Sciencesciencehydrogenh2cleangreenpowerenergyrenewablestoragetrainfuel

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 06:01 PM

UK Telegraph: Hydrogen fuel cell trains to run on British railways from 2022



UK Telegraph | Ed Wiseman | 7 January 2019

Hydrogen-powered trains could run on British railways as early as 2022, as plans to introduce fuel cell technology to the network gather pace.

French rail multinational Alstom and UK rolling stock operating company (ROSCO) Eversholt Rail Group have today unveiled the design for a new hydrogen fuel cell train for the UK market. Based on the tried-and-tested British Rail Class 321, the fuel cell trains – nicknamed ‘Breeze’ – will bring zero-emission hydrogen tech to parts of the UK that still run on diesel.

“Hydrogen train technology is an exciting innovation which has the potential to transform our railway, making journeys cleaner and greener by cutting CO2 emissions even further. We are working with industry to establish how hydrogen trains can play an important part in the future, delivering better services on rural and inter-urban routes,” said Andrew Jones MP, UK Rail Minister.

By converting the electrical multiple units (EMUs) to what Alstom describes as a hydrogen multiple unit (HMU), the Paris based firm will combine the efficiency and practicality of the existing rolling stock with the versatility and environmental benefits of hydrogen fuel cells....more: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/hydrogen-fuel-cell-trains-run-british-railways-2022/

All aboard the Hydrogen Revolution!



It's only the first week of 2019 and already huge Hydrogen news- 2019 - the year of Hydrogen. It's the Next Big Thing™ - and you read it here first.

34 replies, 404 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply UK Telegraph: Hydrogen fuel cell trains to run on British railways from 2022 (Original post)
Aquila Jan 7 OP
MumblyPeg Jan 7 #1
oflguy Jan 8 #5
MumblyPeg Jan 7 #2
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #7
SatansSon666 Jan 8 #8
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #9
SatansSon666 Jan 8 #11
oflguy Jan 8 #31
Charlie Mike Jan 8 #27
SatansSon666 Jan 8 #29
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #12
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #13
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #14
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #15
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #17
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #18
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #19
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #20
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #21
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #22
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #23
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #24
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #25
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #26
SatansSon666 Jan 9 #32
GoodKraic Jan 7 #3
Jack Burton Jan 7 #4
MumblyPeg Jan 8 #6
SatansSon666 Jan 8 #10
Cold Warrior Jan 8 #16
Charlie Mike Jan 8 #28
SatansSon666 Jan 8 #30
Charlie Mike Jan 9 #33
SatansSon666 Jan 9 #34

Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 06:22 PM

1. "It's the Next Big Thing" HAHAHAH!

The next big ass tax subsidy and energy rate increase, that is for sure.
wait til you figure out it takes more fossil fuel than ever and you get to throw away some of it too just to get the magic fairy atoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 09:26 AM

5. Always just around the corner..........

That has been the case for decades.......until they delve into reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 06:28 PM

2. I'll give you one shot to go straight an honest, granted, this won't have pretty picture of

"futuristic" blue vehicles with H-Y-D-R-O-G-E-N P-O-W-E-R-E-D on the side, but the ugly math is there.
You won't like it, and it appears you like to just bury your head in the sand and promote highly wasteful energy storage (usually at the cost of taxpayers).
But will you be honest with yourself?
Let's see if you'll read it and accept the brutal truth of science and energy conversion:

https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 12:54 PM

7. A 12 year old article? In a rapidly changing field?



How about a one year old article from the same site?

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hydrogen-fuel-future.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:17 PM

8. But but but conservation of energy...

Everyone is an master of thermodynamics when new technology they don't like starts rolling around.
The good old USA will miss out on this technology too.
All because some armchair chemists think they know more about hydrogen production and combustion than the actual chemists.

Yes we all know the math.
Keep your heads in the sand and get off my lawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:21 PM

9. Wonder what the Venn Diagram overlap is between

the Climate Deniers and the Renewable Energy Deniers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:26 PM

11. Lol.. probably pretty big.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 10:29 PM

31. Now there is an interesting term...........Renewable Energy Denier

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2019, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Is someone that installs Solar for money and has it on their house a Renewable Energy Denier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 08:42 PM

27. Not conservation, conversion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 09:42 PM

29. Law of conservation of energy is a fundamental law in physics.

The law states that energy can be converted into other forms.
If you say energy is converted into another form, like say chemical energy into heat and light through the combustion of hydrogen, the law of conservation of energy applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:28 PM

12. yes, math changes, doesn't it... "man of the world". HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:38 PM

13. The article has nothing to do with mathematics but rather the technologies of 12 years ago

vs. the technologies of today.

12 Years Ago:
“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.”
https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

Today:
“Roel van de Krol from the Institute for Solar Fuels in Berlin and Bruce Parkinson from the University of Wyoming share their views that the current production processes for hydrogen using photovoltaics and wind-powered electrolysis are likely to dominate for the next few decades. But, they suggest, the next logical step is to integrate light absorption and catalysis in 'direct' photoelectrolysis routes. This would offer several advantages, they argue - including lower densities and better heat management.”
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hydrogen-fuel-future.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:58 PM

14. conversion rates are not subject to expiration dates, Einstein.

