Great Western Coffee Shop

Was in a local Coffee shop this pm and happened to spy a couple of newspapers on another vacant table so I had a choice of either The Sub or The Times. Chose the Times and on the inside pages there was an article entitled, "Hydrogen powered trains could replace dirty diesels". I didn't read the article but did notice that reference was made to services from London to the West Country. Really, are these brand new shiny trains to be introduced on the route to the West Country 'dirty diesels'. Where on earth do these journalists dig up such dubious information from. Any members able to copy and past the article a link to this article although I think articles from The Times are behind a "pay-wall".

Behind a "Pay wall" but easy enough to find with your search engine of choice.

The story I was found on that topic was dated October 2017.

I changed the search term a bit and came up with this published today from https://www.gasworld.com/uk-could-be-on-track-for-hydrogen-trains-/2014053.article

...or, equally likely, trains could be towed by teams of trained squirrels.

Very silly idea IMO, not actually impossible of course but pointless.
Anything that hydrogen can do should be doable cheaper and better by overhead electrification for fast, busy, long distance routes, or by batteries for lower speeds over shorter distances.

There are only two viable technologies for the bulk manufacture of hydrogen, reformation of natural gas which involves considerable losses and expense, and is pointless if compared to natural gas powered trains.
Or by electrolysis of water which requires a great deal of electricity, that could be more effectively applied via batteries or by OHLE.

A cynic might suspect that they* are trying divert attention away from the failed electrification projects my talk of futuristic nonsense.

*they= department for transport, or network rail, or GWR, take your pick.

I assume you aren't volunteering.  ;D

I don't know exactly what the Times was referring to, unless it was picking up on that gasworld piece (perhaps plagiaristically). But I do know which document, published by the Department for Transport, detailed, “Addressing rising passenger demand on non-electrified routes is therefore likely to require additional trains, either through new-build or by applying innovative ‘bi-mode’ technologies to existing trains. Hydrogen-powered trains will shortly start operation in regular service in Germany and could also potentially be a solution., as quoted by gasworld today (16th).

It was the GW franchise consultation document! Yes, the one issued on 29th November 2017. It was in the lead-up to a general question (Q1) on franchise objectives that didn't refer to greenness. There was a related question, though it was much later on:

Usual media misdirection or exaggeration. 
1. Possible use on short branch lines that are part of the GW network.
2. The said GW network runs from London to Penzance.
3. Hydrogen powered trains might run from London to Penzance...

Paul

There is an article in January's Modern Railways re hydrogen powered trains. Alstom are building a prototype ILNK MU with fuel cells.

It mentions that it may not be possible to do within the British loading gauge as the fuel cells and hydrogen tanks need to be on the roof. Any bang goes up! So underfloor not suitable for  tanks and fuel cells.

Having seen not heard the fuel cell buses in London I wonder how they will tackle pedestrian foot crossings.

It also suggests that surplus electricity from wind farms at night could be used to produce the hydrogen.

This is a reasonable point. It could. In some niche applications H₂ makes sense.

As an example, Orkney produces surplus wind-generated electricity which can' t readily be transmitted to the mainland. Storing this energy in the form of hydrogen may work here because Orkney relies on ferries to get people around and these lend themselves to accommodating the kind of plant required to release the energy using fuel cells.

But on branch lines, where charging infrastructure is likely to be close at hand? Batteries win hands down.

There is no surplus wind power at night.
Last night, indicated wind power into the national grid reached a new record of over 10GW, this represented about one third of indicated demand.
A lot of natural gas  and some coal was still being burnt despite the new all time record for wind power, we were also importing electricity from France, so no question of a surplus.

And that remember was on a night of record wind power production, not a more typical night.

EDIT TO ADD the position may be different on offshore islands, with no grid connection to the mainland, or a connection of limited capacity, see previous post for details.
However nationally, there is no surplus of wind power, under present or reasonably foreseeable conditions.

Plenty on this forum however

I wonder how accurate the wind power figures are?

