GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[dowlingm]

Is there any chance, please, we can have this PROJECT thread split from general discussions about TECHNOLOGY. Whether Belgium is studying something or China is doing something in light rail is really not worth bumping this thread.

 

[MrGoose]

Whats more efficient?

Using Electricity to electrolyze water, transport hydrogen gas to the trains, which use hydrogen fuel cells (50% efficient)

Vs.

Directly using electricity to power Electric motors????

 

[rbt]

Whats more efficient?

Using Electricity to electrolyze water, transport hydrogen gas to the trains, which use hydrogen fuel cells (50% efficient)

Vs.

Directly using electricity to power Electric motors????

That's actually very difficult to answer for Ontario due to the green energy surplus we have overnight for ~8 months of the year which we basically dump at no charge on our neighbors. Price efficiency may well be #1. This becomes even more significant if we can pre-generate 1 weeks worth of Hydrogen and load up on weekends.

If we're doing storage of overnight surplus for peak periods, I'd strongly prefer a generic large scale Hydrostor deployment but they're still 10 years from doing anything in the multi-GWh range.

 

[MrGoose]

That's actually very difficult to answer for Ontario due to the green energy surplus we have overnight for ~8 months of the year which we basically dump at no charge on our neighbors. Price efficiency may well be #1. This becomes even more significant if we can pre-generate 1 weeks worth of Hydrogen and load up on weekends.

If we're doing storage of overnight surplus for peak periods, I'd strongly prefer a generic large scale Hydrostor deployment but they're still 10 years from doing anything in the multi-GWh range.

If that's the case, then just use that surplus electricity to generate hydrogen gas and burn that hydrogen gas at peak demand.

 

[rbt]

If that's the case, then just use that surplus electricity to generate hydrogen gas and burn that hydrogen gas at peak demand.

If they're going to make and store hydrogen, NOT spending $2+B to modify the railway for electrification seems beneficial.

The whole discussion is theoretical. Any firm doing risk evaluation on the project and wishing to avoid catenary in some sections will go to onboard battery banks; every firm considering an OnCorridor bid has experience with onboard batteries in some shape or form (regenerative braking, etc.). None have experience in Hydrogen production; Hydrogen isn't a practical option.

 

[Rainforest]

Just wanted to point out that the idea that Hydrogen is super green / made from water is largely something meant to greenwash the extraction methods. A large portion of Hydrogen is actually from Natural Gas.

That seawater electrolysis advance still may be useful for some future applications. For example, if you have a unpopulated subtropical ocean coast, with lots of free solar energy and unlimited supply of seawater, you might want to build a solar energy farm there, produce hydrogen, and then ship and sell it. The ability to use seawater directly, rather than distill the water first or import fresh water for your electrolysis, will simplify your logistics and bring the production cost of your hydrogen down.

But anyway, that's just one bit in a complex future process that will need many more bits to fit in place. Not something that changes the game immediately.

 

[ssiguy2]

If they're going to make and store hydrogen, NOT spending $2+B to modify the railway for electrification seems beneficial.

The whole discussion is theoretical. Any firm doing risk evaluation on the project and wishing to avoid catenary in some sections will go to onboard battery banks; every firm considering an OnCorridor bid has experience with onboard batteries in some shape or form (regenerative braking, etc.). None have experience in Hydrogen production; Hydrogen isn't a practical option.

I happen to agree, I don't think hydrogen is the best solution for RER. Battery trains are tried and true and have been running for decades so the risk isn't there. Hydrogen is also problematic if Union ever becomes just to busy to handle all the riders and a "downtown relief RER tunnel" is ever needed as hydrogen is not a safe technology underground just as diesel isn't Still, it is really amazing how fast hydrogen technology is being deployed when you consider there were no hydrogen rail service anywhere in the world 5 years ago. Battery is the best, most reliable, and efficient option for RER.

 

[salsa]

I happen to agree, I don't think hydrogen is the best solution for RER. Battery trains are tried and true and have been running for decades so the risk isn't there. Hydrogen is also problematic if Union ever becomes just to busy to handle all the riders and a "downtown relief RER tunnel" is ever needed as hydrogen is not a safe technology underground just as diesel isn't Still, it is really amazing how fast hydrogen technology is being deployed when you consider there were no hydrogen rail service anywhere in the world 5 years ago. Battery is the best, most reliable, and efficient option for RER.

"I agree that hydrogen is not the best option, but I'm gonna keep talking about it anyway."

