News   Mar 28, 2024
 481     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 391     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 741     0 

GO Transit Electrification (Metrolinx, Proposed)

The reason H is being pushed is more about politics and less about science.

The best option to electrify Ontario's rails is catenary supply.

Why do you say it is more about politics and less about science? The Germans, British, and Chinese beg to differ and God knows all those countries have far superior to Toronto. As for catenary you may very well be right, catenary and maybe the best option but why not give hydrail a try on a few selected routes? The worse that can happen is that people get more service than they are now. It will allow Metrolinx to make an informed decision as opposed to one strictly based on tried and true.

If catenary was already under construction then it wouldn`t make any sense to try hydrail but it`s not. You and I {and certainly Metrolinx} know that electrification using catenary will now not be completed by 2025 and God knows it will not come in on budget. That is more than 6 long years until electrification starts while the population of the GTAH is growing at more than 150,000/year. This is not a commitment but rather a test to see how it would work and if it is the best fit for Toronto and the very small amount to lease a couple of the trains could end up saving Metrolinx well over $1.5 billion in catenary construction. That $1.5 billion in potential savings would buy a whole fleet of trains and overpasses although admittedly Metrolinx would probably use those saved funds to build more parking garages or new stations at critical centres like Kirby.
 
Why do you say it is more about politics and less about science? The Germans, British, and Chinese beg to differ and God knows all those countries have far superior to Toronto.

I suggest you have a talk with God then...and be sure to produce the costs with your answer.

Here's a good reference to start with:
Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh
how_much_does_electricity_cost__large-copy-8.png

https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html

And as posted, linked and referenced prior, both Germany and France continue to electrify via catenary at a rate vastly more than the orphaned lines that are being evaluated for Hydrail use.

No-one is discounting a *potential* use for peripheral line use rather than diesel. The conversation is for Rapid Rail (RER). Name me one example of anywhere in the world using it for that purpose, let alone even discussing doing so in the future.

They could have windup spring trains for all that the present evidence support on Hydrail. It's a developing niche usage, not a general traction option.

Btw: I suggest you read the link I supplied. For clarity, the chart above is for *retail* consumer prices. Wholesale prices for Canada are cheaper still. India and China are outliers on the ranking for technical details I can't be bothered going into at this time, but be aware:
Electricity prices are a controversial issue in lots of countries, particularly when they go up in a hurry. Where I live in the UK rising energy prices resulted in the whole energy market being investigated to examine failings in competition.

Although electricity prices in the UK aren't cheap some countries have it much worse. In this article I'm going compare internationally to look at who is paying more $/kWh for their energy. I’ve gathered some numbers and crunched a little data to see who is really paying a lot for their power. For my neighbour here in the UK I’ll add a bit more data at the end.
link above

That may appear superfluous to you, so let me explain a little further: The UK is avoiding prior commitments to erect catenary due to prices (both erection and cost of power) going up geometrically. I've produced a comparison to how Germany is not only controlling those very same costs, but proceeding at a fixed rate of catenarization every year. Because they can! And they do it efficiently and with predictable results.

If you want an argument, I suggest you start there...not talking to your 'buddies' at the truck stop...
 
Last edited:
It’s not clear you want to contrast Ontario unfavourably with SA. The entire state lost power in a heatwave the summer before last.

A bunch of random (rare) tornados took out the main transmission lines between the state's mid-north and Adelaide - that's actually what took SA off-line after the interconnect with Victoria was suddenly overloaded (and shut down as a safety precaution, doing what it's supposed to do in that case).

@steveintoronto mentioned about voltages on AU networks a while back - SA is the latest state to electrify its network and like all that weren't done when Melbourne and Sydney were done (early last century) it's a 25kv AC. Melbourne & Sydney are 1.5kv DC although it's not clear what the new Sydney metro will be and the HCMTs that are coming to Melbourne prior to the metro tunnel opening at rumoured to be able to use variable voltages (1.5kv-3k DC). We're just at the tail end of a long shutdown period (6 in the past 8 weeks) on the main lines the new larger/speedier trains will run and one of the main things that's getting upgraded is the overhead (Stanchions, wires, more substations (which points toward higher voltages DC) and all - total rebuild, the existing equipment was over 50 years old).

