According to IEEE Spectrum, Aug 2006, the following experiments on hydrogen fuel cell propulsion for rail transportation are underway:
Vehicle Projects is retrofitting a 109-metric-ton diesel-electric yard switcher with hydrogen fuel cell stacks rated at 1.2 megawatts.
Vehicle Projects has built and demonstrated a 3.6-metric-ton, 17 Kw mine locomotive. This engine replaced a battery powered locomotive.
’s Railway Technical Research Institute is planning a two car locomotive – one carrying electric motors, a transformer, and a battery charged by dynamic braking and the other holding fuel cells and hydrogen storage. A 120 kilometer per hour top speed is planned, with a range of 300 to 400 kilometers between hydrogen refills. A prototype is being tested.
We would have those types of projects in motion in the U.S.A., but our “leaders” waffle about what is possible, practical, and much needed. They always have a reason to not go forward with a product that was viable and well researched.
It is possible - but the most common approach in these projects is a battery for storage of brake generated electricity – then it is used for peaking power on the locomotive.
That’s just wonderful. Ever hear of the Hindenburg? I don’t want to be anywhere near an engine that could hit something at a grade crossing or in a yard that could rupture the Hydrogen tank. A Hydrogen explosion is about as bad as it gets.
Actually, it’s hydrogen PLUS oxygen that’s explosive. A tank of pure hydrogen is actually far less explosive than one of gasoline (although heavier fuels like diesel oil or kerosene-gel jet fuel are very difficult to ignite outside of an engine). I saw in a documentary where they blew up a pair of tanks, one containing hydrogen and one containing gasoline, and the H tank simply burst and leaked with minimal flame - guess what happened to the gasoline tank (it was cool, I’ll tell you that!). And hey, don’t forget all those tank cars of LP gas and chlorine in the train - those are way worse than any locomotive fuel in an accident, and they are transported safely every day in trains all over.
The problem with hydrogen is that it will take energy and water (or some other chemical) to produce, so even if you could harness free braking energy to create it, you would have to haul around the chemicals on the uphill climb. Hydrogen is more of an energy transporter than an energy producer - in other words, gasoline has energy locked into its chemical structure, ready to burn off, but hydrogen has to be created before it can be burned, and that hydrogen creation takes more energy than it will produce during burning. If the energy used to create hydrogen is free(ish), like hydroelectric or solar, then hydrogen is viable. If you are using gasoline cells to create the hydrogen, it’s always going to be cheaper to just burn the gasoline rather than use it for creating (and then burning) the hydrogen.
That would be a concern if they were planning on carrying their Hydrogen around in flammable sacs inside a flammable outer shell like the Hindenburg did.
That is very clever! Get on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno when Dennis Miller is on telling stale jokes from 1970. Dennis loves the Hindenburg bit. He hates the whole new energy storage solutions.
The Hindenburg had an Aluminum Skin that was highly flammable. The hydrogen did not burn. The hydrogen simply floated away when the skin burned off after a lighting strike.
Most Hydrogen tanks are big steel tanks. We already have big steel Sports Utility Vehicles and big steel Locomotives. A big steel tank would be relatively safe and the weight addition would not be much relative to the weight of the current vehicles on the road and rails.
You’d have to check with a skater. [swg] As for axle loading…
Thus reducing tractive effort?
When I was in USAF, one of my jobs involved weather balloons. We still had hydrogen generators which created the gas by cracking anhydrous ammonia in a retort. It took a fair amount of time and energy to make enough to fill up a weather balloon. I was told about people lighting off the balloons, which are latex. Big fireball, and it wasn’t the latex burning.
One of our experiments way back in high school chemistry involved creating hydrogen. When we used glass tubing to make a nozzle so we could flare the hydrogen off, the heat from the flame would always melt the glass and close the nozzle off. Hydrogen burns, and burns hot!
I don’t doubt that hydrogen can be used to somehow fuel locomotives, but I wonder if the expense and energy involved might not be better put to use via catenary…
Yes big steel tanks that never get ruptured now when trains crash. I didn’t know that until now. Yes hydrogen needs oxygen. Ever hear of air? Assuming it catchs fire immediately it will just burn off lazily but what if it escapes into the air and then ignites. Of Course since it is only hydrogen that would never happen. The risks far outweighs the rewards in my opinion.
Chad! It’s so nice to have someone else hit the fundamental problem with hydrogen fuel so squarely on the head for a change! It’s our old friend, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (sometimes quoted as “You can’t win”).
The advantage of hydrogen-fueled vehicles has nothing to do with overall energy consumption or efficiency. What it does do, however, is provide the possibility of creating a power source with less pollution – but only if the power source which is used to make the hydrogen is non-polluting. Unfortunately, most of the energy sources used or proposed for use in creating hydrogen are no less polluting than a modern diesel or gasoline powered engine, and a good many are a good deal more polluting. So there is no gain, except on the very local level.
As to the thing blowing up in an accident – in any viable plan for the use of hydrogen as a mobile energy source, the hydrogen will be stored in the form of hydrides, not as refrigerated high pressure gas. For a whole bunch of very good reasons. Hydrides do not pose the same safety issues at all.
Hindenburg’s frame (skeleton) was aluminium, but not the skin itself nor the gas bags, which were light fabric.
With regards to fuel cells and the volitility of hydrogene, wouldn’t just be safer and easier to build a stationary fuel cell and conect it to existing catanary or third rail?