Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[dowlingm]

The carbon concern about Hydrogen in Ontario isn’t power requirement from coal - this is assumed to be off peak nuclear - but Enbridge sniffing around at that Hydrail conference. The suspicion is that once hydrogen goes past concept, the source will switch to steam reforming of methane, which is where the overwhelming majority proportion of world production comes from

 

[steveintoronto]

The suspicion is that once hydrogen goes past concept, the source will switch to steam reforming of methane, which is where the overwhelming majority proportion of world production comes from

An excellent point. Everyone assumes even electrolysis to be a straight-forward clean process. Far from it. It produces some nasty toxins even when using pure electrodes and distilled water (two expensive requirements alone).

How expensive is it?

[...]
And it is the most abundant chemical element in the universe, so you’d think we’d have all we need. Sadly, it’s not that easy.

It is expensive, in both money and energy, to pry hydrogen loose from other elements, store it, and convert it back to useful energy. The value we get out of it has never quite justified what we invest in producing it. It is one of those technologies that seems perpetually on the verge of a breakthrough, but never quite there.

Seattle native Evan Johnson thinks he can change that. He thinks he’s finally figured out how to unlock a hydrogen economy.

Johnson is far from the first or only person with that goal. But after 10 years of tinkering, testing, and preparation, he has worked out a series of technologies and a practical business plan that chart a path to real commercial scale for hydrogen.

And though HyTech Power, where Johnson serves as CTO, obviously seeks financial success, Johnson sees its products as something more: a way to use hydrogen to immediately reduce pollution while scaling up and driving down costs enough to enable more fundamental changes to the energy system. [...]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...drogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage

All very interesting, but indicative of how "Hydrogen" as a viable fuel alone still has a long way to go.

And this just repeats the mantra of 'easy answers': (cont'd from above)

That’s a potentially enormous market with plenty of existing demand, which HyTech hopes will capitalize its second product, a retrofit that will transform any internal combustion vehicle into a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) by enabling it to run on pure hydrogen. That will primarily be targeted at large fleets.

Bit of a massive problem there...and I get so tired of this mantra...

Unless you're using pure Oxygen as the oxidant, then you have emissions beyond pure water. All the gases in the air will produce their own form of oxide emissions. Most of them nasty. Some nastier than others.

 

[rbt]

The carbon concern about Hydrogen in Ontario isn’t power requirement from coal - this is assumed to be off peak nuclear - but Enbridge sniffing around at that Hydrail conference. The suspicion is that once hydrogen goes past concept, the source will switch to steam reforming of methane, which is where the overwhelming majority proportion of world production comes from

Enbridge is likely Ontario's most experienced company handling piping & storage of volatile substances too. There's a good reason for them to be paying close attention to tenders in that area even if the natural gas never enters the equation; doubly-so if they believe natural gas may go out of style over the next 30 years.

 

[steveintoronto]

Enbridge is likely Ontario's most experienced company handling piping & storage of volatile substances too. There's a good reason for them to be paying close attention to tenders in that area even if the natural gas never enters the equation; doubly-so if they believe natural gas may go out of style over the next 30 years.

What do your propose? Reformers at train depots? Or pipes carrying H from reformation farms to their intended destination?
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming

How's running this any simpler than just running catenary and supply, let alone the vastly lower source impedance of amply supplied cat?

Addendum: Digging further on Enbridge's angle, there's an interesting story:

Is large-scale energy storage a pipe dream? | The Star

https://www.thestar.com › Star Business Journal › Technology
May 4, 2012 - Enbridge Inc., the oil and gas pipeline giant, made a curious investment two weeks ago in an Ontario company that makes hydrogen fuel cells.

North America’s first major hydrogen-based energy storage facility now open
JWN staff |
July 17, 2018, 7:03 a.m.

Enbridge Gas Distribution and Hydrogenics Corporation announced on Monday that they have opened the first major energy storage facility using hydrogen in North America is now operational.

Energy storage projects are already deployed in Asia and Europe, but this is the first large-scale project in North America. It is expected to reduce energy costs for Ontario consumers.

The facility features technology developed and manufactured in Mississauga, Ontario by Hydrogenics and represents one of several projects selected by the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario for energy storage to deliver power grid stability and reliability services.

