09/14/ontario-bombardier-in-talks-for-hydrogen-commuter-train/#comment-1371 Sure, it's easier to build hydrogen distribution for a train than for cars, but I don't see why it would make sense to convert clean electricity into hydrogen, and then use it to run the train, when you can just use the electricity directly. Hydrogen will never be cheaper or greener than the electricity used to make it. That nighttime baseload power could just as easily be used to charge train batteries as to make hydrogen, and the round-trip efficiency of the process is much better. Sure, it’s easier to build hydrogen distribution for a train than for cars, but I don’t see why it would make sense to convert clean electricity into hydrogen, and then use it to run the train, when you can just use the electricity directly. Hydrogen will never be cheaper or greener than the electricity used to make it.

That nighttime baseload power could just as easily be used to charge train batteries as to make hydrogen, and the round-trip efficiency of the process is much better.

]]>