Treasury Blocking electrification plans

[modernrail]

Green hydrogen refers to hydrogen gas produced by electrolysis of water using renewable (solar/wind/hydropower) only, blue hydrogen, in contrast, refers to hydrogen gas produced from fossil fuels, such as through methane steam reformation, where the CO2 produced is captured and stored in some manner to ensure it does not end up in the atmosphere

Thanks Trainbike46, my bad!

 

[Irascible]

The Govts attraction to use for heating is that they want to reuse the gas grid.

It is pretty illogical though looking at cost, efficiency, higher value alternative uses and quantities likely to be available. Most people I work with think hydrogen will replace gas in industrial use but it’s use as a B to C product will be minimal.

Are they going to pay to seal up the gas network too? hydrogen gas molecules are *significantly* smaller than hydrocarbon gas...

I see two advantages to hydrogen - fast refuelling, and much less need for rare metals. Countering that is the fuelling infrastructure needed all the way up to extracting large quantities from water, as opposed to ... well we have *some* of the infrastructure to charge batteries at least. Once you've factored in the containment for hydrogen I believe it's about as energy dense as a battery. I notice someone managed to cost-effectively harvest lithium from the sea, so perhaps the rare metal argument might lose a little weight in future. There's still disposal though.

So, is hydrogen really cheaper than wiring when you've added all the other necessities in?

 

[Trainbike46]

So, is hydrogen really cheaper than wiring when you've added all the other necessities in?

According to the traction decarbonisation network strategy it is the most expensive option by far, but might be the best option for very long, very low usage lines without any rail freight

 

[A0wen]

But then back in those days where were not that many electrically hauled trains north of Crewe/weaver Jct.

But the issue with the WCML north of Crewe was terrain which lead to its electrification - don't forget pre electrification Class 50 diesels were being double headed to keep to time and the 87s were about 50% more powerful than the previous generation of AC locos.

The terrain on the ECML is much less demanding - there are various accounts of 47s keeping close to Deltic timings.

 

[DerekC]

The slide below from VW comparing battery and hydrogen as portable energy sources shows clearly why even "green" hydrogen is such a poor option. According to their figures, for every 10kWh of renewable energy generated you get 3kWh to drive the motor. That's for a car, but I can't see why the calculation would be significantly different for a train. And the carbon capture part of "blue" hydrogen is still (in energy terms) pie in the sky.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html#

 

[InOban]

With so much of our renewable electricity being wind, there will be times when we will have a surplus, which can be used to produce green hydrogen at minimal cost, since the marginal cost of wind generation is virtually zero. It doesn't matter that electrolysis is still rather inefficient.

 

[SJL2020]

With so much of our renewable electricity being wind, there will be times when we will have a surplus, which can be used to produce green hydrogen at minimal cost, since the marginal cost of wind generation is virtually zero. It doesn't matter that electrolysis is still rather inefficient.

Yes, such as the proposed Hydrogen hub at Flotta to be powered by the West of Orkney WF.

 

[Pete_uk]

If you have a 4 car multiple unit, with batteries under each car, what kind of distance could you get out of Merylabone?

That's the way I see things going.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

DfT can get in early and do a good deal for the railways, with a source of supply that is truly green and not subject risk on international transportation.

You need to define what you mean by "truly green". In my opinion it does not exist. It is incredibly inefficient. There has also been a recent report that it is not neutral as fas as GHGs are concerned. I will try and post the link. Batteries, wind and solar are not green. It is a bit like saying if we burn biomass it is green. That is laughable.

 

[modernrail]

According to the traction decarbonisation network strategy it is the most expensive option by far, but might be the best option for very long, very low usage lines without any rail freight

To be fair we really don’t know where the price will settle at this point. So many variables. Anyone taking their bet on offshore wind in the early days was called mad - accused of risking economic travesty. It is now super cheap, cheaper than fossil fuels and that has been achieved in super quick time.

This is one of the challenges with decarbonisation. Working out where everything will settle in real terms and also in comparison with each other.

One example is buried network - which is a big civils cost in several solutions. Nightmare to manage but there are solutions starting to come through that could massively shift the economics.

Offshore wind should provide plenty of optimism though.

You need to define what you mean by "truly green". In my opinion it does not exist. It is incredibly inefficient. There has also been a recent report that it is not neutral as fas as GHGs are concerned. I will try and post the link. Batteries, wind and solar are not green. It is a bit like saying if we burn biomass it is green. That is laughable.

