Alstom Class 321 Hydrogen 'Breeze' Updates & Discussion

[Speed43125]

Progress? As far as I can tell, it's just "we're spending another £1m on this" which is peanuts...

This quote stuck out to me

When powered by green hydrogen, these trains offer true zero-emission mobility, not just zero emission at point of use. The only emission from a hydrogen train is water; it produces no harmful particulate or gaseous emissions.

When powered by green anything, a train can offer zero-emission mobility. I can't really understand why make a big deal out of such a limited prospect given a large amount of hydrogen isn't produced like that.

Also, I'm assuming these will remain 25kV capable?

 

[xotGD]

This quote stuck out to me

When powered by green anything, a train can offer zero-emission mobility. I can't really understand why make a big deal out of such a limited prospect given a large amount of hydrogen isn't produced like that.

Also, I'm assuming these will remain 25kV capable?

There isn't Green Hydrogen yet because there isn't the demand yet. However, this is a fast-moving sector and the production will be there to fuel the trains.

Large scale offshore wind to hydrogen is likely to be developed in the future. More than enough fuel for every train in the country.

 

[The Ham]

There isn't Green Hydrogen yet because there isn't the demand yet. However, this is a fast-moving sector and the production will be there to fuel the trains.

Large scale offshore wind to hydrogen is likely to be developed in the future. More than enough fuel for every train in the country.

Whilst that's likely, until we've got 100% renewables the extra energy required to power hydrogen vs OHLE would still mean extra emissions.

Which when we've got a net zero emissions target is going to mean extra carbon capture/offsetting.

 

[rebmcr]

Whilst that's likely, until we've got 100% renewables the extra energy required to power hydrogen vs OHLE would still mean extra emissions.

Which when we've got a net zero emissions target is going to mean extra carbon capture/offsetting.

Yet still less than diesel, whose lines are really where these trains will be used.

When calculating thin margins like that it's also fair to include the manufacturing emissions of the OHLE, and the emissions of the machinery used to erect it.

 

[Class 170101]

You would think they would be able to catch the waste product (water) and use it for something (perhaps loo flush). I also can't belive they will reduce these trains from 4 cars to 3 cars and then add a fuel storage area. Why not keep them at 4 carriages?

 

[Speed43125]

When calculating thin margins like that it's also fair to include the manufacturing emissions of the OHLE, and the emissions of the machinery used to erect it.

Well I suppose that would also involve considering how permanently Hydrogen traction is going to be used, as construction costs are a one time deal, whereas propulsion will last as long as it is used in its current form. Is this a temporary stop gap while we get our act together and start electrifying earnestly again? or a permanent 'good enough' alternative to OHLE?

Certainly there are certain lines that are going to be very difficult to ever justify electrifying completely, which is also where Vivarail are attempting to target with possible OHLE variants of the D-train. Will be interesting to watch.

 

[Energy]

You would think they would be able to catch the waste product (water) and use it for something (perhaps loo flush). I also can't belive they will reduce these trains from 4 cars to 3 cars and then add a fuel storage area. Why not keep them at 4 carriages?

There may not be demand on the lines these will be used on for 4 carriages, I would assume that all 4 is an option if the operator wants it.

 

[edwin_m]

Yet still less than diesel, whose lines are really where these trains will be used.

When calculating thin margins like that it's also fair to include the manufacturing emissions of the OHLE, and the emissions of the machinery used to erect it.

Not forgetting the embodied carbon in the equipment needed to produce, transport and store the hydrogen.

 

[xotGD]

Whilst that's likely, until we've got 100% renewables the extra energy required to power hydrogen vs OHLE would still mean extra emissions.

Which when we've got a net zero emissions target is going to mean extra carbon capture/offsetting.

The hydrogen will ultimately be produced by dedicated offshore wind farms and piped ashore. These wind farms will be independent from the power grid.

Shorter term, dedicated onshore wind will be used, so it won't put an incremental load on the grid.

 

[edwin_m]

The hydrogen will ultimately be produced by dedicated offshore wind farms and piped ashore. These wind farms will be independent from the power grid.

Is that a firm proposal (if so, source please!) or your speculation?

I'd have thought running power lines to an electrolysis site on dry land was far more logical than trying to do the electrolysis out at sea (admittedly the raw material is plentiful!) and construct an undersea hydrogen pipeline. There's also the advantage that the wind farm could feed the grid at peak times when the power might be needed, and generate hydrogen at other times when it isn't. Being able to supply energy in either form future-proofs the proposal against uncertainty in the amount of hydrogen demand and maybe even allows it to offer energy storage by converting hydrogen back to electricity at peak times (though that wouldn't be very efficient).

If hydrogen is needed at random places such as rail depots then it also seems more logical to electrolyse it locally, using the existing grid to transport the energy rather than laying a hydrdogen pipeline across country.

 

[The Ham]

The hydrogen will ultimately be produced by dedicated offshore wind farms and piped ashore. These wind farms will be independent from the power grid.