Most forms of power generation are not instantaneous, but planned. Whether it is purchase from France, Coal or Gas. Wind and Solar are instantaneous, with gearing allowing power generation of wind turbines, or idle rotation. Solar panels are also used on demand.

The wind power figures are an underestimate.
All large wind farms are metered in real time and this data is continually reported to the national grid, and quoted on the gridwatch website.
Smaller wind turbines are not metered in real time, the power produced shows only as a reduction in demand.
So the reported figures are an under estimate.
Solar is estimated, by Sheffield University, this is done by metering a small number of installations and extrapolating.
All other large scale generation is metered in real time and reported to a good degree of accuracy.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/)

I think I may have précised the piece too severely. It went on to say it would only be viable to produced hydrogen from electric from renewables.

I thought the bit about the hydrogen tanks being on the roof would be more controversial.

It did also say you would need an armoured floor if they were on the underframe.

Paul Baltrop reports...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-42782942/hydrogen-trains-could-bridge-gaps-in-electrification (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-42782942/hydrogen-trains-could-bridge-gaps-in-electrification)

In promoting this Grayling seems to be ignoring the high cost of producing hydrogen as well as the possible safety issues relating to a high pressure container of highly flammable gas.  Is he clutching at straws to justify his stance on electification?

It has to be a smokescreen. Surely even Grayling doesn't really think this makes sense? Or is he pandering to the traditional fuel distribution lobby who, as I understand it, like the idea of hydrogen as it would give them something to distribute. 

Interesting that he mentioned battery-electric trains, sort of under his breath and in passing...

Is he promoting anything? I don't think so, and I suspect he'd deny it too.

Most of the media comments are down to Minsterologists with hyperactive tea leaves and a politician spinning a decision made to save money. I've said before that only electrification with benefit many times its estimated cost is going to get a tick from him, as he does not trust NR's estimates. So, for example, a four-minute time saving to Swansea isn't enough, given that the same money could be spent on a bit of line speed improvement instead. In those statements he's announcing a departmental decision, and speaking for the likes of NR as well.

But as to promoting hydrogen - or any other solution for a particular line - I don't see that he is. His function is rather that his decisions are based on proposals from others (NR, but not only). He may even decide in terms of journeys made by people, not trains on specific lines. At the moment he is saying that the options considered for those proposals should not be just the familiar ones, and "I don't want to find that there is a cheaper option that no-one has even looked at" (said with as much menace as a Grayling can manage).

Hence hydrogen, as one one those options. But given that Alstom are only just starting their first operational trial (two units), with first production units due in 2021 to one brave (or or suitably compensated) German Land, when would any decision be made? Long after he's gone, even if he lasts longer than the usual two years.

Fair enough; maybe it's one of those irregular verbs:

I seek ways of justifying neoliberalism
You think you're going to get alternatively-powered trains
He/She/It hopes to gain a more fashionable ministerial post sooner rather than later
We see through the dissembling
You don't get the investment you need
They get booted out at the next election.

Or something.

I suspect that some of this ministerial talk of hydrogen is a delaying tactic to avoid actually doing anything now or in the near future.
Whenever there is a risk of actually having to do something, this may be postponed by proposing something else, preferably something not yet proven.

Electrification sounded a good idea but has degenerated into a vote loosing fiasco. So perhaps politicians could promote battery trains instead ? Well that was tried, but unfortunately battery technology has progressed to the extent that a battery train could be built right now with "off the shelf" components. Buy some battery trains ?
"oh no, we cant have that, better to move on to talk about hydrogen in years to come, rather than buying a small fleet of branch line battery trains right now".

Didn't we go through all this hype with the magical ERTMS moving block for the West Coast modernisation?

Yes, and another comparison would attempts to delay HS2 by looking at newer and more innovative technologies such as maglev or monorails, rather than getting on and starting to a build a conventional high speed line as being built elsewhere.

Back to hydrogen trains. interesting comment in a letter to Modern railways,

German trains will be used on lines without tunnels! Suggests roof mounted tanks could be a fire hazard ir they leaked in tunnels of which we have quite a lot.

