Great Western Coffee Shop

If I was looking for a way to store excess green power (overnight wind turbine, etc) it would not be Hydrogen storage, but methane.

CO2 + H2O => CH4 + 02

As a bonus, we already have large storage systems for methane, so it would be very easy to do.

The trouble is at the other end, when you reverse that equation and produce our old friend CO₂. Producing hydrogen from wind power by splitting water is carbon neutral.

But if you do both ends then it is CO2 Neutral.  The bigger problem is if you get a leak Methane is 23 time more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2

Currently most of the hydrogen is produced by reforming methane

If I was looking for a way to store excess green power (overnight wind turbine, etc) it would not be Hydrogen storage, but methane.

CO2 + H2O => CH4 + 02

As a bonus, we already have large storage systems for methane, so it would be very easy to do.

Energy choice

The level of traffic is a key factor when comparing the cost of electrifying an existing railway with the cost of alternatives.

One can calculate or estimate the number of vehicle-km per kilometre of electrified track. Along with the electrification costs per track-km this number can be used to calculate the average costs per vehicle-km. This resulting number should be the critical factor in deciding between conventional electrification and the adoption of alternative traction.

Converting a railway for hydrogen trains will not require major investment in infrastructure, only in new rolling stock and the fuel supply. At present a hydrogen train would be considerably more expensive than its diesel powered equivalent, but this is certain to change over the next 10 to 15 years.

A recent study undertaken by the UK's Rail Safety & Standards Board estimated that if the general cost targets for fuel cell technology are reached by 2020, a hydrogen train would be only 5% to 15% more expensive than an ordinary DMU, and hydrogen power will be more cost effective than electrification on railways with low to medium traffic densities.

But the application of general cost estimates to specific applications such as trains is not entirely without problems.

Energy efficiency

With diesel traction, only around a third of the energy in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy. With electric traction, almost 90% of the energy from the grid can be transferred to the wheels. Of course the losses in the power station and during transmission need to be added, and when the electricity is produced by fossil fuels the overall efficiency 'from well to wheel' is not quite so impressive. But if the electricity comes from renewable sources the overall efficiency remains high.

Hydrogen fuel cells have a lower energy efficiency then conventional electrification, due to the conversion losses in hydrogen production (electrolysis has an 80% efficiency), hydrogen storage (90%), the fuel cell (45%) and electric motor (90%). But hydrogen fuel produced using renewable energy will still have an overall energy efficiency comparable to diesel traction at roughly 30%, and that is before we take into account the considerable gains that can be achieved through the use of regenerative braking.

Hydrogen for railway use can be produced by electrolysis of water, with the environmental benefits dependent on the method of electricity generation, which can include renewable sources such as wind turbines. Surplus industrial hydrogen is a shorter-term source of fuel, and both options are currently available at the project site.

Stick with the electricity. With more new build nuclear, and increased wind/solar, to generate it.

Is C Grayling, and obviously his DfT team, right? or should we still be installing overhead power system, upgrading tunnels, etc?

I recently heard Chris Grayling questioning the need for electrification for Cardiff-Swansea and London Midland line. Whilst initially fuming, firmly believing we should electrify the whole network over 20-30 years, he then commented on new technologies including battery trains and hydrogen power.

At this point, my firm belief in electrification evaporated, why should we spend billions of pounds when stopping services can be powered by battery, and log distance services can powered by hydrogen? Both offer clean power, electrical tractiona n and performance.

Is C Grayling, and obviously his DfT team, right? or should we still be installing overhead power system, upgrading tunnels, etc?

 Being an 'old southern man' I still favour the 3rd Rail option.

Less obtrusive, but not liked by trespasser's on the line.

