• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Future of Diesel traction in the future and will unelectrified lines have another fuel type?

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,990
Location
Nottingham
It would probably still be beaten for efficiency and pollution by an electric train supplied from a power station with district heating or some equivalent use of the secondary heat.

Assuming power stations move away from fossil fuels as expected, I don't think anyone seriously doubts that 25kV electric is the most efficient option energy-wise and the least polluting. The question is more about what is the most efficient money-wise on less well used routes because the cost of building and maintaining the OLE and other equipment is about the same whether it's for ten trains per hour or one. And the fundamental contradiction is that diesel is likely to win that contest for some time yet.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)
Today, at least half the DMU fleet could switch to battery + electric, without diesel engines and that includes GWR class 800s.
Other DMUs could all be hybrids to reduce CO2 / fuel costs, with some diesel engines replaced by batteries.
Loco's are really another level of problem. Powered wagons anyone?

As trains do daily diagrams, the operators know exactly what power requirements exist and which they can switch off diesel
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,891
Location
Scotland
The question is more about what is the most efficient money-wise on less well used routes because the cost of building and maintaining the OLE and other equipment is about the same whether it's for ten trains per hour or one.
Well, it's not orders of magnitude difference but lightly-used (and more importantly, lower-speed) lines can use less robust and hopefully less expensive hardware. The electrical feed requirements will also be lower as fewer amps need to be shifted around.
 

JohnRegular

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2016
Messages
253
Well it's pretty terrible as that as well.
There are more hydrogen atoms in a cubic metre of liquid natural gas than in a cubic metre of cryogenic hydrogen.

That may well be true, and I'm not trying to argue that hydrogen is a good method of energy storage or a good fuel, but this is not a useful metric, as it doesn't tell us about the amount of energy that is stored and how much work can be done using it. The same thing could be said for water, which would unfortunately not be a useful energy source for trains.
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
703
I can't see hydrogen being useful at all. Biodiesel however could be an interesting option. Of course that doesn't solve issues around NOx and particulates, but AdBlue and filters are pretty good at that. Bi-Mode units (think Greater Anglia's new Stalder Flirts) running on either 25kV AC or biodiesel could massively reduce carbon emissions, without having problems around spending a fortune electrifying little used lines.
 
Joined
18 Aug 2018
Messages
704
Today, at least half the DMU fleet could switch to battery + electric, without diesel engines and that includes GWR class 800s.
Other DMUs could all be hybrids to reduce CO2 / fuel costs, with some diesel engines replaced by batteries.
Loco's are really another level of problem. Powered wagons anyone?

As trains do daily diagrams, the operators know exactly what power requirements exist and which they can switch off diesel

Powered wagons has got to be the stupidest Idea ever. The maintenance costs would be phenomenal.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,639
Bio diesel is a green fraud isn’t it? Using lots of land and water to grow the stuff.
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
703
Depends how you make it. There are ideas around using algae which sound really interesting.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
In the future everything will be electric powered by solar / wind, fossil fuels will be gone! We have to due to climate change & pollution.

EVs in 2010, had 20kW batteries, then 30kw by 2015, then 40 kw, now 64kW is standard - same size, same weight, less cost.

There are batteries today with 2-3x that capability being developed for manufacturing.

There are batteries in labs with 10x plus that capability 10 years out

There are ultra-capacitors with 100x that capacity being prepared for manufacture and with 1000x that capacity in labs.

Today ALL DMUs could go battery. Locos will take time, but it will arrive before 2040. Battery-Capacitor hybrids will be the future.

You still have to set up charging facilities and get the energy to them somehow. People forget that we will have to generate and distribute the extra energy required. Also, everyone wants someone else to do it. Perhaps we should just accept that some damage will happen.
 