So I am not allowed within 3.5m of a 25kV wire but I can travel in a carriage with 94kg of hydrogen at 350-700bar (atmospheres) above my head. This gas is notorious for leaking (it can diffuse through solids), ignites over limits of 4 - 75%, exploding between 18 - 60%. Even diesels (a relatively safe fuel that can quench a lighted match) are restricted in single line tunnels.

Catch a bus instead,

OTC

One of these?

(https://i.imgur.com/f0JjAHP.jpg)

 :P

I note many hi-viz on board.  Demo run perhaps?

You might have added that hydrogen leaking through small holes tends to self-ignite due to charge separation, and when burned it has a high volumetric energy content. But its gravimetric (specific) energy content is similar to other fuel gases, it's just much less dense. So when released, if not confined or ignited, it doesn't hang about but legs it for the stratosphere.

In my limited experience of hydrogen explosions (just the one, though big), it was the mechanical explosion that did the blast damage, with the initial hydrogen fire only secondary. Mind you, that tank was attached to a lot of chemical engineering, full of much more hydrogen and a wide range of hydrocarbons (also in the tank that blew up), and they did cause a BLEVE and a big fire.

But if you are worried about pressure vessels that might explode, there are not just hydrogen buses, but other gases (of various origins, some greener than others) in buses, cars, and (at least potentially) trains.  And ones that don't do transport, and could go bang without your even knowing they were there.

But doesn't a lot of that apply to steam engines too? Not just their well-attested historical habit of going pop, but the release of very hot steam in confined spaces too. I think you should at least keep clear of steam multiple units...

Ultimately, if you are going to insist on shifting large heavy things round then you will need to store or transmit decent amounts of energy to do it, and that is inherently dangerous. A Shire horse can easily kill a person if they get on the wrong side of it!

Didn't want to over-egg the case.

I could just wear LNG or LPG as these are relatively safer although a history graduate like Grayling should still read up on gas lighting in trains, (Quintinshill, Ais Gill and Hawes). A bus only needs to carry energy to move 10t for less than a daily 100miles, a rail vehicle needs energy for a large multiple of both. A steam loco has a low pressure (<20bar) fire tube boiler that experience and process have now tamed. A water tube boiler in a power station can run at 180bar, all you then need is some of ET's overhead cables....

Have a nice weekend.

OTC

Hydrogen though highly flammable is not that dangerous as has already been said.
Any leakage will normally escape and disperse upwards.
It is however a new risk, and I am not in favour of introducing new risks, unless this leads to an overall reduction in risk.

The greater risk is arguably the bursting of the large pressure vessel, with the almost inevitable ignition of the contents being secondary.

I also have misgivings about the hazards of producing and transporting the hydrogen.

It sounds to me as though this will be a splendid gravy train of studies, consultations, new safety rules, and ever growing safety requirements adding ever more cost and complexity.

IMHO, the near term future is diesel power for non electrified routes. Diesel/battery hybrids are a distinct possibility since this would permit of a smaller, cheaper and lighter diesel engine that is sized to meet the AVERAGE power demand, with peaks being supplied from a battery.
Adding extra motored battery coaches to an existing DMU sounds a worthwhile experiment. Consider for example a 4 car voyager to which an extra 2 battery vehicles have been added. The 4 existing engines would meet the average power demands with the battery being used for acceleration and ascending inclines. The battery would charge when coasting or stopped or proceeding slowly.

The longer term future is more electrification of longer distance, high speed, or busy routes, with battery power for secondary routes and branch lines.

Of course the reason for this observation (which is where we came into this bit of the thread) is much more prosaic. That the trains for this trial service won't go through tunnels tells us nothing about whether it's too dangerous, just that it needs some kind of safety authorisation. That calls for making a safety case, proposing suitable measures, getting it considered by the competent authority, and all that complicated and time-consuming stuff. So you obviously wouldn't do that for a trial, whatever the outcome's going to be - from 'impossible' down to 'OK as the trains a built and operated now'.

