Alstom reveals fuel-cell EMU concept

[Mordac]

Not sure if this was the correct sub-forum to post it on, please move it if there's a better place.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2016/09/20/alstom-reveals-zero-emission-regional-train/

Alstom reveals zero-emission regional train
By
News -
September 20, 2016

Alstom has presented its new hydrogen-powered regional train, the iLint, at the InnoTrans trade fair in Berlin.

Alstom is one of the first manufacturers in the world to produce a passenger train using the hydrogen fuel cell technology.

The train uses an electrical traction drive which draws on energy generated by a fuel cell. Electrical energy is produced by exposing hydrogen, which is stored in a fuel tank on board, to oxygen.

Alstom has said the iLint would have comparable acceleration and braking performance to its diesel counterpart and the same top speed, 140 km/h.

The train is CO2-emission-free, claims Alstom, producing only steam and condensed water. It provides an alternative, and potentially cheaper, solution to electrification.

In 2014, Alstom signed a letter of intent with the leaders of Germany’s Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg regions and the public transport authorities of Hesse to develop a zero-emission train using hydrogen fuel cells.

Alstom chairman and chief executive Henri Poupart-Lafarge said the project would not have been possible without the support of these regions.

In a statement, he added: “Alstom is proud to launch a breakthrough innovation in the field of clean transportation which will complete its Coradia range of regional trains.

“It shows our ability to work in close collaboration with our customers and develop a train in only two years.”

 

[Domh245]

If I remember rightly, Fuel Cells tend to be rather range limited compared to diesel engines. They also require refuelling stops to top fill up the hydrogen whilst a Battery Pack can be recharged on the move. I fail to see what market it's going for here, Very short range IPEMU?

 

[edwin_m]

If I remember rightly, Fuel Cells tend to be rather range limited compared to diesel engines. They also require refuelling stops to top fill up the hydrogen whilst a Battery Pack can be recharged on the move. I fail to see what market it's going for here, Very short range IPEMU?

There was a report for RSSB a few years ago saying fuel cell would be difficult to apply to trains, but the technology may have progressed since then. Like hydrogen-powered buses this is very likely to be much more range-limited than a diesel equivalent, and probably significant that no range is quoted in the article (which is no doubt a recycled press release). However it is probably a longer range than with a battery of the same size and weight.

I guess the benefit is zero emission and probably lower noise for the entire journey on a non-electrified route, but I can't think there are many routes where diesel is unacceptable enough to warrant one of these but not enough to warrant electrification.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There was a report for RSSB a few years ago saying fuel cell would be difficult to apply to trains, but the technology may have progressed since then. Like hydrogen-powered buses this is very likely to be much more range-limited than a diesel equivalent, and probably significant that no range is quoted in the article (which is no doubt a recycled press release). However it is probably a longer range than with a battery of the same size and weight.

I guess the benefit is zero emission and probably lower noise for the entire journey on a non-electrified route, but I can't think there are many routes where diesel is unacceptable enough to warrant one of these but not enough to warrant electrification.

Whilst I can think of some, you would simply end up with a microfleet. Without whole-scale replacement of diesel it's not very useful.

 

[MML]

Could it be retrofitted on the Class 442 ?

 

[jopsuk]

Could it be retrofitted on the Class 442 ?

hock:

 

[3141]

Some years ago Roger Ford provided a link to an article which, if I remember correctly, pointed out that to give a vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell a longer range would require an large storage tank, which would be heavy as it would hold the hydrogen under pressure. The vehicle may have zero emissions as it moves but the construction of the tank for the vehicle, and larger tanks for storing hydrogen at depots, will probably produce more emissions than those arising from building diesel vehicles; and obviously those emissions are greater than for an equivalent electric vehicle, which is also zero-emission in operation and doesn't need a storage tank. As is often the case, an advantage in one area is balanced by a problem in another.

But perhaps the regions of Germany mentioned in the press release have rail systems which would be suitable for a sufficient number of hydrogen-powered trains to make the project worthwhile.

I wonder if anyone (a) knows how much hydrogen there is in the atmosphere, (b) can assess the amount required to operate all Britain's trains and road vehicles, (c) can calculate at what rate the total available would be reduced each year, and (d) has any idea what unwelcome consequences might arise if we did deplete it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I can think of some, you would simply end up with a microfleet. Without whole-scale replacement of diesel it's not very useful.

Microfleets aren't necessarily a problem, it depends on the application. The PPMs on the Stourbridge line seem to work well, despite being the smallest viable microfleet of just two units. And there are other small local potentially self-contained networks like the Valley Lines.

One concern about hydrogen power would, however, be what happens if it crashes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But perhaps the regions of Germany mentioned in the press release have rail systems which would be suitable for a sufficient number of hydrogen-powered trains to make the project worthwhile.

German regional Governments seem to like microfranchises, which go well with microfleets.