Joined
18 Aug 2018
Messages
704
If you think about it diesel is brilliant in basically every way. Its got range on its side, no additional infrastructure, it's tried and tested technology that's been in use for many centuries, it's transport and storage is (relatively) simple and we all ready have plenty of stock that use it.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,292
Location
St Albans
... Perhaps we should just accept that some damage will happen.
"Just shrug our shoulders and say it's too inconvenient". That has been tolerated all along and is why we are now in an almost unrecoverable state in terms of climate change.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,794
Diesel is a just a medium for holding energy, and isone of the most efficient combustion engines around. A very practical & possible way forward in the future would be this ---->https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel
You will have absolutely lousy end to end efficiency doing this however.

Commercially available electrolysers are only about 80% efficiency, and a diesel engine's thermal efficiency will be 50% or less.

So we are only getting 40% efficiency even without losses in the conversion reactor, which will be significant because the reactions are exothermic and ahve to be done at relatively low temperatuers where energy recovery will be impractical.

This makes the >80% efficiency of third rail look positively incredible.
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)
You still have to set up charging facilities and get the energy to them somehow. People forget that we will have to generate and distribute the extra energy required. Also, everyone wants someone else to do it. Perhaps we should just accept that some damage will happen.
The damage has been done and will destroy our planet, get real!

We have plenty of electricity being generated, just at the wrong times, so if stored, we do not have an issue. Storage also deals with peak power requirements.

Diesel is dead and that includes bio-diesel
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)
At optimal power, once warmed up, and in ideal (lab) conditions a diesel engine is 40% efficient. Drive-train losses take away some of that so say 30% efficient.

Without regen half of that power is then wasted during braking. more is wasted up in warming up, idling and when not running at full efficiency on a bright sunny day.

So a diesel is say 10% efficient. But then, oil has to be found, extracted, refined, transported, oh dear we are well down into single percentage figures of efficiency now!

Then we have wars to fight for that oil and the cost of the millions who die or are treated for pollution related illnesses.

Oh sh!t, we need to ban diesel and go 100% renewable or we are all doomed, . . . doomed . . . .
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
Transporting hydrogen in bulk or over great distances will be hugely expensive.
For transport via tanker, the hydrogen must be liquified, a hugely costly and complicated operation in view of the extreme low temperatures required, very much lower than for liquified natural gas.
The tankers would also be hugely expensive, again due to the extreme low temperatures.

Pipeline transport as a liquid looks virtually impossible, insulating hundreds or thousands of miles of pipes to the degree required to stop the hydrogen boiling off in transit looks most unlikely.
Remember also that the pipes will be at room temperature when first installed or shut down for repairs, but will shrink noticeably when carrying super cold liquid hydrogen. Accommodating this movement will be a challenge, it is bad enough with oil pipelines subjected to much more modest temperature changes.
Bulk or long distance transport as a room temperature gas seems unlikely due to the vast volumes needed.

LOCAL distribution of modest volumes at room temperature and at low pressure looks doable. We managed it years ago with coal gas which was about 50% hydrogen. Note that coal gas was produced fairly locally, every town had a gas works, large towns had multiple gas works, there was no question of regional distribution.
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)
My parents frequently told me about coal gas, the explosions, fires & danger and how glad they were when natural gas arrived.

Hydrogen is a red herring pushed by oil / gas companies, nobody else as it does not work. If it did and as it has had more £££ thrown at it than EVs & batteries, it would be an option at your local car dealers, but it is not and neither are there more than a handful of Hydrogen fuel stations. I wonder why?

Everyone is or is planning to make EVs which have enormous scope to develop (unlike fossil fuels) and plug in stations exceed petrol stations, without counting home / work place charging!
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
6,099
Transporting hydrogen in bulk or over great distances will be hugely expensive.
For transport via tanker, the hydrogen must be liquified, a hugely costly and complicated operation in view of the extreme low temperatures required, very much lower than for liquified natural gas.
The tankers would also be hugely expensive, again due to the extreme low temperatures.