You need to define what you mean by "truly green". In my opinion it does not exist. It is incredibly inefficient. There has also been a recent report that it is not neutral as fas as GHGs are concerned. I will try and post the link. Batteries, wind and solar are not green. It is a bit like saying if we burn biomass it is green. That is laughable.

Fair comment on defining ‘truly green’. Green hydrogen does have the potential to be quite good across the whole of its value chain though. That said, I do think there is a real danger hydrogen is being over hyped.

The embedded carbon/resource (precious metals etc) points are very important, I agree. That said, are you saying batteries, solar and wind produce more GHG than fossil fuels?

Biomass - totally agree that has been overhyped, applied stupidly etc. We seem to be seeing a big dialing back on that globally which is good.

I would not make big systemic bets yet and concentrate instead on picking off chunky but pretty much no brainier, no regrets, ideation that offers maximum bang for the buck, all things being equal, at the end of the day.

Leaving the language debate aside for a second, an example for me is TRU. We should have had an electrified east west line connecting 8 million people really some time ago. Before we worry too much about the Whitby branch line , let’s at least get on with doing that well.

It is fairly easy to set aside a reasonable amount of innovation funding to push the other tech to decision making points whilst getting on with things that should be done in any case today. To be fair, the Government has not been bad at that recently. There are lots of money around and they are being used to produce demonstrators. We are also seeing some of that work happen here in the UK which I am personally keen to support seems as how the baby boomer generation has allowed the UK to lose out to others in terms of rail manufacturing capacity and capability. (Drops mic, runs)

 

[Bald Rick]

The slide below from VW comparing battery and hydrogen as portable energy sources shows clearly why even "green" hydrogen is such a poor option. According to their figures, for every 10kWh of renewable energy generated you get 3kWh to drive the motor. That's for a car, but I can't see why the calculation would be significantly different for a train. And the carbon capture part of "blue" hydrogen is still (in energy terms) pie in the sky.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html#


View attachment 113041

that’s a brilliant diagram, and shows 4% losses between plug and electric transmission for a battery car, which will be broadly the same for a battery train. I.e. not very much.

If you have a 4 car multiple unit, with batteries under each car, what kind of distance could you get out of Merylabone?

That's the way I see things going.

well that depends on how big the batteries are.

but if, say, the battery pack (with temperature management systems) are the same weight as a typical DMU engine, cooler group, fuel system and exhaust system (5 tonnes minimum, usually more), and you had one under each vehicle, that would be around 3-4 MWh. That would get you from Marylebone to Oxford - Via Birmingham Snow Hill And Marylebone again.

 

[Shernan]

We can have the Chinese to import all labour and materials to electrify. Could be far cheaper. See how they build the high speed rail network from zero to the longest in the world in a matter of twenty years. That's shows how we are so incompetent

On the point of hydrogen vs electrification there is no guarantee how long will hydrogen really become green in a level that is sufficient to power so many industries. Tbh, electrification should bring more certain benefits (given that if we bring in more and more renewable or nuclear energy sources and move away from fossil fuels)

 

[paul1609]

With so much of our renewable electricity being wind, there will be times when we will have a surplus, which can be used to produce green hydrogen at minimal cost, since the marginal cost of wind generation is virtually zero. It doesn't matter that electrolysis is still rather inefficient.

In Scotland perhaps, for the whole of the UK probably not, its not a case of total wind generation it's a case of being able to transmit the energy from where it happens that the wind is blowing at any one time to where the hydrogen plant is.

 

[krus_aragon]

My original point was that, as far as I know (and I am happy to be corrected) there are virtually no natural supplies of hydrogen, and the energy created by hydrogen oxidation is likely to be similar to the energy required for its extraction. The only advantage would seem to be to have the creation at a point where there is a surplus of electrical energy, balancing that against the transmission costs to point of use.

This is a significant advantage in a future grid where renewable energy provides most (or all) of our electricity, as the generation is not directly under our control. We currently burn natural gas in power stations to make up for shortfalls in supply, and turn them off when there is excess supply.

If we drop natural gas as a power source, that implies that we need to increase supply from renewables. But that will lead to increased variation in supply according to the weather. That leaves us the option of huge overprovision of supply (and rarely using it all), or storing excess production for later use.

We've long had some electricity storage in the form of pumped storage such as Dinorwig power station, but it's relatively low capacity, only suitable for a few hours' generation (which won't see us through a winter). A renewables-heavy future will need much more storage, hence research into battery, gravity, and other forms of storage. Producing hydrogen is another such storage method, and stored hydrogen could be burnt to produce electricity when renewable generation doesn't meet demand. Natural gas power stations can be turned on and off quickly, and likewise for hydrogen.