Shorter term, dedicated onshore wind will be used, so it won't put an incremental load on the grid.

However if we're not at 100% renewables then the loss of not using all the available renewables which could be connected to the grid then that's going mean a higher carbon emission than would otherwise be the case. It's better to use excess power to create Hydrogen when it would otherwise go to waste.

BTW I'm not arguing that it won't happen, just that it's not a priority at the moment and that Hydrogen trains are likely to be a part, but a small part, of the energy use for the railways.

Clearly a rural branch line which sees infrequent services it's going to be better to use Hydrogen than a urban 6tph line which would be better as OHLE.

However such lines are going to be the minority of energy use for UK rail.

Even as Hydrogen production increases there'll be other uses for which it would reduce emissions more than switching rail to it.

 

[Roast Veg]

Is the fact that the 600 series dedicated to alternative fuels a new thing? I didn't recall it.

 

[JonathanH]

Is the fact that the 600 series dedicated to alternative fuels a new thing? I didn't recall it.

Yes, I quoted the press release on the previous page of discussion

About the Class 600

All UK trains have a class number, made of three digits, with the first of the three digits explaining the type of train it is. The Breeze is the first ever hydrogen train for the UK, which requires a new ‘class’, beginning with a 6. The 600 series will be reserved for alternative traction like hydrogen, and as the Breeze is the first of this type, it will have the first number, 600.

Alstom and Eversholt were said to be 'delighted'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However successful this one may or may not be (I know conversions have proven a challenge) I think this is a good thing - we need to move away from "dirty diesel" to improve the railway's environmental credential, even on country branch lines.

 

[hwl]

However if we're not at 100% renewables then the loss of not using all the available renewables which could be connected to the grid then that's going mean a higher carbon emission than would otherwise be the case. It's better to use excess power to create Hydrogen when it would otherwise go to waste.

BTW I'm not arguing that it won't happen, just that it's not a priority at the moment and that Hydrogen trains are likely to be a part, but a small part, of the energy use for the railways.

Clearly a rural branch line which sees infrequent services it's going to be better to use Hydrogen than a urban 6tph line which would be better as OHLE.

However such lines are going to be the minority of energy use for UK rail.

Even as Hydrogen production increases there'll be other uses for which it would reduce emissions more than switching rail to it.

It is around three times more energy efficient to power rolling stock using batteries than to create and use green hydrogen to do the same.

It is far better to use excess power to charge traction batteries.

There are far more energy efficient uses for hydrogen than rail.

 

[hwl]

It is noticeable that this announcement from Alstom/Eversholt fits the regular 6 monthly end of January /July PR cycle from them over the last 2.5 years, almost as if the PR agency wants to invoice for some work...

 

[InOban]

At present it's much cheaper to use hydrogen made as a byproduct of converting ethane and propane into ethylene and propylene. Otherwise we would already have huge electrolysis farms attached to wind and other intermittent electricity sources.

 

[samuelmorris]

It is around three times more energy efficient to power rolling stock using batteries than to create and use green hydrogen to do the same.

It is far better to use excess power to charge traction batteries.

There are far more energy efficient uses for hydrogen than rail.

True but there are also range limitations to battery power that Hydrogen will mitigate. The problem is usually a case of it being a microfleet that is too proportionally expensive to operate, which is what has held back Hydrogen buses time and time again. There need to be many of these in use for the project to really be successful, not just half a dozen on one branch route, but I suspect the latter is most likely to come to pass, if they enter mainline service at all.

 

[hwl]

True but there are also range limitations to battery power that Hydrogen will mitigate. The problem is usually a case of it being a microfleet that is too proportionally expensive to operate, which is what has held back Hydrogen buses time and time again. There need to be many of these in use for the project to really be successful, not just half a dozen on one branch route, but I suspect the latter is most likely to come to pass, if they enter mainline service at all.

Areas/Routes with cheap brown hydrogen sources are when you probaby want to electrify longer term given traffic levels and available of GSPs etc. e.g. Teesside
Areas/Routes for green hydrogen long term e.g. north of Inverness / Helensburgh, West Of Shewesbury/Craven Arms, south of Llandudno Junction, Carlisle (for "Northern") are all in micro fleet territory with comparatively low refuelling point utilisation (refuelling point cost huge amounts).
The reality will be pockets of circa a dozen units often with large distances separating pockets.

 

[xotGD]

Is that a firm proposal (if so, source please!) or your speculation?

I'd have thought running power lines to an electrolysis site on dry land was far more logical than trying to do the electrolysis out at sea (admittedly the raw material is plentiful!) and construct an undersea hydrogen pipeline. There's also the advantage that the wind farm could feed the grid at peak times when the power might be needed, and generate hydrogen at other times when it isn't. Being able to supply energy in either form future-proofs the proposal against uncertainty in the amount of hydrogen demand and maybe even allows it to offer energy storage by converting hydrogen back to electricity at peak times (though that wouldn't be very efficient).