In my view, there should be a vauge high-level target for very extensive electrification of the network, where only long stretches of track with less than an hourly service remain unwired. For the remaining few lines, the hydrogen concept possibly has one or two advantages over battery power. The main one is that a 5yr old battery appears to hold alot less charge (or decharges faster when you use it) than a brand new one, meaning the batteries would probably have to be replaced about 7 times over the life of the train. I don't know if hydrogen fuel cells are likely to degrade similarly. The other possible advantage is weight; batteries are heavy so maybe a hydrogen train would be lighter than a battery powered one.

The important thing though is that only regional trains for rural railways ought to have a self-powered mode. Batteries, diesel engines and hydrogen fuel cells all should have no place on new intercity trains once the current orders for the Hitachi 80x series units are delievered (a few more for the Midland Main Line might not hurt, as long as they don't order enough to replace all the current fleet, since that will allow for a new fleet of pure-electric trains after resurection of the electrification project for the core routes to Sheffield and Nottingham).

R101?

Hindenburg?

OTC

I would question that. Much of the network is so intensively used that the loss of OLE at just one point on one track has severe consequences. It's not just a question of closing that track and working another bidirectionally, to support the full timetable.

So some battery reserve, which needs a high power output but relatively little energy storage, would make that situation - presently all to common - no longer a big issue for operations and hence for passengers. Cost would be a consideration, but prices on batteries (and supercapacitors, which might suit better) are still falling. There would be other uses for such a capability too. I'm sure.

I think you'll find they weren't using hydrogen for propulsion, nor storing it at high pressure in steel vessels. When their big bags first ruptured, the hydrogen was mostly retained and burned in situ, close to those on board and (for the R101) the ground. Of course if they did use steel pressure vessels, they would never have got off the ground - and likewise a train with a big bag of gas on its roof would never fit in a tunnel anyway.

Depends on how you define 'a lot'. Real world experience of Tesla cars shows an 8% degradation over 100,000 miles (about 161,000km). Tesla anticipate that this loss of capacity is not linear; their simulations suggest a 20% capacity loss over 500,000 miles (~804,000km)*. I can't lay my hands on mileage figures for typical branch line DMUs but I'm guessing that a properly-specified battery pack would not need to be changed many times in the life of a BEMU - and it would have decades more potential use as, for example, grid storage after that.

_{* source: https://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-s-battery-pack-data-degradation/}

As has been suggested that might be a demo run, but these vehicles or something similar, did run fairly regularly in London, on route RV1 I think.
Reliability seemed poor with conventional buses often being used instead.
The technology undoubtedly works to an extent, but that does not mean that it is sensible on environmental or financial grounds.
AFAIK, the costs were substantial with hydrogen costing a lot more than either diesel fuel or battery power.

Oh, the humanity!

Let's do what Mr Grayling hasn't done, and think about this in slight detail.

There are, on sale now, hydrogen powered vehicles. There are 14 publicly accessible refuelling points in the UK, so for private vehicles, the infrastructure doesn't exist in a big way. If the technology is to prosper, many more plants need to be built. There are no hydrogen production facilities for railways at present, so new facilities will be needed wherever H₂ trains need to be refuelled. We had, during the Bristol Green Capital epoch, a hydrogen powered ferry with its own little solar powered production plant. That vanished as soon as the circus pulled out of town to fly to the next jamboree. If the idea is to become reality, there will have to be some serious money spent on facilities before the trains are procured. The way things usually happen with new train technology, we will end up with either sidings full of H₂ trains waiting for new fuel plants, or fuel plants and an army of trained technicians waiting for trains to service.

Would it be worth it? I don't think so. Hydrogen is not a fuel as such, but a means of storing energy. You can mine coal, drill for oil and gas, and even harvest the magic moonbeams from radioactive stuff or the energy from tide and occasionally wind and sun. But while hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it isn't in the UK. To make it requires a lot of energy. The process for making industrial quantities of hydrogen involves knocking methane atoms apart using superheated steam. If you are going to do that, with all the energy loss involved, you might as well send the power direct to the trains using OHLE. After all, a hydrogen cell only turns hydrogen back into electricity to power motors at the business end.