It's this context, in which hydrogen generation and storage is likely to be required anyway, that leads hydrogen power to be considered favourably for some railway lines.

(Recent developments have led to an increased enthusiasm in the UK toward nuclear generation, but this is only suitable for baseline supply, as nuclear power stations aren't able to increase/decrease their output quickly to match demand variations. So we'll still need to address the issues listed above.)

 

[Wolfie]

We can have the Chinese to import all labour and materials to electrify. Could be far cheaper. See how they build the high speed rail network from zero to the longest in the world in a matter of twenty years. That's shows how we are so incompetent

On the point of hydrogen vs electrification there is no guarantee how long will hydrogen really become green in a level that is sufficient to power so many industries. Tbh, electrification should bring more certain benefits (given that if we bring in more and more renewable or nuclear energy sources and move away from fossil fuels)

Genius, NOT. I assume that you, unlike me, are content to import Chinese attitudes towards any opposition to proposed routes, property rights, health and safety and staff wages too.....

 

[modernrail]

In Scotland perhaps, for the whole of the UK probably not, its not a case of total wind generation it's a case of being able to transmit the energy from where it happens that the wind is blowing at any one time to where the hydrogen plant is.

In Scotland perhaps, for the whole of the UK probably not, its not a case of total wind generation it's a case of being able to transmit the energy from where it happens that the wind is blowing at any one time to where the hydrogen plant is.

As it will be off peak wind and so no grid constraints, don’t you just use the grid?

 

[Wyrleybart]

If you have a 4 car multiple unit, with batteries under each car, what kind of distance could you get out of Merylabone?

That's the way I see things going.

Guessing you could get from Marylebone to Harrow on the Hill on batteries then on the 3rd rail to Amersham.

 

[paul1609]

As it will be off peak wind and so no grid constraints, don’t you just use the grid?

Currently even off peak rotational generation (nuclear, gas, hydro biomass) doesn't drop below about 25% because of frequency stability issues. Even so parts of the UK grid are (point to point) maxed out.

 

[James90012]

The debate about electrification cost is an interesting one, but one which I think is a double edged sword. On one hand, NR can't provide confidence in an electrification unit rate attractive enough which means decisions to electrify are deferred or avoided which also means NR can't get the economies of scale or learned experience required to identify where cost risk sits to drive it out early in development.

The fact of the matter though is it is a political choice, in Scotland they have elected to progress with electrification (and decarbonisation) - presumably with a cost rate in mind - despite it's high capital cost.

 

[JamesT]

As it will be off peak wind and so no grid constraints, don’t you just use the grid?

It's off peak in that demand is low, but the issue is that the grid connections from the far North of Scotland to the rest of the UK are insufficient to handle the wind farms going at full tilt. Though future investment may help with that - https://scotlandagainstspin.org/202...-help-unlock-scots-wind-potential-renews-biz/

Which suggests that storage or hydrogen plants need to be located as close as possible to the energy producers so they're acting as a moderator on what goes to the grid rather than hanging off it and using capacity. The potential further advantage of producing green hydrogen would be that it can then be moved by tanker or pipeline to the consumer rather than using the grid.

 

[Annetts key]

This is a significant advantage in a future grid where renewable energy provides most (or all) of our electricity, as the generation is not directly under our control. We currently burn natural gas in power stations to make up for shortfalls in supply, and turn them off when there is excess supply.

If we drop natural gas as a power source, that implies that we need to increase supply from renewables. But that will lead to increased variation in supply according to the weather. That leaves us the option of huge overprovision of supply (and rarely using it all), or storing excess production for later use.

We've long had some electricity storage in the form of pumped storage such as Dinorwig power station, but it's relatively low capacity, only suitable for a few hours' generation (which won't see us through a winter). A renewables-heavy future will need much more storage, hence research into battery, gravity, and other forms of storage. Producing hydrogen is another such storage method, and stored hydrogen could be burnt to produce electricity when renewable generation doesn't meet demand. Natural gas power stations can be turned on and off quickly, and likewise for hydrogen.

It's this context, in which hydrogen generation and storage is likely to be required anyway, that leads hydrogen power to be considered favourably for some railway lines.

(Recent developments have led to an increased enthusiasm in the UK toward nuclear generation, but this is only suitable for baseline supply, as nuclear power stations aren't able to increase/decrease their output quickly to match demand variations. So we'll still need to address the issues listed above.)