 

[ASharpe]

I wonder if anyone (a) knows how much hydrogen there is in the atmosphere, (b) can assess the amount required to operate all Britain's trains and road vehicles, (c) can calculate at what rate the total available would be reduced each year, and (d) has any idea what unwelcome consequences might arise if we did deplete it.

Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water and when it is later "burnt" it turns straight back to water.

The electrolysis process uses electricity to split water molecules apart into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is then acting as a store of energy which can be released by recombining with oxygen.

 

[WatcherZero]

Two main problems with hydrogen technology at the moment.

Hydrogen isn't cheap to produce and is only as carbon neutral as the rather large amount of electricity used in its manufacture, though there is some progress being made with genetically modified Algae that could grow in sunlight/under UV lamp.

 

[najaB]

I wonder if anyone (a) knows how much hydrogen there is in the atmosphere, (b) can assess the amount required to operate all Britain's trains and road vehicles, (c) can calculate at what rate the total available would be reduced each year, and (d) has any idea what unwelcome consequences might arise if we did deplete it.

a) Roughly 2e+16kg
c) It wouldn't. You make hydrogen by splitting water, burning it creates water.

One concern about hydrogen power would, however, be what happens if it crashes.

Given that it's lighter than air, any spillage would be rising away from the vehicle, rather than pooling under it as happens with liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

 

[jon0844]

Could it be retrofitted on the Class 442 ?

Of course. I'm surprised they didn't use one for a mock up at the show. What a missed opportunity.

 

[MarkyT]

There was a report for RSSB a few years ago saying fuel cell would be difficult to apply to trains, but the technology may have progressed since then. Like hydrogen-powered buses this is very likely to be much more range-limited than a diesel equivalent, and probably significant that no range is quoted in the article (which is no doubt a recycled press release). However it is probably a longer range than with a battery of the same size and weight.

I guess the benefit is zero emission and probably lower noise for the entire journey on a non-electrified route, but I can't think there are many routes where diesel is unacceptable enough to warrant one of these but not enough to warrant electrification.

While I'm sure you're right range could probably not approach routine diesel operations, i.e a full operating day or more without refueling, hydrogen's major selling point over the battery electric alternative is very quick recharge when required. If an operator can schedule in a short fuel stop or two during the day, then the clean smooth noise limited operation of electric traction could be gained. The big problem is the fuel production and distribition infrastructure, which is virtually non-existent currently, unlike with fossil fuels of course, and the battery electric equivalent, either plugging into the specialist railway traction supply at main line junctions, or indeed even using the general purpose commercial power grid. Some fuel cells can run on methane or natural gas, but they need extra conversion hardware which would add extra weight to a vehicle or extra lineside infrastructure. I can definitely see the attraction of electric traction without the catenary however by some means.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another thought. Hydrogen production might also be used as a means of energy storage for intermittent renewable electricity. Surplus energy from times of high production but low demand could be diverted to hydrogen plants. Costs and efficiency versus battery or other storage means would need comparing clearly, particularly factoring in battery life in terms of number of recharge cycles. Thus some transport could use time shifted 'off peak' energy, taking peak load off the general grid.

 

[randyrippley]

I wonder if anyone (a) knows how much hydrogen there is in the atmosphere, (b) can assess the amount required to operate all Britain's trains and road vehicles, (c) can calculate at what rate the total available would be reduced each year, and (d) has any idea what unwelcome consequences might arise if we did deplete it.

I sincerely hope there is no free hydrogen in the atmosphere........

 

[61653 HTAFC]

...Given that it's lighter than air, any spillage would be rising away from the vehicle, rather than pooling under it as happens with liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

The worry I guess would be if something caused the tank to explode on impact. The large fire at the Ladbroke Grove crash was IIRC caused by diesel (not normally highly-flammable) at high pressure being released from a ruptured fuel tank.

 

[najaB]

The worry I guess would be if something caused the tank to explode on impact.

To be honest, the flying remains of the high pressure tank is more of a risk than the contents. Hydrogen tends to burn rather than explode.

 

[thenorthern]

Top Gear one tried a Hydrogen car I think I can't remember when though.

Problem with Hydrogen is the same as every other carbon neutral fuel source it exists but you just can't beat the internal combustion engine with its ability to refill quickly and the amount of energy from you get from its fuel.

I read somewhere that the the first cars to hold the land speed record were electric but over 100 years later we still use the internal combustion engine.

For the railways I personally think though electrification is a better option for motive power than Hydrogen in the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the railways I personally think though electrification is a better option for motive power than Hydrogen in the future.

I would agree - electrify the mainlines, use things like battery power on the branches, charging up from the 25kV at the junction / from through running.

You could argue that we need other forms of power for things like the Far North Line, but I'm not sure at all about that - the Swiss have electrified lines through far more challenging terrain.