Bear in mind that electrification per-se is not necessarily particularly expensive. The expensive bit is resignalling and sorting out the trackbed and civil engineering of a 150 year old, intensively used railway, that has been largely maintained on a "make-do-and-mend" basis since the outbreak of WW2. This is compounded by the fact that electrification is usually accompanied by a programme of capacity improvement with track and station improvements, often putting back capacity that was rationalised out in the BR-era, Filton Bank and Huyton & Roby re-quadrupling being a case in point. This has been compounded by an implementation of electrical safety rules that impose clearances much greater than is justified by physics and experience. Finally, where civil engineering is required, e.g. bridge replacements, the planning system, Network Rail and utilities often make bridge replacement more expensive than is strictly necessary.

Electric rolling stock is simpler, cheaper, lighter, does less damage to track, is faster to accelerate, quieter, does not pollute its immediate surroundings, is preferred by the traveling public. Everyone's a winner. OHLE is not particularly expensive to maintain once it has been installed, the Government is in a position to borrow cheaply on a long-term basis and be paid back over long time-frames. On that basis a long-term rolling programme of electrification seems like a very sensible idea.
 

There is no moment in time that gas or nuclear are not topping up renewables - as I write, the top-up amounts to 75% of the total electricity being used in the UK. Wind is chipping in 8%, and it's dark, so no solar. Most of the rest is provided by our interconnector with France, our off-shore nuclear plant.

He's just kicking the can down the road. The idea that spare energy from wind and solar can be used to produce hydrogen or charge batteries would be fine if there was any spare energy from wind and solar. There is no moment in time that gas or nuclear are not topping up renewables - as I write, the top-up amounts to 75% of the total electricity being used in the UK. Wind is chipping in 8%, and it's dark, so no solar. Most of the rest is provided by our interconnector with France, our off-shore nuclear plant.

Batteries would power slower local stoppers, but they are heavy, and need recharging, which demands significant power at the terminus unless you want to trickle charge overnight. Hydrogen isn't heavy, but the infrastructure to support the idea doesn't exist to a sufficient size to make anything other than a token contribution. Look what happened to the hydrogen powered ferry in Bristol as soon as the Green City circus left town.

Why use power to charge batteries and produce hydrogen when the power could be delivered to the train directly by OHLE? You lose the pollution from the cities and cut out the middle man, and the consequent energy losses, if you string up cables, and the technology is tried and tested.

What we really need is a transport minister who will grow a pair, and crack on with electrification. All this talk of batteries and hydrogen will simply mean, at the rate of adoption of new technology in railways outside London, that we will still be riding around on diesel trains 50 years from now - probably the same ones we are riding on today. The HSTs were supposed to be a stop-gap until electrification could be done. We should now continue electrification as a stop-gap measure until we have the next generation technology, whatever it may be. If we are going to have anything powered by battery, it would make sense to start with road vehicles.

...perhaps to a lesser degree, H power generation could be remote and do not necessarily need to be installed within individual vehicles

Electric rolling stock is simpler, cheaper, lighter, does less damage to track, is faster to accelerate, quieter, does not pollute its immediate surroundings, is preferred by the traveling public. Everyone's a winner.

Railway electrification is the long term answer; what is needs is a 20 - 30 year strategy with correct delivery and funding plan

Unfortunately as long as we have neoliberal governments who put the needs of capital first, then I doubt there will be any changes or longer term planning. Indeed the idea of planning to neoliberals who are obsessed with the free market is a dirty word. They are there to maximise profit for private capital - unless a proposal achieves that they are unlikely to be interested in it.

Leaving politics aside, it seems to me that electric power is the future ...

Liquid fuels by contrast ...

Once the wires are up and full of voles from Paddington to Chippenham, how much fuel will the bimodes be carrying for each trip? Just enough to cover the non-electrified sections, or is it simply a case of filling up the tanks to the brim and forgetting about them till they reach a minimum level?

Voles? I thought it was a volatile mix of shrews and....red squirrels...

I hope they will carry more than the minimum required as can you see the reaction if there are power issues with the overhead wires and the train could not run on to its destination because it did not have any fuel.

