News   Jul 15, 2024
 35     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 497     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 599     1 

GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

And hydrogen isn't all that clean unless you use electrolysis (with power from carbon neutral sources) [...]

AoD
And even then, *highly toxic by-products are produced from the process*! Must run, but will itemize later. The electrode composition is a huge part of how toxic it can be, but any of the anode/cathode materials have a consequence.

Edit to Add: Quick one:
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

“More energy is needed to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds than can ever be recovered from its use,” Bossel explains to PhysOrg.com. “Therefore, making the new chemical energy carrier form natural gas would not make sense, as it would increase the gas consumption and the emission of CO2. Instead, the dwindling fossil fuel reserves must be replaced by energy from renewable sources.”

While scientists from around the world have been piecing together the technology, Bossel has taken a broader look at how realistic the use of hydrogen for carrying energy would be. His overall energy analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses inevitably resulting from the laws of physics mean that a hydrogen economy will never make sense.

“The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today,” says Bossel.

“There is a lot of money in the field now,” he continues. “I think that it was a mistake to start with a ‘Presidential Initiative’ rather with a thorough analysis like this one. Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratories—otherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.”

Even though many scientists, including Bossel, predict that the technology to establish a hydrogen economy is within reach, its implementation will never make economic sense, Bossel argues.

“In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with ("green") electricity from the grid,” he says. “For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem."

A wasteful process
[...continues at length...]
Citation: Bossel, Ulf. “Does a Hydrogen Economy Make Sense?” Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 94, No. 10, October 2006.

By Lisa Zyga, Copyright 2006 Physorg.com

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html#jCp
 
Last edited:
Since we're the largest uranium producer in the modern world, with the third largest reserves, perhaps Metrolinx could consider nuclear-powered trains. Roving power plants may even be able to backfeed into the power grid benefiting all.

I think this is just begging for a Snowpiercer parody starring Minister Del Duca. At least the coffee would be hot - atomic hot.

AoD
 
My Christmas wish: someone reveals some dirt on this Minister that gives a sound reason to remove him from the post.

On another note:

I've been thinking lately. Would a hydrogen fuelled locomotive be considered under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act? It is after all transporting a dangerous fuel across heavy rail intwinned with freight trains.

Then there's the question of Transport Canada/FRA compliance which probably make the feesability of hydrogen a non-starter.

Exactly.
- there are no engineering standards specifying how Hydrogen fuelling stations should be configured and what safeguards they require - there will be lots of fuelling needed for the GO fleet
- there are no building code provisions for stations - imagine what might have to be done to the Union Station trainsheds to permit Hydrogen powered trains to be parked under the trainshed
- the crash resistance standards and emergency egress standards for passenger railcars with a hydrogen fuel supply have not been established
- the issue of hydrogen trains passing, or parking next to dangerous goods on freight trains, has to be addressed
- do hydrogen trains need intrinsically safe environments and what does this imply - in the same vein as you aren't supposed to smoke in a gas station - can they operate around electric trains (which tend to flash now and then)? There are places where even the two way radios have to be made spark-free, because of the risk of dust explosions etc.

All this is doable - with time. We need wires, now.

- Paul
 
I would love to have 70 nuclear reactors running around the region. The when someone hacks the systems, we can have 70 nuclear meltdowns with GREAT COVERAGE.

I don’t see this happening as it’s even less likely than Hydrogen. Standard electrification with catenary should be the way to go.

I'm talking clean nuclear, really clean. One hundred percent. We're sending our nuclear to China, do you think they clean it? We'll take it out, put in trains, and clean it beautifully.
 
Since we're the largest uranium producer in the modern world, with the third largest reserves, perhaps Metrolinx could consider nuclear-powered trains. Roving power plants may even be able to backfeed into the power grid benefiting all.

Don't let del Duca know about this. We might get electrification delayed by another 5 years after they finish studying hydrogen.
 
Don't let del Duca know about this. We might get electrification delayed by another 5 years after they finish studying hydrogen.

It'll be interesting to see if the opposition bothers to comment on the hydrogen situation. Or, maybe they don't want to tip their hand because there are a few neighbourhoods in a few ridings where they are fine with some folks being concerned with what the governing party is doing.
 
It'll be interesting to see if the opposition bothers to comment on the hydrogen situation. Or, maybe they don't want to tip their hand because there are a few neighbourhoods in a few ridings where they are fine with some folks being concerned with what the governing party is doing.

Maybe they will keep quiet until the Libs have wasted a couple billion on it so they can have another eHealth scandal to go the polls with one election cycle from now.
 
Maybe they will keep quiet until the Libs have wasted a couple billion on it so they can have another eHealth scandal to go the polls with one election cycle from now.

You believe electrification is a waste or the governing party will make mistakes that will result in waste for the electrification project?
 
I would love to have 70 nuclear reactors running around the region. The when someone hacks the systems, we can have 70 nuclear meltdowns with GREAT COVERAGE.
There's probably good reasons not to do this (for one, you'd need a grid to feed into, or what else do you do with the power, when the train comes to a stop? So you might as well just electrify, and put the nukes on land).

But hack and meltdown? Given the number of reactors we had on university campuses without incident, that seems unlikely.
 

Back
Top