 

[felix123]

I happen to agree, I don't think hydrogen is the best solution for RER. Battery trains are tried and true and have been running for decades so the risk isn't there. Hydrogen is also problematic if Union ever becomes just to busy to handle all the riders and a "downtown relief RER tunnel" is ever needed as hydrogen is not a safe technology underground just as diesel isn't Still, it is really amazing how fast hydrogen technology is being deployed when you consider there were no hydrogen rail service anywhere in the world 5 years ago. Battery is the best, most reliable, and efficient option for RER.

How is battery more efficient and reliable than catenary? Have you "run the numbers"?

 

[Rainforest]

How is battery more efficient and reliable than catenary?

Battery alone isn't. Battery is a natural add-on to catenary, that can allow electric trains get through tight sections where installing catenary is difficult, or to serve spurs with less frequent service where the cost of installing catenary isn't justified.

All major corridors need catenary.

 

[ssiguy2]

^^^^ Exactly. All battery trains need catenary recharging stations in order to maintain the battery distance and efficiency. Battery trains are 100% catenary trains with the only difference being the trains don't need as much km of overhead wires.

Instead of unsightly wires all over the damn place, the recharging can be done along the route at select station and now can even be contactless. This save a lot of infrastructure costs, time and disruption. They don't create an ugly environment and are more reliable and less expensive to maintain because recharging at stations {especially contactless} are not prone to damage by storms which is both expensive and can shut down a complete line.

Batteries are also more flexible. They can run on non-catenary lines where needed so expansion of the system can be done almost immediately with no new electrical infrastructure needed. They are hence also good for back-up trains. If a standard diesel GO commuter train breaks down at Burlington, then the passengers are stranded until another one comes along to take them to Hamilton/Niagara. A battery train can simply be used to pick-up those passengers and continue that route to Hamilton whereas standard catenary trains can't.

Battery powered catenary trains offer the flexibility, reliability, low initial infrastructure cost, and ease of deployment of diesel and simultaneously offers the acceleration, performance, and zero emissions of standard catenary.

 

[smallspy]

Battery trains are 100% catenary trains with the only difference being the trains don't need as much km of overhead wires.

No, they are not.

The amount of on-board infrastructure required to fit batteries onto any given piece of rolling stock is not inconsequential. Charging, leveling and monitoring circuits, invertors (multiple banks of them, in some cases), cooling and heating equipment - these are just some of the hardware required to support the installation of batteries on any electrically-powered railcar or locomotive.

Dan

 

[Streety McCarface]

No, they are not.

The amount of on-board infrastructure required to fit batteries onto any given piece of rolling stock is not inconsequential. Charging, leveling and monitoring circuits, invertors (multiple banks of them, in some cases), cooling and heating equipment - these are just some of the hardware required to support the installation of batteries on any electrically-powered railcar or locomotive.

Dan

Assuming that the line will be electrified with alternating current, wouldn't you also require multiple banks of rectifiers as well? Perhaps you could forgo the inverters and use DC motors, but that would probably increase complexity elsewhere (boost converter's perhaps?).

 

[smallspy]

Assuming that the line will be electrified with alternating current, wouldn't you also require multiple banks of rectifiers as well?

I suppose the actual component(s) required would be dependent on the electrical design of the particular car, but yes, there would be a need to convert the incoming AC to DC for the control systems and thus the batteries.

Perhaps you could forgo the inverters and use DC motors, but that would probably increase complexity elsewhere (boost converter's perhaps?).

Maybe not increase complexity per se, but counter-intuitively it would make the whole system less efficient. AC motors with variable frequency drives are far more efficient at converting electricity to rotary motion than DC motors, and conversely at converting rotary motion to electricity.

Dan

 

[ssiguy2]

Reecemartin…………..no, I never have said that hydrogen was the best option so please don't put words in my mouth.

I have ALWAYS stated that for electrification there are 3 viable options, hydrogen, catenary, and battery. My point has always been that Toronto should not go gung-ho into catenary simply because that was always done. My view has been that in order to ensure that Toronto gets the best service and the best use of taxpayer dollars requires Metrolink to make an informed decision based upon due diligence and not conjecture and that means studying all viable technologies.

If, after, studying all options Metrolinx finds that catenary is the best option then fine but Torontonians will know that their service and taxes are being based upon facts and not on misinformation or political bias. It has only been in the last 6 months that I personally have stated, after looking into the 3 potential technologies, that I believe battery is the best and most efficient option. I believe that we are moving into a hydrogen based economy but I did not allow my personal bias to effect my decision and Metrolinx shouldn't either.