Pipeline transport as a liquid looks virtually impossible, insulating hundreds or thousands of miles of pipes to the degree required to stop the hydrogen boiling off in transit looks most unlikely.
Remember also that the pipes will be at room temperature when first installed or shut down for repairs, but will shrink noticeably when carrying super cold liquid hydrogen. Accommodating this movement will be a challenge, it is bad enough with oil pipelines subjected to much more modest temperature changes.
Bulk or long distance transport as a room temperature gas seems unlikely due to the vast volumes needed.

LOCAL distribution of modest volumes at room temperature and at low pressure looks doable. We managed it years ago with coal gas which was about 50% hydrogen. Note that coal gas was produced fairly locally, every town had a gas works, large towns had multiple gas works, there was no question of regional distribution.
For rail use, there is no need to transport the hydrogen - just install an electrolyser at the rail depot and produce the fuel on site.
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)
For rail use, there is no need to transport the hydrogen - just install an electrolyser at the rail depot and produce the fuel on site.

Excellent idea? It takes 4x the energy to create hydrogen than it does to charge a battery!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,794
Everyone is or is planning to make EVs which have enormous scope to develop (unlike fossil fuels) and plug in stations exceed petrol stations, without counting home / work place charging!

The effective charging power of a petrol pump is at least one order of magnitude greater than the highest power charging stations, and two higher than most charging stations.

So we need far more numerous charging points than petrol pumps.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,123
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The effective charging power of a petrol pump is at least one order of magnitude greater than the highest power charging stations, and two higher than most charging stations.

So we need far more numerous charging points than petrol pumps.

They are, however, a lot easier to provide than petrol pumps, because providing an electrical connection to every bay in a car park (say) is a lot easier and safer than providing a connection to a pressurised liquid fuel line.

The future of petrol stations, meanwhile, is probably as drive-up convenience stores, which is what most of them now make most of their money on anyway.

Of course if you're talking trains, shove the pantograph up, and the 25kV will charge the batteries as quickly as the batteries themselves can handle.
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,292
Location
St Albans
Excellent idea? It takes 4x the energy to create hydrogen than it does to charge a battery!
Why are so many people hooked on this idea that vehicles must forever be powered by something that comes out of a pump/store via a pipe, rather than electricity which to them has a hopeless charge time/range/choice of charge locations? They really ought to read up on EV progress, AND then on the impending demise of combustible fuels. Soon, it will be make your mind up time for virtually everybody who needs or wants personal transport. Trains will soon follow this technology trend.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,794
Most people charge at home as will trains at depots overnight.
Charging at home has some rather unfortunate problems.

It shifts the demand peak from the daytime into the middle of the night.
The means Economy 7 will become peak time!

Also the distribution infrastructure is currently woefully inadequate for electric car deployment, single phase 100A supplies are simply not up to the task.

Leaving aside the difficulty of widely providing such high power charging points, even 350kW is not that high.
Even at 30% efficiency the work embodied in diesel is ~11MJ/litre or so.
At a typical flow rate of a litre every second that is an effective charging power of 11MW.

Most people will be charging iwth low power <10kW chargers.

This is actually quite attached to the topic of my PhD.... electric cars will require enormous grid infrastructure and generating plant investments.
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)
Charging at home has some rather unfortunate problems.

It shifts the demand peak from the daytime into the middle of the night.
The means Economy 7 will become peak time!

Also the distribution infrastructure is currently woefully inadequate for electric car deployment, single phase 100A supplies are simply not up to the task.


Leaving aside the difficulty of widely providing such high power charging points, even 350kW is not that high.
Even at 30% efficiency the work embodied in diesel is ~11MJ/litre or so.
At a typical flow rate of a litre every second that is an effective charging power of 11MW.

Most people will be charging iwth low power <10kW chargers.

This is actually quite attached to the topic of my PhD.... electric cars will require enormous grid infrastructure and generating plant investments.

The National Grid state that there is not an issue whatsoever, some local small cables may need replacing as part of planned renewals and that batteries & smart grid / charging will reduce the total generation capacity needed, removing peaks and using otherwise wasted energy at night, you better improve your research on your phd or l'd fail you!