If hydrogen is needed at random places such as rail depots then it also seems more logical to electrolyse it locally, using the existing grid to transport the energy rather than laying a hydrdogen pipeline across country.

See 'Project Dolphyn' (note the spelling - every project related to hydrogen has to have 'HY' in the name!)

 

[xotGD]

However if we're not at 100% renewables then the loss of not using all the available renewables which could be connected to the grid then that's going mean a higher carbon emission than would otherwise be the case. It's better to use excess power to create Hydrogen when it would otherwise go to waste.

BTW I'm not arguing that it won't happen, just that it's not a priority at the moment and that Hydrogen trains are likely to be a part, but a small part, of the energy use for the railways.

Clearly a rural branch line which sees infrequent services it's going to be better to use Hydrogen than a urban 6tph line which would be better as OHLE.

However such lines are going to be the minority of energy use for UK rail.

Even as Hydrogen production increases there'll be other uses for which it would reduce emissions more than switching rail to it.

The idea is to have the wind to hydrogen far offshore where piping the hydrogen to the beach is cheaper than running a power cable. Therefore it would not be possible to use this power for anything else.

 

[edwin_m]

See 'Project Dolphyn' (note the spelling - every project related to hydrogen has to have 'HY' in the name!)

Noted thanks, but I'm still doubtful that the economics and risk profile stack up relative to transmission of the energy as electricity. There's also the issue that whichever bit of coastline the hydrogen pipe fetches up on may not have any great need for hydrogen, so would require a much more difficult overland pipeline or road transport with its attendant issues.

 

[43096]

Noted thanks, but I'm still doubtful that the economics and risk profile stack up relative to transmission of the energy as electricity. There's also the issue that whichever bit of coastline the hydrogen pipe fetches up on may not have any great need for hydrogen, so would require a much more difficult overland pipeline or road transport with its attendant issues.

So, we generate the hydrogen off shore because it is all green and Greta-friendly despite the inherent inefficiency of it. Then it gets shifted by the most un-green form of transport available for use. Wouldn't it be easier just to use the diesel on the train rather than on the lorries shifting this stuff around?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, we generate the hydrogen off shore because it is all green and Greta-friendly despite the inherent inefficiency of it. Then it gets shifted by the most un-green form of transport available for use. Wouldn't it be easier just to use the diesel on the train rather than on the lorries shifting this stuff around?

It's lighter than air.

 

[43096]

It's lighter than air.

I've no idea what your point is in relation to what I said.

 

[hwl]

It's lighter than air.

When compressed at 300bar about 16x times "heavier" than air and then there is all the steel to contain it...

 

[Bletchleyite]

When compressed at 300bar about 16x times "heavier" than air and then there is all the steel to contain it...

You get a lot of it in there though.

 

[hwl]

You get a lot of it in there though.

The energy density is still grim compared to anything else so you don't get much of it in. A bbq gas bottle is far better (and weights less overall)

 

[The Ham]

The idea is to have the wind to hydrogen far offshore where piping the hydrogen to the beach is cheaper than running a power cable. Therefore it would not be possible to use this power for anything else.

The project is aimed at changing our hearing from gas to hydrogen, which only works if the whole gas network is converted within an area.

Whilst this could allow rail to tap off some hydrogen for use by rail I suspect that by the early 2030's that there'll have been a significant shift away from diesel use on the railways, with a fair amount of what's left being used being used by bimodal trains, which would be costly to convert/replace.

Whilst projects like the breeze would provide some rail vehicles, there's are from circa 1990 and so would be around 40 years old by the time the hydrogen is likely to bring produced in large quantities.

I also suspect that with solar hot water panels and/or heat source pumps being able to warm water before electric heaters taking it up to temperature that there's likely to be a fair number of houses which would have shifted away from gas. That's likely to make running the network more costly than it currently is, which would accelerate the switch to electric faster as gas prices rise.

That's before you consider the extra costs with upgrading the network (so as to bring in redundancy to ensure supply is able to meet the demands if there's no wind or maintenance is being undertaken).

That's not to say that it won't happen, but I suspect that by the time we get there then the low cost of renewable energy would have (in comparison) closed the gap between gas and electric heating, especially if there's carbon emission taxes, making electric the go to power source.

Especially with the potential for large upfront costs for the conversion of your gas devices, which could be used for solar panels to provide you with free energy.

 

[James James]

So, we generate the hydrogen off shore because it is all green and Greta-friendly despite the inherent inefficiency of it. Then it gets shifted by the most un-green form of transport available for use. Wouldn't it be easier just to use the diesel on the train rather than on the lorries shifting this stuff around?

- How much diesel would be needed to run the train?
vs
- How much diesel would be used to transport the hydrogen?

One of those number is much larger than the other, OH and since you need to build new lorries for this they could be made to ru on hydrogen. Finally, there's the problem of wind not corresponding to peaks in electricity usage, which leads to electricity storage being necessary for green electricity networks - hydrogen is one such form of storage. Is it perfect: far-from. Is it bad: also far-from.