What were the dates of the first two? It's probably fair to say that there's been a more-or-less neoliberal consensus since 1979...

A description of Mrs Thatcher I hadn't heard before!

One cancellation was certainly on her watch. In the early 1980s, I recall an area manager saying that the then-planned electrification would definitely go ahead, "you mark my words!". If only I could find the piece, from the local news, on the interweb.

neo-liberal?

neo-liberal?

The line to Blackpool North closes for 4 months next week, as the electrification work is finished, and work to Kirkham and Wesham. Poulton-le-Fylde and Blackpool North stations is done. And I mean major work! Plus that semaphore signal will be gone.

Changes to train services: 11 November 2017 – 25 March 2018

As part of our Great North Rail Project, we’re improving rail journeys on the Blackpool to Preston line. We are temporarily closing the line to deliver quieter and more reliable journeys from 2018, alongside investment in better journeys right across the region.

11 November 2017 – 28 January 2018: Preston to Blackpool North and South closed.
29 January 2018 – 25 March 2018: Route to Blackpool South reopens – Preston to Blackpool North remains closed.

Once the wires are up and full of voles from Paddington to Chippenham, how much fuel will the bimodes be carrying for each trip? Just enough to cover the non-electrified sections, or is it simply a case of filling up the tanks to the brim and forgetting about them till they reach a minimum level?

According to Roger Ford, the motor-generator sets for the IET weight about eight tonnes. However, it's not clear what that includes, and it does sound rather high. The MTU engine itself - "dry" - is only two tonnes. As to fuel, Wikipedia is now saying* that all bimode trains will have the larger tanks, which are 1.55 m³ (1290 kg of fuel) instead of 1.35 m³ (1123 kg). The weight of the tanks would be on top of that; presumably one per engine. I imagine that that eight tonne figure includes everything including fuel tanks.

The big weight you add with 25 kV OHLE is the step-down transformer, with one or two per train. These have been getting lighter over the years, due to applied cleverness, but still come in at about 5-8 tonnes. To that you can add the pantograph itself and the switchgear plus associated gubbins. Hence the pan, transformer, etc. usually goes on a carriage with nothing else that's at all heavy, not even a traction motor, to keep within a common axle loading.

* Mind you, the same page also says that traction is 120 kW per axle, so gospel in ain't.

Sshh. Dirty word around here apparently.  :-X

put "neo-" in front of a word to make it seem scary.

This has caused me to recalibrate my understanding (not for the first time on this forum, which is one of the things I like about being here!). I thought that one of the big advantages of pure electric trains was their lighter weight, but if a motor-generator set weighs broadly the same as a step-down transformer then where is the weight saving?

This has caused me to recalibrate my understanding (not for the first time on this forum, which is one of the things I like about being here!). I thought that one of the big advantages of pure electric trains was their lighter weight, but if a motor-generator set weighs broadly the same as a step-down transformer then where is the weight saving?

. Without the wires they will be as under-performing, expensive and  high maintenance as other diesels, needing constant ecs trips to refuelling points.

Meet the Bio-Bee

Our distinctive new truck is collecting food waste and creating a buzz on the streets of Bristol.

The Bio-Bee is the UK’s first vehicle to both collect and run on commercial food waste and is operated from our base in Avonmouth.

With Bristol among 40 places in the UK that consistently exceeds air quality limits for nitrogen dioxide, the Bio-Bee demonstrates a real alternative to diesel RCVs and HGVs by running on clean biomethane.

It also offers a cost-effective and more sustainable way for food waste to be collected and recycled, and it follows in the footsteps of the Bio-Bus – or ‘poo bus’ – which ran on human waste and was trialled in Bristol in 2015.

Boston Tea Party and St Monica Trust care homes are among the first companies to use the service, and it is hoped the Bio-Bee will increase food waste recycling levels in the city.