 

[Dye]

More details here:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/hydrogen-fuel-cell-train-order-expected-this-year.html

It mentions:

"The hydrogen tanks and fuel cells are mounted on the car roofs, with the tanks carrying 94 kg of hydrogen per car, enough for around one day or 700 km of operation. "

 

[edwin_m]

More details here:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/hydrogen-fuel-cell-train-order-expected-this-year.html

It mentions:

"The hydrogen tanks and fuel cells are mounted on the car roofs, with the tanks carrying 94 kg of hydrogen per car, enough for around one day or 700 km of operation. "

Thanks for this useful information. 700km might be a worthwhile range for a regional unit, but an intercity unit would typically travel further at higher speed so would need more energy. The complication (and extra energy use) of carrying a heavy storage tank as well as the refuelling issue is why electrification is still going to be a better bet for most rail operations. And if you have most of the network electrified, a battery unit may be a better option for those routes that aren't.

Also the process of producing the hydrogen from electricity, transporting it to where needed and using it in a fuel cell to produce electricity again will involve more energy loss than simply sending the electricity to the trains via transmission lines and OLE.

On safety, hydrogen or natural gas will dissipate up into the atmosphere if they leak out. This is probably safer than LPG, which is heavier than air so tends to "pool" in explosive concentrations near the ground.

 

[thenorthern]

Regarding Hydrogen because its very light I think there is something like 142 megajoules per kilogram of Hydrogen compressed at 700 bar of energy where as with Diesel there is about 48 megajoules.

But with trains the weight of the fuel isn't that important its more how much energy you can get from a single tank of fuel and per litre of compressed Hydrogen its only about 5.6 megajoules but with Diesel is 35.8 megajoules per litre.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just working out how many journeys would be possible on the Hydrogen train per day using the Chase Line as a example from what I can see it could do 15.5 journeys per tank which means just short of 8 return journeys per tank.

On the other hand with Leeds to Morecambe it would be possible to do just short of 3 return journeys per day.

I think the Hydrogen train is a bit of a novelty though.

 

[randyrippley]

The real problem with any hydrogen fueled vehicle is refueling it in adverse conditions. If you can access the depot then no problem. But if you had a period of discontinuity due to floods, embankment collapse, or sea wall disappearing then your trains may not be able to get to the depot. If the trains use diesel then you can refuel them anywhere from a tanker. In extremis you can pump the fuel by hand. That's not possible with hydrogen or any other exotic fuels

 

[3141]

Thanks to the people who explained that the hydrogen in a fuel cell would be formed through electrolysis and not taken from the atmosphere.

I sincerely hope there is no free hydrogen in the atmosphere........

There is hydrogen in the atmosphere but in very small quantities.

 

[thenorthern]

Spoke to a my mum who is an research engineer at a major car firm and they personally aren't building hydrogen fuel cars but they are paying other people to research them. She says hydrogen cars aren't that good and are a while from becoming useful.

It reminded me though of the battery electric shunter that the North Staffordshire Railway had which is now at York and was built in 1917. We have had battery electric trains for 100 years but you just can't compete with the internal combustion engine.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a longer article on this in October's Modern Railways. One of the states sponsoring it has a large amount of wind power and is considering using it to generate hydrogen instead of it going to waste when there isn't enough demand to use it. Looked at that way it makes a bit more sense, although the article points out that parts of Germany still burn lignite for power and they would get a much greener outcome by using the wind power to reduce that instead.

 

[najaB]

One of the states sponsoring it has a large amount of wind power and is considering using it to generate hydrogen instead of it going to waste when there isn't enough demand to use it.

Indeed. Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it's an energy storage and transfer medium.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Indeed. Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it's an energy storage and transfer medium.

And a rather inefficient one at that. It's only about 30% efficient, compared to 90% for lithium-ion batteries. If you have lots of hydrogen available cheaply then it might well make some sense but it's doubtful that it'll ever be a major component of our energy infrastructure. For railways, the most efficient thing is always going to be to string up overhead wires. Almost all of a route can be wired up for not much cost, leaving the complicated bits for onboard batteries.

 

[thenorthern]

Given Hydrogen is so light would be funny if too much was put into the tank and the train flew off.

With Hydrogen compressed at 700 bar I think there is more energy potential than batteries but as others have said hydrogen isn't very efficient.

There is a fuel item that can produce 1,539,842,000 mega joules per kg, its called Uranium but I don't think its very safe to use on board trains.

 

[Flying Snail]

Given Hydrogen is so light would be funny if too much was put into the tank and the train flew off.

Unless someone is proposing to attach a life size replica of the Hindenburg to the roof of a 153 that is not going to happen.

It would be a novel way of scrapping a dogbox though.

 

[jopsuk]

Given Hydrogen is so light would be funny if too much was put into the tank and the train flew off.

With Hydrogen compressed at 700 bar I think there is more energy potential than batteries but as others have said hydrogen isn't very efficient.

There is a fuel item that can produce 1,539,842,000 mega joules per kg, its called Uranium but I don't think its very safe to use on board trains.

Compressed hydrogen, depending upon how compressed it is, can be more dense than air. Then you add the weight of the pressure vessel to contain it.