News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.7K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 357     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 926     1 

Hydrogen Fuelled Trains

we could:

1. Electrify existing rail lines with proven technology for a reasonably predictable sum
2. Make unproven hydrogen trains with no existing infrastructure (and who's going to tell the people who live next to the refuelling depots).

This being Ontario, the land of fringe innovation (GO ALRT-Maglev - total failure, Orion CNG buses - early retirement, CLRV/ALRV - hardly any sold outside Ontario, RT technology - not much better sales wise and collapses when it snows) obviously we'll go with Option 2.
 
Kitsune said:
Isnt Iceland moving towards a Hydrogren Economy by 2050?
Click to expand...
That's because Iceland is swimming in Hydropower and Geopower-Hydrogen is electricity intensive and that's perfect for a country like that. As for trains, Iceland doesn't have any rail, and caternary would probably be 80% efficient (compared to ~20% for Hydrogen)
 
adma said:
Well, here's the advantage of a hydrogen train: if it gets into a big accident, news reporters will be tempted to use the phrase "oh the humanity". Neato
Click to expand...

i saw a docmentary on hydrogen years ago that debunked its explosive nature based on the hindenburg tragedy. the hindenburg exploded because the skin wrapped around the aluminium frame was cloth soaked in a chemical that was basically dry rocket fuel. the germans liked the finish it gave to the outside of the airship. there was a storm in new jersey when it was coming in to land. apparently static buildup caused a spark that ignited the skin just before landing. eyewitness accounts state the ship burned a bright yellow/white. hydrogen gas burns a cool blue.
 
FAW said:
i saw a docmentary on hydrogen years ago that debunked its explosive nature based on the hindenburg tragedy. the hindenburg exploded because the skin wrapped around the aluminium frame was cloth soaked in a chemical that was basically dry rocket fuel. the germans liked the finish it gave to the outside of the airship. there was a storm in new jersey when it was coming in to land. apparently static buildup caused a spark that ignited the skin just before landing. eyewitness accounts state the ship burned a bright yellow/white. hydrogen gas burns a cool blue.
Click to expand...

Mythbusters nicely debunked that claim. Just think about it... if hydrogen wasn't actually explosive then don't you think that fact would be very well known? Don't you think that there have been other situations when hydrogen has been explosively set on fire? Scientists and engineers don't feel the need to put such massive effort into ensuring that hydrogen is properly stored simply because they saw some film footage.
 
Rainforest said:
To produce hydrogen, you need electricity (some thermo-chemical cycles are a potential alternative, but those are cumbersome and none of them has been implemented on industrial scale).
Click to expand...

The aluminum/gallium catalyst looks promising. One interesting thing about the Genepax device is that they state that it will operate continuously, so long as it has water. That suggests that they have developed a catalyst that is not sacrificed.
 
dowlingm said:
we could:

1. Electrify existing rail lines with proven technology for a reasonably predictable sum
2. Make unproven hydrogen trains with no existing infrastructure (and who's going to tell the people who live next to the refuelling depots).

This being Ontario, the land of fringe innovation (GO ALRT-Maglev - total failure, Orion CNG buses - early retirement, CLRV/ALRV - hardly any sold outside Ontario, RT technology - not much better sales wise and collapses when it snows) obviously we'll go with Option 2.
Click to expand...

Ha, now that you mention it, we do have a long, storied history of experimenting with alternative transit technologies that prove to be boondoggles.

I agree, electrify the system with overhead wire and to hell with these hydrogen-powered trains.
 
Since the Ontario government just announced that two new reactors are going to Darlington, why not a nuclear-powered train, you know, like nuclear-powered subs? That's more proven than hydrogen.
 
Glen said:
The aluminum/gallium catalyst looks promising. One interesting thing about the Genepax device is that they state that it will operate continuously, so long as it has water. That suggests that they have developed a catalyst that is not sacrificed.
Click to expand...

if their claims are true, they have invented a perpetual motion device since you can run the water exhaust to the water input. sounds very fishy to me.
 
to store enough hydrogen to power a GO train (4,000hp) for a standard duty cycle would take fairly impressive onboard storage especially when you factor in crash-proofing and hydrogen's low energy density.
 
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form into another.
Gasoline stores energy, that originally came from the sun.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top