In the future, this technology could help reduce or defer the need for new energy infrastructure such as generation plants, poles and wires, Enbridge said.


The hydrogen produced could also be used for a number of purposes such as fueling cars and trains, and/or it can be blended into the natural gas system to offset traditional natural gas.

“Once this low carbon gas is injected in the pipeline it can serve multiple energy markets including building heating, heavy duty transportation fuels, and dispatchable power generation,” Enbridge said in a statement.

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2...rogen-based-energy-storage-facility-now-open/

I have trepidations...will dig further. This may seem abstract to the UPX string, but it will mostly likely be the test-bed for experimental propulsion, not least since it's all on Metrolinx rail.

 

[ssiguy2]

RER/UPX will have to be hydrogen or catenary as battery powered trains such as made by Bombardier are a non-starter. The battery trains make perfect sense in Europe when they charge by catenary and then run on the electricity for the further out non-electrified route. Canada has only one electric commuter train in Montreal so for the system to work at least 20km in each direction of Union would have to be electrified any way. At that point you might as well just electrify the whole damn system and be done with it.

Ford knows he would face hell from his 905 and suburban 416 MPs if he cancels RER so I don't think he will. What he will be doing however is trying to save money on the system and Hydrail does that by saving $2 billion on electrification and it could, at least partially, be up and running BEFORE the next election.

I think Ford will go Hydrail for the above reasons and to put his own stamp on RER as opposed to finishing a project that was conceived, planned, and built by Wynne and the Liberals. RER is going ahead for political reasons and because there is no way QP is going to refuse all that juicy transit infrastructure funding and I really believe he will choose hydrogen.

 

[ErieHall]

Are Hydrail trains faster than diesel? Because I feel like the main goal of this whole exercise is really to make the trains faster, while decarbonization is just a nice side benefit.

 

[rbt]

Are Hydrail trains faster than diesel?

That depends entirely on how fast Metrolinx requests them to be (they usually choose energy efficiency over performance) and whether it's a single engine (4 drive wheels per train) or a multi-unit (4 drive wheels per car).

Acceleration of GO trains is largely slow because it's a single engine hauling 12 cars of dead weight.

UPX seems to be slow because fuel efficiency is more important than trip performance.

 

[steveintoronto]

Are Hydrail trains faster than diesel? Because I feel like the main goal of this whole exercise is really to make the trains faster, while decarbonization is just a nice side benefit.

Bear in mind that the *on demand* performance of a hydrail vehicle will not be the fuel cell itself, but the source impedance and capacity of the battery the cell recharges. Which brings us back to battery powered vehicles.

Given sufficient battery capacity (vs the weight penalty, which is improving but still substantial) source impedance can be low. That translates to high torque (motors permitting) given the battery pack's and component current supply ability and discharge capacity over time. There's a reason that you're only seeing lighter vehicles hosting this at this time. (There are a few yard shunters hosting fuel cell and battery packs as energy source, but they're 'toys' for all intents and purposes).

Any serious rail transit system will still use catenary now, and will for the foreseeable future. As it stands and will for some time, fuel cell and/or battery vehicles have a purpose only at the extremities of a system where the cost to benefit of catenary isn't justified.

Ontario has one viable choice for electrifying the GO system: Catenary @ 25kV and of very ample current supply (e.g: 'low source impedance'). Just like the nations that have/are develop/ed/ing fuel cell vehicles continue to do.

The fastest speed and accelerating trains are catenary supplied, by a long shot.

 

[robmausser]

That depends entirely on how fast Metrolinx requests them to be (they usually choose energy efficiency over performance) and whether it's a single engine (4 drive wheels per train) or a multi-unit (4 drive wheels per car).

Acceleration of GO trains is largely slow because it's a single engine hauling 12 cars of dead weight.

UPX seems to be slow because fuel efficiency is more important than trip performance.

While you can do things to tweak acceleration profiles, trains that carry their fuel source on board, whether diesel, hydrogen or batteries, will always be heavier and more complex than overhead powered trains.

Not just the fuel but the mechanics involved to convert that fuel into electricity.

You're carrying your power plant with you.

 

[rbt]

While you can do things to tweak acceleration profiles, trains that carry their fuel source on board, whether diesel, hydrogen or batteries, will always be heavier and more complex than overhead powered trains.