The minister's stated aim is to not have trains powered purely by diesel. He could get away with a 1 Kw solar panel on top of every HST and a lot of spin to achieve that. If Mr Grayling is serious, he will find that the easiest and most efficient way to decarbonise the railway is to copperise it.

Occasionally? Oc-CASionally? What, every third Wednesday after septuagesima? What fools they must be, those folks who are throwing their money away building wind and solar farms. And what fools we taxpayers must be to subsidise them - albeit at a fraction of the rate we subsidise nuclear and - yes - coal...

Alright, intermittently then, even if the 9-strong wind farm near my country home seldom has more than 6 actually turning, and frequently stands majestically still. And they're no fools - you don't think it's their own money, surely? It's our cheque book they sign ultimately. On the subject of money, I have yet to hear how £95 per MWh strike price for nuclear power equates to an "illegal subsidy", while £119 per MWh for offshore wind isn't. It drops to £114 next financial year, which is why the past few months have been a particularly good time to be a windmill builder. I shall ask Diane Abbott when I see her next. I shall also ask why on a windy February night, wind seems to be producing only a third of the 12 GW it is claimed to be capable of. Is this because more wind turbines than usual require repairs?

But I am no fan of Uranium as a fuel, even if nuclear will save the day in the long run. Fusion eludes us, but there is hope in Thorium, according to the New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/) and other learned journals.

Thorium could be the fuel that produces hydrogen in sufficient quantities to power the rail network. (See what I did there?)

Not sure about those figures for offshore wind strike prices: strike prices for schemes commissioned for entry into service in 2022/3 are as low as £57.50.

Diane Abbott, eh? DIane Abbott? My hearing's not what it once was, but I'll swear I hear the muffled 'peep!' of yet another dog-whistle. There is obviously a problem in integrating wind and solar into the grid - chiefly their irritating tendency to produce more energy than required - but workable high-capacity grid-storage systems are not that far off. Even hydrogen generation might have a role, in extremis (see what I did there?)

As I write on the very still frosty night 4.75GW of Wind power is supplying the grid with 14.83% of its total power needs.

Hence the rush to get them built now.

Hydrogen? I don't know about that. I recently acquired some early 1930s Cycling magazines and they've filled me with a curious desire for acetylene lighting. Just to try, like.

Acetylene is being looked at as one possible end-product of the process to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere in the International Space Station. The process being tested with a view to travel to Mars initially produced methane, which was vented to space. It needs hydrogen  to do this, and processing the methane to acetylene ties less hydrogen to the carbon molecules, so needing less to start the process. Simples! Your cyclists were ahead of their time, if they only knew it!

I think you mean acetylene ties less hydrogen to the same amount of carbon - one atom per atom, rather than four.

You really must! I have an acetylene bicycle lamp, and it puts out a very good even light. Sadly, it weighs about the same as a modern bicycle... you can even get a fitting to tee off to a rear lamp, via a length of rubber hose. I also used to use an acetylene cap lamp back in my caving days; it had some advantages over the electric lamps most people use (you can usually find water down a cave, and you can carry spare carbide) but climbing wire ladders could be a painful, hand-singeing experience. Happy days...

If you want a more widely fixed distributed energy storage system, for places without suitable mountain-top lakes, Gravitricity are proposing (https://www.gravitricity.com/) to dangle big weights over deep holes and wind them up and down. Using their numbers (say 2000 Tonnes and 1000 m), a simple sum says the energy stored is relatively modest for one of them, but it still might be helpful.

I'm less convinced when they say it is "guided by a system of tensioned guide wires (patents applied for)" - so very different from the usual way of guiding mineshaft cages, with tensioned wires, then? And what about the vexatious tendency of deep holes in this country to fill up with water, and need continuous pumping? That's always been one of the biggest costs of mining, so I wonder why they say not one word about it?

