lenaitch
Senior Member
They already have. The Hydro One right-of-way running east-west north of Finch contains multiple pipelines operated by several carriers. There may be others.
|
|
|
GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
They already have. The Hydro One right-of-way running east-west north of Finch contains multiple pipelines operated by several carriers. There may be others.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I didn't know that but I was thinking more along the lines of long-range corridors like from Bruce to the GTA.
crs1026
Superstar
I guess it depends on whether we will see refinery-sized production plants, or smaller more distributed production.... while I don’t know much about the economics, it seems unlikely that one could build a pipeline for hydrogen for less transmission cost than the existing Hydro grid... so if there is to be distribution over long distances, sending the energy by wire and then converting to hydrogen close to the end user makes more sense to me. But I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
- Paul
- Paul
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
and fifty years from now we have a Sunrise propane/Lac Megantic situation at willowbrook and people will begin asking why we are carrying and storing this volatile gas through/in a big metropolitan area.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
What's the difference between that and doing what is done today carrying and storing volatile diesel & gas through a big metropolitan area?
lenaitch
Senior Member
Two different incidents, other than human error/corporate failure was a major contributor. Not an argument for or against hydrogen as a fuel source, one of the reasons volatile substances are being carried and stored through/in urban areas is that the urban area itself is a large consumer of them. To turn that logic around, it could be asked why the rural area of Kincardine/Saugeen carries the risk of the nuclear plant there when the major load centre is the GTHA.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Ummm...'volatility'?
steveintoronto
Superstar
A very non-linear comparison. You actually make the point to separate point of origin of energy source from the dense area of consumption due to its very volatile nature.
There is an argument that can be made for local *electrolysis* generation of H, but electrolysis is not only inefficient, and produces toxic metals, but you need more electrical energy supplied to the process than what it renders, by quite a large margin (30% more at least).
So why not just electrify the trains directly with a medium in between? Catenary is still best.
I've got some better references to link later, but for now:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a926/4199381/
dowlingm
Senior Member
There is a difference between raw Bakken crude (Lac Megantic) and refined diesel for vehicles, for sure.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Complex polycarbons compared to Hydrogen + Oxygen? Are we missing something here?
ssiguy2
Senior Member
London has just announced that they have put in an order for ne hydrogen double-decker buses, the first in the world. Very importantly they are going to be using Vancouver based Ballard Power for their technology. Gasworld has just released a study that estimates that in Europe 1 in 5 new trains will be hydrogen by 2030 as countries across Europe phase out diesel. UK has released a mock-up of the their new Breeze hydrogen trains which will begin service by 2022.
Of course those new rail lines and buses could have been electrified using catenary but again the infrastructure costs were simply too high and construction would take too long and be very disruptive. The world is moving to hydrogen and it would be a shame if Toronto didn't join it. Beside the fact that I think they make infinatly more sense, Canada is probably THE world leader in hydrogen technology and other countries are taking advantage of that and I'm worried that once again Canada will be where technology is created and the jobs and head offices move out of the country being bought out by foreign interests due to Canada's long standing habit of not backing it's own industries.
Of course those new rail lines and buses could have been electrified using catenary but again the infrastructure costs were simply too high and construction would take too long and be very disruptive. The world is moving to hydrogen and it would be a shame if Toronto didn't join it. Beside the fact that I think they make infinatly more sense, Canada is probably THE world leader in hydrogen technology and other countries are taking advantage of that and I'm worried that once again Canada will be where technology is created and the jobs and head offices move out of the country being bought out by foreign interests due to Canada's long standing habit of not backing it's own industries.
dowlingm
Senior Member
As I recall, TFL made a balls of the Borismasters so let's not get overexcited. After all, CNG was the brave new world once.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I think you're a bit behind the curve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emission_buses_in_London
But this isn't about buses, any more than it is about cars. It's about trains. And London/TfL certainly isn't going to be running passenger trains through tunnels with Hydrogen power, no matter how it's used.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Perhaps it was clumsy attempt to point out the holes often seen in some arguments. There are good arguments (sometimes including simple geography) for locating certain industries at a distance from population density but, to hear many, nothing that is risky, noisy, icky, ugly, smelly, anon - including the corresponding wires, roads, pipelines, etc. belongs in the City.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I think you are referring to these two articles:
New study shows good potential for hydrogen-powered train in Europe
Europe is again looking at options to replace its diesel-powered train fleet against the backdrop of climate change and the need for fast and consistent decarbonisation of the entire energy and transport system.
www.gasworld.com
UK to have hydrogen trains by 2022
Ambitious plans have been unveiled today by rail manufacturer Alstom which will see hydrogen (H2) trains rolled out across the UK as early as 2022.
www.gasworld.com
The first article states: "by 2030 one in five new trains in Europe could be powered by hydrogen". "Could" doesn't necessarily mean "will", it just means that the technology is viable. It could be less than one in five, if other viable technologies win out.
The second article states: "The railways need to decarbonise and the government has rightly set out a goal to eliminate diesel rolling stock by 2040." So, noone is talking about replacing the catenary electric trains with hydrogen trains. They will be phasing out the diesel trains, replacing them with ether catenary electric or hydrogen electric, whichever works better for a particular route.
So far, there is no evidence that the existence of viable hydrail technology is a good reason to reject catenary altogether. Catenary is likely still the best choice for the major, frequent routes, while hydrail can be used on secondary routes (as the per-km cost of catenary is nearly fixed, it is relatively expensive for infrequent lines).
Buses and cars is another kettle of fish: catenary is obviously not an option in most cases, thus hydrogen fuel cells compete against rechargeable batteries.