I'd love to give some figures on the cost per km for wiring (they're literally rebuilding about 60km on the Pakenham line, its single track loop around the city and the 15km cranbourne branch) but the public numbers that have been floating about ($1 billion) also includes signaling and a shit tonne of maintenance. The same thing will happen to a western line (sunbury) and a previously diesel-only line will be added to the electrified network once the metro tunnel opens in 2025.

edit: photos from SSC / of the new catenary being installed - shiny grey (new) versus poo-brown (old).

left track pair = Frankston line (not being upgraded), right track pair = Pakenham/Cranbourne (being upgraded)

gIRMjX6.jpg


This is the site of the eastern portal for the metro tunnel just south of South Yarra station, left track pair = Pakenham/Cranbourne (which will dive into the tunnel), middle track pair = Frankston line, right track pair = Sandringham line.

Bj5e2JD.jpg


edit x2, I think a part of the $1 billion in upgrades includes paying for this, the mega depot for the new trains/HCMTs.

[youtube]

And the first test train was hauled out there in Dec

[youtube]
 
Last edited:
Honestly... If we need to test Hydrail in the GTA writ (ridiculously) large, how about Buffalo?

But seriously, aside from the attempt to turn this into a Canadian technology project, commuter rail makes a lot of sense in the Buffalo - Niagara Falls corridor, Buffalo's got the same advantages as a test site as Toronto, the service would be on a much more manageable scale than anything needed here and the new FRA rules make the regulatory environment a lot more certain for the kind of equipment that has actually been looked at to date. It even ties in to GO nicely now we've got (sort of) full service to Niagara. I actually think this is a much better idea than trying to force this into GO at this stage.

For that matter, if you extend the thing east to the airport (on a corridor thats almost entirely abandoned trackbed) commuter rail, sold as electrified with hydrail, massively improves the prospects for getting the second Metro Rail line eventually built.

View attachment 170300
Instead of testing in Buffalo, why not hop the big ditch? Test Hydrail on LSW between Niagara Falls and Aldershot or West Harbour. I'm sure ridership doesn't justify a full 12 cars that currently services this section. It can run all day assuming CN pays ball and decouples the Welland Canal issue that is gonna start up in a few months.
 
Other conditions similar, the economic factors should favour Catenary for lines with frequent service, vs Hydrail for infrequent lines.

Installing and maintaining the wiring incurs a large fixed cost. It is almost same whether you run a train every 5 minutes or every 5 hours. Thus, the cost per train goes down as the frequency of trains goes up.

For Hydrail, much of the infrastructure costs and train costs should scale with the service frequency. The cost per train should go down a bit as the frequency increases, but not nearly as much as for the Catenary option.

Thus, its is pretty reasonable when Germany / France / UK want to use Hydrail and avoid the cost of wiring on their secondary lines, that aren't electrified yet. Both Germany and France have Catenary on all their major lines, and had that for long time. I am not as familiar with UK's rail lines, but suspect that they too are well ahead of us.

On the other hand, we (GTA) want to build a very frequent electric rail system using our busiest lines. For that, Catenary is likely more efficient, even if Hydrail can do the job in principle.

The choice could be different if we already had all major GO lines electrified, and were debating how to implement the Northlander rail service without using diesel trains. In that case, Hydrail could well emerge as the winning technology.
 
Instead of testing in Buffalo, why not hop the big ditch? Test Hydrail on LSW between Niagara Falls and Aldershot or West Harbour. I'm sure ridership doesn't justify a full 12 cars that currently services this section. It can run all day assuming CN pays ball and decouples the Welland Canal issue that is gonna start up in a few months.

Testing a new technology is always a good idea, if done in good faith.

I guess many people are concerned that the successive provincial governments use studies in Hydrail as an excuse to delay actually spending money on either traditional Electrification or Hydrail.
 