Yeah, efficiency leans heavily towards electric.

Acceleration is primarily based on the specs you give the vendor. They scale up/down engine components to fit the operating specs required; and if you lean toward fuel efficiency it'll be less responsive.

If you want an FRA train that can go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds, be prepared to receive something that burns $100k in fuel per stop and has a pair of jet engines strapped to the top of each car.

 

[robmausser]

Yeah, efficiency leans heavily towards electric.

Acceleration is primarily based on the specs you give the vendor. If you want a train that can go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds, be prepared to receive something that burns $100k in fuel per stop and has a pair of jet engines strapped to the top of each car.

You got it

 

[gweed123]

Bear in mind that the *on demand* performance of a hydrail vehicle will not be the fuel cell itself, but the source impedance and capacity of the battery the cell recharges. Which brings us back to battery powered vehicles.

Given sufficient battery capacity (vs the weight penalty, which is improving but still substantial) source impedance can be low. That translates to high torque (motors permitting) given the battery pack's and component current supply ability and discharge capacity over time. There's a reason that you're only seeing lighter vehicles hosting this at this time. (There are a few yard shunters hosting fuel cell and battery packs as energy source, but they're 'toys' for all intents and purposes).

Any serious rail transit system will still use catenary now, and will for the foreseeable future. As it stands and will for some time, fuel cell and/or battery vehicles have a purpose only at the extremities of a system where the cost to benefit of catenary isn't justified.

Ontario has one viable choice for electrifying the GO system: Catenary @ 25kV and of very ample current supply (e.g: 'low source impedance'). Just like the nations that have/are develop/ed/ing fuel cell vehicles continue to do.

The fastest speed and accelerating trains are catenary supplied, by a long shot.

Random question, and to admit this isn't exactly my area of expertise, but is there any possibility for a semi-electrified system? What I'm thinking is the track area in and immediately surrounding stations is electrified by overhead wires, but between stations the trains run on battery power. While dwelling at the EOL the batteries get a slight recharge, and the wires are also used for the heavy amount of power drawn for acceleration (so electrifying the first 200-300m on either side of the station).

This would save the expense of electrifying large swaths of track, and would also not entirely cripple the system in the event of a power failure. I know this type of technology is used in some LRT/streetcar applications, but has it ever been implemented or pursued for RER?

 

[crs1026]

You got it

Music to the ears of the people who want something done with all the retired RDC's that are lying around ;-)

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Random question, and to admit this isn't exactly my area of expertise, but is there any possibility for a semi-electrified system? What I'm thinking is the track area in and immediately surrounding stations is electrified by overhead wires, but between stations the trains run on battery power. While dwelling at the EOL the batteries get a slight recharge, and the wires are also used for the heavy amount of power drawn for acceleration (so electrifying the first 200-300m on either side of the station).

This would save the expense of electrifying large swaths of track, and would also not entirely cripple the system in the event of a power failure. I know this type of technology is used in some LRT/streetcar applications, but has it ever been implemented or pursued for RER?

It's theoretically possible, but it's actually not that much more attractive, because every powered segment needs its own power supply and connection to the grid. Or, it needs wires strung the full length of the route anyways, to feed all those strung sections. The sections needing braking/acceleration support include each and every block signal, not just the station approaches. Might as well electrify everywhere and allow the catenary to be the feed system. Plus, the benefits of regeneration can be spread out over the route, not just applied to recharging the train doing the braking.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Yes, it's an interesting idea and yes there is such a system. A swiss company Ferrer & Frey has developed one which is already in use on some European bus systems. I am unsure if it has been applied to trains yet but it is also geared towards battery-powered regional trains such as Bombardier's.

The system is called RailBaar and it recharges the batteries at station stops greatly prolonging how far the battery trains can be deployed. The bars are attractive and means not having to electrify the entire system and have to tolerate the ugly wires. By being stationary the lack of wires require far less upkeep and are not at the whim of storms that could knock out a wire line.

Google 'railengineering RailBaar' under both images and info to get a better idea of how the system works and images. This is the ONLY instance of where battery trains such as Bombardier's would be able to deployed for RER so it's definitely a potential alternative.