Charlotte Stamper, project manager at GENeco, said: “We are delighted to be able to offer customers a UK first – collecting their food waste using a vehicle running from their food waste.

“This clean fuel helps to improve Bristol’s air quality and creates a sustainable circular economy for the client’s operations.

“Bees are renowned for the good work they do for the environment, and their daily routine involves collecting valuable natural resources and then bringing them back to a hive to make renewable and nutritious products.

“The Bio-Bee operates the same way. It runs on biomethane that has been produced by the anaerobic digestion of food waste and sewage from houses in Bristol, Bath and the surrounding area.

“In turn, its total carbon footprint is around 90% lower than a diesel equivalent and it is quieter than standard diesel models.

“The Bio-Bee is also intended to be fun and engage youngsters in the topics of food waste, recycling and air quality.”

Waste

Every year each person in the UK throws away enough food to power the Bio-Bee for 25 miles.

If Bristol recycled all the food waste generated by the city’s residents in a year the Bio-Bee could run every day until the year 3,000.

Food waste is collected in the Bio-Bee and brought back to GENeco’s anaerobic digestion plant in Bristol. The waste is depackaged – and plastic is removed – and is then used to produce sustainable electricity for homes and communities.

The remaining food waste undergoes a pasteurisation process before being fed into the anaerobic digesters, where micro-organisms break down the waste in the absence of oxygen and produce methane-rich biogas.

This biogas is either used to produce renewable electricity or it is converted in our gas-to-grid plant to enriched biomethane, which is injected into the gas grid. At this stage it can be used as fuel in the Bio-Bee and other vehicles or to supply local homes.

The solid by-product of the anaerobic digestion process is used as a nutrient-rich and sustainable biofertiliser for farms.

Jesse Scharf, Green Gas Certification Scheme manager at Renewable Energy Assurance, said: “GENeco is playing an important role in the growing UK biomethane industry by continuing to innovate and show that, with creative thinking, we can find solutions to the challenges we face around waste, energy, carbon and air quality.”

Shelley Wadey, finance director at Boston Tea Party, has been working with us on the Bio-Bee project from the start.

She said: “Although we have been recycling our food waste from our six Bristol cafes for three years through GENeco, this is another step forward to make things better by generating a sustainable circular economy.

“Through this partnership we hope to inspire other food operators to follow our lead, demonstrating it is possible to be greener and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.”

Further to hydrogen power...

....but the MTU mg set produces 700kW, perhaps 560kW at rail, whereas  the transformer and inverter will produce ten times that, roundly. A 9 car 802 probably has a mass of c400t, so the diesels probably add c10% to that. Power used at higher speeds is more related to turbulence than weight related rolling resistance, so I don't think that the engines will be noticed.

The IEP's will enjoy greater success the more OHLE that they use. Without the wires they will be as under-performing, expensive and  high maintenance as other diesels, needing constant ecs trips to refuelling points.

OTC

Couldn't be much further from hydrogen, could it? I mean, it's a gas, but so is Jumpin' Jack Flash...

I love the circular economy though. The older I get, the more I come to think that economics is just a system to add delays and accelerations to the routing of clean and dirty washing.

They mention feeding it into the gas mains, so in terms of combustion products, it's a long way from hydrogen (but still much better than diesel). But unlike CNG or LPG it hasn't been dug out of the ground, it's been made from stuff so surely that makes it in your terms "an energy store" rather than "a fuel". I've no idea how efficient that process is or how it compares to other uses, like fertiliser maybe, but seeing as we produce metric brown bin-fulls of waste food, it's got to be better than putting it in landfill. Of course it might be even better if we didn't throw it away but ate it...

Of course it might be even better if we didn't throw it away but ate it...

Whisper that when my wife's dog is around - he'd happily eat the contents of our brown bin, throw it up, and then eat it again. An object lesson in recycling, but to my mind somewhat... distasteful.

As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly. (Proverbs 26:11)