Both Germany and France have Catenary on all their major lines, and had that for long time.
And continue to erect catenary as a national project, both of them having permanently staffed divisions to do this, for new as well as upgraded extant catenary. It's one of the reasons that DB claims to do it for the cost per distance they do. It's done in house, or with assigned long term contractors who retain the machines and expertise to continue doing it on a continual basis. And Germany is able to do it for a fraction that the UK presently can (the UK used to be able to compete, but in a lot of areas of rail, are now hard-pressed to doing so. Witness the degree of competition for the required EU 'Open Acess' on UK rail being German, Dutch, French, Swedish and other nations' competition, some of it gov't owned, like DB)
I am not as familiar with UK's rail lines, but suspect that they too are well ahead of us.
It's low by EU standards, and an excellent example of political incompetence. UK passenger rail has the highest fare prices per distance of almost any UK nation, and yet some of the worst performance. The UK remains an excellent example of how not to run a rail system.

It's no mistake that they're looking for Hydrail to be their saviour.
13 JUNE 2018

ANALYSIS
Will the UK ever get electrification back on track?
By Joe Baker

SHARE
The National Audit Office has published the findings of its investigation into the Department for Transport’s decision to cancel three rail electrification projects due to high costs. The move was widely criticised at the time as a step backwards, when other major countries were rolling out national schemes. So what are the arguments for electrification and is the UK likely to see these projects back on the table anytime soon?

Faced with growing pressure to reduce carbon emissions, European countries are increasingly making moves to power their trains with electricity instead of diesel. In the UK, however, political machinations and broken promises have hampered progress. According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), the UK’s share of electrified railways comes in at a paltry 42%.

UK rail infrastructure operator Network Rail is still engaged in electrification projects across Britain, including lines in Glasgow, Manchester and London. It is also building and extending new lines with overhead line equipment for Crossrail and HS2, two of the most high-profile ongoing rail projects in the country.

Nevertheless, a critical U-turn in 2017 from the UK’s Department for Transport (DfT) has slashed confidence in electrification schemes. In July last year, the UK’s Transport Secretary Chris Grayling announced the cancellation of three major rail electrification projects in the North, the Midlands and Wales. The decision affected routes between Cardiff and Swansea, Kettering and Sheffield, and Windermere and Oxenholme.

To add insult to injury, a recent report from the National Audit Office (NAO) highlighted that steps had not been taken to assess whether diesel alternatives (such as bi-mode trains) would actually be more cost-efficient and beneficial for the railways in the long run.

With the current government increasingly enthused by technological developments in bi-mode, LNG and hydrogen-powered locomotives, the question of whether these electrification projects will ever re-surface is still mired in uncertainty. [...]
https://www.railway-technology.com/features/will-uk-ever-get-electrification-back-track/

National Audit office issues scathing report on Great Western electrification blaming the Department for Transport’s mismanagement
Published: 18th November 2016

Cost-overruns, delays and contract variations cost passengers and taxpayers £330million
Cost-overruns, delays and contract variations cost passengers and taxpayers £330million as electrification is cut short

The National Audit Office (NAO) has published a damming report on the Great Western (GW) railway electrification and says that the cost has risen by £2.1billion in three years to around £5.58 billion. The scheme has also been delayed between 18 months and three years from original timescales.

The report says that the Department for Transport (DfT) and Network Rail (NR) have begun to improve the programme management but have more to do to protect value for money in the future.
[...]
http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/201...sues-report-on-great-western-electrification/

From the equivocating Metrolinx Report on Hydrail: (Politically driven, the best the QP Overlords got from Metrolinx' public position was 'about even, but wait and see')(Their jobs were on the line unless they did as they were told. many stating "madness" on it, one board member actually stated it publicly)
Metrolinx board member described hydrogen train plan as 'madness'
Implementing a Hydrail System on the GO network will require major challenges to be overcome. These include:  The potential for the longer-than-planned development timescales for HFC-powered rail vehicles so that Metrolinx is unable to meet the target of 2025 for the commencement of RER services. Metrolinx has already started mitigate this risk through the process of developing both an HFC-powered locomotive and EMU. By commissioning rail vehicle manufacturers to prepare conceptual designs for both types of vehicles Metrolinx will be able to validate the principles of how an HFC-powered rail vehicle will perform. Beyond this concept design work, the risks of time over-runs during design, build, and testing of rail vehicles would be managed by an appointed rail vehicle manufacturer. Based on the experience of Alstom, which took 3 years to develop and bring into testing their Coradia iLint HFC-powered EMU, it seems feasible to expect a rail vehicle manufacture to complete the development and build of HFC-powered trains in the time available to commence RER services in 2025. Furthermore, Metrolinx would expect to procure an HFC-powered rail vehicle fleet on the basis that the supplier will be responsible for any risks to achieving the specified RER reliability and availability targets.  HFC locomotives and EMUs of the type needed for RER do not yet exist; therefore, real-world experience relating to reliability is limited to the operation of light rail vehicles and buses. This means that even though the vehicles will go through an extensive development and testing process, there is still a risk that when they enter revenue service, they will experience unexpected issues with reliability that cause in-service failures and consequential impacts to customers.