That's easy for you to say! I make the p.e. of the system you describe to be 19620MJ, which I think translates as 5.45MWh or about two hours' output from an offshore wind turbine, by my reckoning. For comparison, a Tesla Powerpack  (https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/powerpack) grid storage battery has a capacity of 210kWh, so you'd need about 26 of them to store the same amount of energy. I suspect there's room in this world for doing it either way, plus any one of a thousand others, but the 'clock weight' system could presumably be incorporated into new high-rise buildings at a modest cost.

One of the things I really like about this accelerating movement away from the caveman way of doing things (Me burn stuff! Ug!) is that it's just so much more interesting..!

_{I won't be offended if anyone wants to challenge my maths!}

So I did! Thanks - I've corrected it.

I once suffered a rapid decrease in potential energy on the way home from the pub...

I think Mr Grayling was referring to trains running on HS2, but his transcript omitted the S.

Once you leave the pub, it's downhill all the way...

And here's another thing - it goes up instead of down, and when it's stored all the enrgy it can in one weight it just picks up another one. This is from Quartz (https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/):

And there's a video of their demonstrator (https://youtu.be/mmrwdTGZxGk?t=1), though it's only doing what any tower crane would.

The Coradia iLint trains mentioned in reply #3 appeared in passenger serrvice on Monday (17/9/18). Publicity for this milestone was pushed quite hard by Alstom (https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2018/09/17/alstoms-hydrogen-trains-enter-passenger-service-in-germany/), and got a lot of coverage in France (on the grounds Alstom is French, even if the bit in Salzgittern that built the trains isn't). There was a bit of news reporting from outside Europe, but nothing I can see in Britain - despite the first users (allegedly) being Ian and Diana Henry, a "young retired couple from Lower Saxony" (Le Monde).

The date was picked to coincide with with a train trade fair, so it may not be a proper start of service. They currently have just one or two trains, to be followed by 14 more of the 14 trains ordered for delivery by 2021. I guess that means the ones they have been running so far are prototyypes, so this can only be a limited start.

One of the odder comments from Alstom was that their first hydrogen trains in France would be tram-trains, to make it easier to get approval for them.

I still have my caving carbide lamp somewhere.  It was lovely and gave a special ambience to being underground, although soot stained stalagmites were a possibility at times.  Happy days

From the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-45985510/are-hydrogen-trains-the-future-of-uk-travel) yesterday


Has technology move on in the last month to answer questions like:

1. How will the hydrogen be economically prepared?

2. More costly - in initial purchase or running, and who's going to pay?

3. Will timetables need to be altered to give refuelling time?

4. Will heavier trains mean they can't be used on some lighter branches?

5. Will the bigger on-train plant fit into the UK loading gauge?

6. Will in be safe?

Or are we relying  on research to solve some or all of those?

If Grayling is promoting the concept, his track record means that there must be a serious flaw in it. 

Actually running hydrogen powered trains is not a bad idea.  What is not being answered is how the hydrogen is prepared (to use Grahame's word) and what environmental impact that has.

1) Only two methods are known for industrial scale hydrogen production. From natural gas, in which case use of compressed or liquefied natural gas would save the costs and loses involved in conversion to hydrogen.
Alternatively by electrolysis of water, this needs a great deal of electricity and the resultant hydrogen will at least twice of electricity.

2)Almost certainly a lot more expensive. Don't know whom will pay.

3)Possibly since I doubt that refueling with passengers on board, or refueling in a station will be allowed.

4)I doubt that it will be much heavier than diesel or battery power. Any increase would be by adding another vehicle, not by increased axle loads.

5)Yes, but it might mean an increase in train length for the hydrogen tanks and fuel cells.

6) It could probably be made safe, but each safety system adds weight, complexity, cost, and something else to go wrong. Each possibly minor accident would lead to extra safety measures.

My usual scepticism about hydrogen is slightly tempered by the fact that the Germans are trialling it. This gives me a bit more confidence that the practical difficulties can be overcome. As for supply, there is only one that makes any sense from a sustainability perspective, which is to produce it using electrolysis with surplus energy from wind and solar power, as this would help keep the Grid stable when renewables are peaking.

However, I fear that this is being seized upon by Grayling as yet another reason not to get in with electrification of our main lines. The Germans have already done theirs and are sensibly exploring new technology options that might at some point be useful in secondary routes and branches.