What is this insane need to charge / fill at xx Mw/hr? I top up the charge of my car at night, in car parks or off the solar here & there, when doing something better with my time and not having to waste my life at stinky dirty fuel pumps! Trains will do the same, at night, in layovers etc and will use much less power due to regen raking / power storage.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,292
Location
St Albans
Charging at home has some rather unfortunate problems.

It shifts the demand peak from the daytime into the middle of the night.
The means Economy 7 will become peak time!

Also the distribution infrastructure is currently woefully inadequate for electric car deployment, single phase 100A supplies are simply not up to the task.


Leaving aside the difficulty of widely providing such high power charging points, even 350kW is not that high.
Even at 30% efficiency the work embodied in diesel is ~11MJ/litre or so.
At a typical flow rate of a litre every second that is an effective charging power of 11MW.

Most people will be charging iwth low power <10kW chargers.

This is actually quite attached to the topic of my PhD.... electric cars will require enormous grid infrastructure and generating plant investments.
Travel patterns will change. Also, not every motorist needs to add a 500 mile range on every visit. If a 100-200 mile range can be added in less than 30 minutes on a fast charger and 200-300 miles on an overnight charge, the majority of vehicles can be used effectively
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,148
Location
Churn (closed)
Travel patterns will change. Also, not every motorist needs to add a 500 mile range on every visit. If a 100-200 mile range can be added in less than 30 minutes on a fast charger and 200-300 miles on an overnight charge, the majority of vehicles can be used effectively

100 miles takes 8 minutes, 200 16 minutes in the next gen EVs charging at 350kw/hr
a 10 hour overnight charge at home adds 275 miles
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,794
The National Grid state that there is not an issue whatsoever
It's not really National Grid's business is it?
The grid infrastructure that will need modifying is not going to be transmission assets.

, some local small cables may need replacing as part of planned renewals
Local small cables are where the grid infrastructure costs are.
Transmission costs essentially nothing, the distribution system is the problem, and planned renewals is not going to cut it.

A rapid transition to electric cars could easily add 30GW of grid demand in a decade or less, this is not demand growth we have seen since before the oil crisis.
This is combined with the necessity of withdrawing domestic gas use for heating and cooking.

(And this is before we consider Jevons paradox causing car use to explode as a result of the really low cost per mile of an electric car)

We could be looking at a doubling of electricity consumption in under 20 years, this will require enormous expenditure, just as it did before the 70s.
and that batteries & smart grid / charging will reduce the total generation capacity needed,

Outside of niche applications batteries are not going to make a significant impact on the energy supply, since the primary energy demand swing in the UK in a decarbonised system will be seasonal in nature.
And using a battery for one charge a year is going to get astronomically expensive, even before we consider self discharge concerns.

And we can't practically use electric cars for grid support without enormous cost and enormous losses from passing power through the LV system multiple times - which we reallly want to prevent.

What is this insane need to charge / fill at xx Mw/hr?
I as referring to the statements regarding the number of charging points exceeding the number of petrol stations as if this means EVs are rapidly taking over the world.
They are not.
You have to compare apples to apples.
Saying I have more charging points than petrol stations is meaningless when petrol stations have aggregate charging power orders of magnitude higher.

I top up the charge of my car at night, in car parks or off the solar here & there, when doing something better with my time and not having to waste my life at stinky dirty fuel pumps! Trains will do the same, at night, in layovers etc and will use much less power due to regen raking / power storage.
If everyone charges their cars at night, peak time will shift to the night and the price of nighttime charging will go way up.
This is not a simple solution.

And if electric cars really do take off, non heavily travelled train routes will simply be crushed by Uber lookalikes.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,123
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And if electric cars really do take off, non heavily travelled train routes will simply be crushed by Uber lookalikes.

Why? The main cost of taxi operation is the driver, not fuel, and an electric taxi wastes just as much road space as manually driving an old, large-engined, particulate-belching diesel Range Rover.

Self driving cars may do that, but wholly autonomous road vehicles are years off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top