This risk also applies to the hydrogen production, storage, refuelling, and dispensing facilities; and it is probable that the greatest risk relates to the integration of these systems. However, this risk can be mitigated by implementing and operating a small-scale prototype of the end-to-end system so that lessons can be learned about the system’s operation, performance, and reliability; and so these lessons can be fed back into the design, build, and operation of the full system.  Difficulties in gaining the public’s and Metrolinx passengers’ acceptance of the concept of the Hydrail System. There are many myths and misunderstandings about the safety of hydrogen, which, if not addressed, could lead to resistance to the implementation of a Hydrail System. These would need to be addressed through a comprehensive public communication strategy that provides a considered perspective on safety and the resulting environmental benefits of using hydrogen. The experience of the German government’s public communications strategy in relation to hydrogen indicates that if a similar approach is adopted by Metrolinx, the likelihood that this could become a major challenge would be reduced.  Achieving the approval of relevant safety regulators, including Transport Canada and TSSA, would be a key objective of developing the Hydrail System and bringing it into service. This challenge should not pose a significant risk as codes and standards already exist for all the components that will be used in the Hydrail System. An important consideration for Hydrail is in the regulations that would govern the overall safety management of the Hydrail vehicles in scenarios where there has been an accident or a component failure.It is expected that the safety risk in this situation would be acceptable because of several factors:  Safety in design would be a key objective during the Hydrail System design phase  Metrolinx will assemble a team of world leading experts in all aspects of hydrogen and railway safety to provide it, and the rail vehicle manufacturer, with necessary advice on design safety and regulation development.  Metrolinx will work closely with Transport Canada and TSSA through the design, build, and testing process to understand what rules and regulations need to be developed specifically to cover the Hydrail System. HYDRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT CPG-PGM-RPT-245 19 Revision B DATE: 02/02/2018 1.5 Opportuniti
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/news/an...G-PGM-RPT-245_HydrailFeasibilityReport_R1.pdf

Not exactly what some posters would have you think.
 
Last edited:
Testing a new technology is always a good idea, if done in good faith.

I guess many people are concerned that the successive provincial governments use studies in Hydrail as an excuse to delay actually spending money on either traditional Electrification or Hydrail.

For the Libs faults, I still believe there was some degree of truth in Del Duca's comment that they wanted to use Ontario's ingenuity to showcase our own Hydrail system. Personally think there's room for homegrown outside the box thinking, along the lines of UTDC. And in retrospect would much rather that attempt than obscurity and "open for business" weirdness we have now.

Also maybe it got lost in the headlines and bylines, but perhaps it was never for "RER" rather a small-scale system on a new line. Say, Seaton/north Durham, or Cambridge, or Bolton. A handful of two-car trains per day, which could maybe be lumped into RER but not under the actual RER rollout.
 
Also maybe it got lost in the headlines and bylines, but perhaps it was never for "RER" rather a small-scale system on a new line. Say, Seaton/north Durham, or Cambridge, or Bolton. A handful of two-car trains per day, which could maybe be lumped into RER but not under the actual RER rollout.
Paid for and supported by whom?

Lost in all this discussion is that Metrolinx have already gone on record as stating they will try protos, and finance their development:
Metrolinx board member described hydrogen train plan as ‘madness’
By BEN SPURRTransportation Reporter
Sun., June 17, 2018
[...]
Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster also expressed reservations about hydrail, not about safety but about the wisdom of potentially pinning the success of RER on an unproven technology.