Quit while you are ahead and go back to pretending to be our intellectual superior. The laughs are better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 02:05 PM

15. From your own article conversion rates are only one factor in determining the amount of energy

required to produce, store and distribute hydrogen. Even assuming the conversion rate cannot be improved, technology designed to improve the other processes.make your article hopelessly outdated. Got anything from 1996?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 02:22 PM

17. "technology" does not change the conversion rate, genius. man, really...

quit while you can. You look more foolish with every post.
No one said it can't be done cheaper in the future if done on massive scale, stop reading into shit and making assumptions. It's not a good look.
But what I AM saying is the conversion rates are what they are, and you will never change the fact that converting electricity to hydrogen storage (then back AGAIN in order to use in some cases) will NEVER make sense, it's wasteful and fucking stupid. Only an idiot thinks this is in some fantastic way some sort of "gain".
my GOD man... how dense does one have to be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 02:40 PM

18. ...how dense does one have to be?...

You tell me.

First you thought your 12 year old article was about “mathematics,” when it is simply about efficiencies of technologies used at different phases of the production and distribution processes. Even if one holds one of those factors constant (conversion rate), improving the efficiencies of the other factors can move and is moving the process into the realm of cost effectiveness.

If, for example, Yahweh magically reduced the cost of all those other factors to zero, would the conversion rate still invalidate (“NEVER make sense”) hydrogen fuels.

Your outdated article is truly irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 02:46 PM

19. Wow, you got me cornered, Last-Word Larry. You win.

So, how much of your fortunes are you willing to invest?
I would expect 100% since this is a sure thing.
good luck, Larry.

hahahaha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 02:52 PM

20. How much does the US provide to oil companies annually in subsidies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 02:58 PM

21. And what in sam hell does that have to do with the fact that hydrogen energy delivery is

not economically viable?
That's right. Nothing. And you're arguing just to get that tingle in your leg. You have no idea HOW to even argue this topic, Larry... which is quite evident looking at your "arguments", which amount to trying to change the subject multiple times and in every single reply.
Face it. you are wrong, and you look like a fool to anyone with a little bit of knowledge or background in this area.
So I'll be right here waiting to see those documents on your hydrogen investments, banking your man of the world fortunes on it since you are so knowledgeable on the subject and are completely knowledgeable regarding how it works. I'm just a fool, right?
hehehe

Have a nice day Larry... I'll be right here waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 03:03 PM

22. Simple. Because the true cost of oil production provides a metric against which

to measure the cost of production of hydrogen fuel. I really thought you could keep up better, Mumbles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 05:48 PM

23. why do you keep avoiding the subject?

First off, Eisenstein, hydrogen is not a fuel.
You should really back up and go do some reading before you keep going. If you do, I've got a pretty good feeling you won't be back... that is, unless you go read popular science.. hehehe.
It appears you don't even know how the hydrogen is used in this context. But hey, it's a "fuel", right?
hahah!
SMH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 05:56 PM

24. You're running away, Mumbles. I have directly addressed your 12 year old article

Conversion rate is just one factor in the process of producing and distributing hydrogen fuel. Why do you subscribe to 12 year old science and technology?

What’s your thoughts on Man made Climate Change? Oh wait, I know! Science deniers are consistent, you gotta give them that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 07:24 PM

25. ok, i can't argue with a mentality that thinks the molecular structure of hydrogen has changed

in 12 years.
good luck flubby, yer gonna need it when you tie your shoes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 07:28 PM

26. Flubby, Funky? You and your clubhouse gang?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #25)


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 07:16 PM

3. For 20 years these great renewable technologies

have been 3-5 years away from full commercialization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 07:19 PM

4. Is it cheap, practical, and reliable?

That is all I care about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 10:47 AM

6. if it were, I'd be the first one in line

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:24 PM

10. New technology isn't cheap.

Never is, never was.
Practical. Depends on what you mean.
Reliable, nobody knows what the future will hold, that's why it needs to be rolled out and then we can see how reliable this technology is.
So while the good old USA twiddle it's thumbs and Americans whine about "their tax money" and act like they know more than the people devolping these technologies, the facts will become known and we'll have missed the boat if it becomes a great way to store energy and use as a fuel.

I really don't give a shit about hydrogen. I've made enough of it in my 20 years as a chemist. I just laugh at people that read an article about how hydrogen is produced and how much energy it requires and they think that it's pointless to develop. Short-sighted idiocy has never advanced society. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 02:11 PM

16. The US has lagged in a number of technologies over the last few decades

Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2019, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

at least from a utilisation perspective. In the 90s, mobile phones were much more common in Europe. Over the last couple of months, I’ve been amazed that I cannot just tap my debit card for small purchases at most retail outlets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 08:50 PM

28. What a bizarre statement:

"Reliable, nobody knows what the future will hold, that's why it needs to be rolled out and then we can see how reliable this technology is."

Points to you if you were trying to be Pelosi-esque but your statement assumes the technology is reliable enough for working prototypes, let alone field trials.

You may as well argue we won't know if perpetual motion machines are viable until we build one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 09:51 PM

30. Well how can you tell something is reliable until you've tested it?

The chemistry works.
The chemistry will always work.
So does that mean it is reliable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:48 AM

33. Feasibility before reliability. If it cannot work it cannot be tested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 12:06 PM

34. It does work though.

He asked if it was reliable, not feasible.

The only way to test the reliability of something is to try it. You can assume something will be reliable but until it's put through its paces, it's just a guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencesciencehydrogenh2cleangreenpowerenergyrenewablestoragetrainfuel