Exactly :) :)

Exactly to which part?  ;D

The Germans trialling it should reassure us that it is feasible from an engineering point of view and safe. They don't cut corners - the old Four Sprung Duck Technique, y'know. But I still don't know where all this surplus energy from wind and solar power is going to come from. You get the odd highly-publicised day when Scotland actually produces more than its electricity (nor energy) needs from renewables, but that's only because the government there lets power companies stick wind farms on any hillside they like, there is much less demand for electricity in Scotland than in England, and the infrastructure to transfer any putative surplus south is a bit shaky to say the least. A look at Gridwatch shows that right now, a fairly breezy day, wind is bringing just over 6% of our electricity to the mix, around two thirds of what is being generated by coal. Gas is making up over half, and is the most flexible. So gas gets turned down when the wind blows harder. There has never been a day when there has been a surplus of wind power.

Whether produced by superheated steam knoking carbon atoms off methane or by electrolysis, hydrogen is a way of storing energy, not creating it. So what you put in isn't what you get out. Providing energy on a large scale to power trains would effectively be to add to our electricity consumption just as running an IET under the wires does. Mr Grayling could have expressed his green sympathies more clearly by finishing the electrification job, rather than cancelling crucial parts of it and buying lots of extra diesel engines for the brand new trains. So I say exactly, too.

I don't know why, but I've got visions of Chris Packham and Michaela Strachan in their den going "oh look, there's a lesser-spotted species of freshwater fish in the salmon family Salmonidae..."

She's popped out to the chemist's - we've run out. But you don't need to put in the hours required for birdspotting to get a snapshot of the nation's energy production. A simple click on a link to http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ will suffice.

More later, but I have my OCD clinic at 3.49...

http://gridwatch.co.uk/ has, I think, the same source but to my mind presents it better. It is worth looking at the yearly graphs to get an overview of what comes from where.

I agree, having seen it - thanks!

Edit, having looked a bit further: Those periodic graphs do rather confirm my point in picture form. There is never a time where there isn't gas being used. It is interesting to see that we import from France and the Netherlands whilst simultaneously export to Ireland.

How else do the Irish import from France, or indeed anywhere else? They are currently looking into a direct "Celtic Interconnector", for which some EU money would be forthcoming.

I know, but the point is that we are importing electricity, generating it by coal, and exporting it to a country that was building wind farms specifically to export power to us. We might be buying it for tuppence and selling it for threepence or something, maybe offsetting something, or embezzling fivepence of a further sixpence, I dunno. International power broking was never my stronger suit. But I know that we could soon be importing electricity from Iceland in a few years' time, and also know, from my journey last month, that Iceland is a lot further to travel than Ireland. 1500 Km, to be not quite exact.We could flog a load of that the French, who have been kindly acting as our offshore nuclear facility for a while.

;D ;D ;D ;D

It's all explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0UV6ug96c0

There's a report on "Hydrogen in a low-carbon economy" (https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hydrogen-in-a-low-carbon-economy.pdf) published today by the  Committee on Climate Change (an official body advising government): "This report by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) assesses the potential role of hydrogen in the UK’s low-carbon economy."

Its headline conclusions do not seem to me to be borne out by its more detailed analysis; some of the ifs and buts have been downplayed. But (and note that this is based on a quick read only) basically they see hydrogen as replacing gas and oil in heating (buildings and processes), so it is needed in huge quantities. And for that they favour low-carbon sources like gas reforming with carbon capture and storage - no everyone's cup of tea. They don't like the idea of using the gas distribution network for hydrogen, preferring heat pumps with low-carbon (perhaps hydrogen) backup for cold days.

On its use in transport they are only luke-warm, due to the usual issues of storage space and distribution, and also note the difficulty of providing the ultra-pure hydrogen that fuel cells need from a general network also supplying homes. For transport they are saying batteries are going to be the normal solution - as for other uses outside their core heating ones, it's niches only for hydrogen.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-could-home-first-fleet-16179606