Weeks before Verster officially took office on Oct. 1, 2017, he received an update on the hydrail program from Metrolinx staff.

Afterward, he sent an email to two Metrolinx executives. “I sense that there may be a fundamental stumbling block — the application is untested in a train application, without a reference system and without the development kinks ironed out?” he wrote on Sept. 11, 2017.

“This is in itself a showstopper because we cannot risk the annual benefit from RER on a belief the train builder will resolve such issues on time.”

He noted that “train builders often struggle to deliver standard, existing technology trains.”

“I therefore cannot see how we can include this in the RER scope as it is simply not ready as an application and it is unproven,” he wrote.

In an interview with the Star last week, Verster said he wrote the email to express concern about potentially committing to hydrogen for the GO expansion.

Instead, Metrolinx has decided it will leave it up to the companies bidding on RER whether to propose hydrogen or stick with conventional electrification. Metrolinx plans to issue the request for proposals to design, build and operate RER in early 2019.

Verster said he supports this more cautious approach, and backs the hydrogen initiative as due diligence to ensure Metrolinx doesn’t miss out on potentially transformative technology.

“If there’s an opportunity for something, for this technology to prove feasible, it is worth considering,” he said.

Verster described the September 2017 email as consistent with his public statements on the issue. He told reporters last fall “we are not going to take risks and jeopardize (RER) with technology that isn’t fully proven.”

As part of its assessment, Metrolinx is planning to pay three manufacturers up to $1 million each to develop a concept for a hydrogen-powered locomotive and has contracted Alstom and Siemens at $1.5 million each to design self-propelled carriages. The companies are expected to complete the work this year.

Metrolinx will also pay Hydrogenics, a Mississauga-based company that is supplying hydrogen fuel cells for the trains Alstom plans to operate in Germany, up to $970,000 to provide “support” to the manufacturers.

Including the design work, feasibility study and a hydrail symposium Metrolinx hosted last fall, the entire assessment project is expected to cost at least $10.9 million.

The involvement of a GTA-based hydrogen company was central to Metrolinx’s plans, with the agency stating one of the goals of the project was to help position the province as “a global leader in hydrogen technology.”

In a speech at the hydrail symposium in November, Del Duca said hydrail was “a win for Ontario-based know-how. And that’s good news for our province’s economy.”

“This is about vision. This is about aspiration. This is about innovation,” he said.

Critics of the plan say it’s not Metrolinx’s responsibility to foster economic activity in the province.

RER would involve nearly quadrupling weekly GO trips by 2025, and electrification is a vital component of the plan. Electric trains can accelerate and decelerate faster than diesels, and are necessary to run the more frequent service.

Until Del Duca’s announcement last June, the province had planned to electrify large sections of the GO network using the traditional system of overhead wiring, called a catenary.

Metrolinx considers hydrail a form of electrification because hydrogen fuel is produced through electrolysis, a process that uses electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. An on-board hydrogen fuel cell powers the train, and the only exhaust is steam and condensed water.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...described-hydrogen-train-plan-as-madness.html
 
Last edited:
Paid for and supported by whom?

Lost in all this discussion is that Metrolinx have already gone on record as stating they will try protos, and finance their development:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...described-hydrogen-train-plan-as-madness.html

I read that article and had it back of mind when I posted. My issue is that the contrarian states if we do consider hydrogen-power then by default it *must* do the heavy lifting of '70 hydrogen locomotives and 84 sets of four hydrogen-powered carriages' in order to fit a mould of the RER mandate. As the article states. But it doesn't. If we want to present and study hydrogen-powered trains, no reason it can't be in a small-scale fashion. Why not 4 locomotives and 5 carriages...on a new line/branch. Certainly would make more sense that way, considering how untested such a system is. And that going small is usually how prototypes are presented. Did the Duce ever say Hydrail is going to be the backbone of RER? I don't think so, but it's an honest Q cuz I don't know.

As for the FOI on backroom Metrolinx-QP dealings. I dunno, I'm skeptical. They're too tied at the hip. Feel like these back-and-forths are effectively breadcrumbs for the public to see that Metrolinx stands on its own when they very clearly don't. I mean, where are the FOIs on numerous other Metrolinx-related matters? This is more my conspiracy though so not to be taken seriously.
 
Did the Duce ever say Hydrail is going to be the backbone of RER?
In as many words, absolutely. And that's the the whole point. Disparate skeptics like myself, @crs1026 and others are quite willing to allow Hydrail to make a case, but not as an excuse to avoid catenary. RER (Rapid Rail, whatever their latest favourite phrase is) almost by definition must be EMU to get the performance from thrust to weight ratio. The loco-hauled present DDs will most likely all remain diesel. We're not talking long distance catenary save for VIA's HFR if track is shared.

Some of us are preaching a mixed fleet including Hydrail...for *peripheral lines w/o a business case to justify catenary*. And that's exactly where Germany and France are using theirs! In neither case are they the national passenger rail carrier. Or a state/administrative region...but are for local prefects and departments. Ones not served by either national or regional systems!

The *probable* case of the UK (nothing has been signed despite the endless mindless PR being touted) is for northern lines not connected to the grid, and never likely to be. Presently they're DMUs, local branch lines.

Metrolinx RER is a lot more than just 'local branch lines'.
 
Last edited:
Testing a new technology is always a good idea, if done in good faith.

I guess many people are concerned that the successive provincial governments use studies in Hydrail as an excuse to delay actually spending money on either traditional Electrification or Hydrail.

This.

I am also jaded by too many instances where government uses a test or pilot to declare victory on a topic, when it is either at a not-ready-for-use stage (ITCS) or is deployed in an insufficient scope to meet service needs - it becomes a token rather than a mature solution. Government is seldom mature enough to use trials “in good faith”: the urge to boast overtakes the desire to innovate and learn. Lessons learned are not necessarily applied, and failures during the trial (which are to be expected, after all) are swept under the carpet as the test must be spun as a success.

I am not opposed to a properly structured trial of hydrogen, provided there is oversight and candour about how well it is performing and provided the users of that service are shielded from the glitches that may arise as the product evolves. Can’t have the customers standing at the platform wondering when the train will show up, even if the breakdown is leading to discoveries that advance the technology.

- Paul
 
I suggest you have a talk with God then...and be sure to produce the costs with your answer.

Here's a good reference to start with:
Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh
how_much_does_electricity_cost__large-copy-8.png

https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html

And as posted, linked and referenced prior, both Germany and France continue to electrify via catenary at a rate vastly more than the orphaned lines that are being evaluated for Hydrail use.
.

Retail electrical prices are not an indication as to what it costs to manufacture electricity nor what commercial or rail electrification will cost. Germany still produces 40% of their electricity via coal. But they are replacing nuclear with renewable energy AND they require a large payment by users for nuclear waste so their wholesale prices are high (18 cents). I'm not sure what the transit network pays for electricity but it won't be the retail rate. And maybe not even the wholesale rate...i wonder if anyone reads German and could go through the reports.
 
Retail electrical prices are not an indication as to what it costs to manufacture electricity nor what commercial or rail electrification will cost.
I already made that clear in the posts.
For clarity, the chart above is for *retail* consumer prices. Wholesale prices for Canada are cheaper still. India and China are outliers on the ranking for technical details I can't be bothered going into at this time, but be aware:
But either way, it's a moot point. How do you think Ontario's hydrogen is generated? Either of the two major ways, Hydrogen comes out the loser as per conversion efficiency of power. And the lower conversion efficiency means dirtier too...

And where do you think Germany gets Hydrogen? There's lots online, I just checked, but rather than get diverted from the topic, I'll post this:
[...]
Making the lightest element

The bulk of hydrogen is made today by steam reforming methane, but this has to be combined with carbon capture and storage – or better – utilisation, if it’s to be emissions free. However, the carbon dioxide emissions are still estimated to be 25–35% lower than with diesel. ‘It’s not the final picture, but a good intermediary,’ Pierre-Etienne Franc, vice-president of advanced business and technology at Air Liquide, told Chemistry World after the launch last year of a worldwide collaboration, the Hydrogen Council.

Hydrogen is also produced by electrolysing water, providing the pure hydrogen needed for fuel cells, but it’s less efficient and more costly than steam reforming. The Sustainable Gas Institute has estimated the cost of hydrogen production through electrolysis at 4–9p per kWh, compared to 2–5p per kWh for steam methane reformed natural gas with carbon capture and storage.

Scale-up will reduce that gap, and provide a means to harness excess renewable energy that would otherwise be wasted. Storing the hydrogen produced could buffer intermittent daily and seasonal electricity generation. Last year, for example, UK wind farm owners were paid a reported £100m to turn off turbines when there was more energy than the grid could cope with. The Hydrogen Council envisages that by 2030, 230–250TWh of surplus solar and wind energy could be converted to hydrogen. It suggests hydrogen could provide almost a fifth of total energy consumed by 2050, and cut carbon emissions by about six billion tonnes compared to today. Moreover, it will tackle the air pollution that is the scourge of so many industrialised nations.

Other technologies are being explored. The Hazer Group, spun out of the University of Western Australia, has developed an iron ore catalyst to convert natural gas into hydrogen. A major advantage of the process is that the carbon is captured as synthetic graphite to be used in lithium-ion batteries. Last year, the company produced the first hydrogen and graphite from a pre-pilot plant, and is working to optimise conditions to run the process continuously.

Using the sun’s energy to split water is another major research topic, and the hunt has been on for suitable electrode materials since it was first demonstrated by Japanese scientists over 40 years ago. Scientists at Exeter University in the UK think they might have developed it: a photo-electrode, made from nanoparticles of lanthanum, iron and oxygen, that liberates hydrogen from water.1 Elsewhere, an EU funded project has developed reactor for solar thermo-chemical hydrogen production at the Hydrosol plant in southern Spain. It can now produce 750kW of power (enough to power around 200 households), and has produced hydrogen in kilogram quantities. The researchers anticipate the technology will be feasible at scale in around ten years.

Systems rethink

Can renewables produce enough green hydrogen to meet our needs, and might hydrogen boost commitment to renewables? Clipsham believes so: ‘The Orkneys are awash with hydrogen.’ Its existing cluster of tidal, wind and wave power has a capacity of over 5MW of power – but the potential for some 5GW. That’s more than the output of the Drax power station in Yorkshire. But Orkney can’t add any more capacity to the UK grid without expensive new subsea cables.
[...]
ITM power, based in Sheffield in the UK, is upgrading five existing hydrogen refueling stations, and will add another four with £4.3m from the Department of Transport. The government also wants to see hydrogen trains running on the network, as part of a commitment to remove diesel rolling stock by 2040. As a first step, French train maker Alstom – which is trialling hydrogen trains in Germany – is to add hydrogen fuel tanks and fuel cells to some existing electric trains. Hydrogen fuel cell buses are being deployed across Europe, and Scotland is an early adopter. The project hopes to drive commercialisation so the buses are economically viable without subsidy, thus encouraging governments to regulate for zero emissions public transport.
[...]
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen-still-the-fuel-of-the-future/3009235.article

All splendid research, theory, and maybe could be.

We need catenary, and we need it now. And we have the electricity already extant to deliver it in the most efficient form: As Is. The only conversion question is a technical xmssn one: AC or DC long distance xmssn? In the event, AC transmission xfrmr stations are adjacent to many lines at crucial points, so rather than complicate what already exists, I'd say leave it AC. For future supply, or tapping Quebec which is planned, UHV DC might be the better option.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely right, Toronto does need catenary right now but the problem is that is not going to happen. The deadline for catenary electrification is 2025 and it will not be met. Lets be serious, after years of debate, meetings, and studies Metrolinx hasn't even figured out what level of platforms they will little alone if RER will be single or double decker trains and God know fare integration is a write-off. Remember when the UPX was suppose to be electrified by 2017? Now of course that is the generic answer of 2025. Get some Hydrail trains ASAP and if they are not a good fit then fine as the very worse thing that can happen is that they provide service with a Toronto first...……..running near silent and zero emissions trains.
 

Back
Top