With nuclear power, it’s not the case that they can’t be designed to follow the load (may not apply to all existing installations), but because there is no good reason to reduce output. Controlling a nuclear reaction is very different to reducing the amount of fossil fuel burnt. To reduce the thermal output of a nuclear reaction you have to absorb neutrons with control rods or otherwise disrupt the reaction, as you can’t turn the fuel source off.

Plus because they are one of the most expensive types of power stations, they sell to the grid at any price. You are more likely to see wind turbines going off line than nuclear power stations reducing output significantly.

We don’t have anything close to a perfect solution to the electrical energy system problems.

Having a much larger electrical distribution system across Europe will help. The assumption being that the variations in available wind power can be averaged out somewhat. Similarly, the same can be applied to PV solar cell systems. And it should be possible to average out water storage and load to some extent as well.

Nuclear can continue to be used for base load supplies. That still leaves plenty of problems to solve.
Currently we are not making use of the power of the oceans. Or making enough use of ‘waste heat’.

Talking of ‘waste heat’, another way of dealing with excessive electrical production, is to use the energy to heat up water. Then store this in a super insulated storage system. Then when needed, this hot water can be used for space heating or hot water. Or maybe we can find other ways of using the heat energy.

Our government also don’t appear to be taking any serious notice that reducing the amount of energy used for heating can make a significant difference. If you only need 20% or less of the energy to heat your home in the future compared to now, taken across the country, that’s a big saving in oil, gas and electricity. So buildings need to be super insulated and have more efficient heating and hot water systems.

It's off peak in that demand is low, but the issue is that the grid connections from the far North of Scotland to the rest of the UK are insufficient to handle the wind farms going at full tilt. Though future investment may help with that - https://scotlandagainstspin.org/202...-help-unlock-scots-wind-potential-renews-biz/

Which suggests that storage or hydrogen plants need to be located as close as possible to the energy producers so they're acting as a moderator on what goes to the grid rather than hanging off it and using capacity. The potential further advantage of producing green hydrogen would be that it can then be moved by tanker or pipeline to the consumer rather than using the grid.

It would be more efficient to move electrical energy via higher capacity electrical distribution system (grid) rather than have hydrogen gas moved by tanker. And new pipelines (or extensive work required to convert gas pipelines) would likely cost more than providing a higher capacity electrical distribution system.

 

[Class 170101]

It would be more efficient to move electrical energy via higher capacity electrical distribution system (grid) rather than have hydrogen gas moved by tanker. And new pipelines (or extensive work required to convert gas pipelines) would likely cost more than providing a higher capacity electrical distribution system.

Also a tanker requires fuel to operate it, seems rather environmentally unfriendly to move Hydrogen by a tanker powered by diesel (oil based fuel as appropriate).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The embedded carbon/resource (precious metals etc) points are very important, I agree. That said, are you saying batteries, solar and wind produce more GHG than fossil fuels?

Biomass - totally agree that has been overhyped, applied stupidly etc. We seem to be seeing a big dialing back on that globally which is good.

I would not make big systemic bets yet and concentrate instead on picking off chunky but pretty much no brainier, no regrets, ideation that offers maximum bang for the buck, all things being equal, at the end of the day.

1) No I am not saying they produce more GHG than fossil fuels---- but especially with embedded content, recyclability etc ---- they are not as green as some people are making out.
2) I totally agree. Don't make big systemic bets yet. Absolutely do what much of the world is doing and carry on with electrification and use the other technologies to assist.

I am seeing here in the US the same mistake with ethanol again. Put more ethanol in gasoline. Sure ethanol is clean but boy oh boy does it have consequences - rest of world food shortages, prices going up, more fertilizer etc used. It is not a truly green fuel.

 

[Class 170101]

I am seeing here in the US the same mistake with ethanol again. Put more ethanol in gasoline. Sure ethanol is clean but boy oh boy does it have consequences - rest of world food shortages, prices going up, more fertilizer etc used. It is not a truly green fuel.

That mistake is also being made in the UK though, not with ethanol perhaps, but solar panels being put on farming land suitable for crops rather than on structures like house roofs and so on. We need to be food secure as well as energy secure and we seem to be trading one off for the other.

The rail industry could do its bit by adding platform canopies to some of its exposed platforms and putting solar panels on the top of them, also encourages people to spread out along the platform.

 

[Annetts key]

The rail industry could do its bit by adding platform canopies to some of its exposed platforms and putting solar panels on the top of them, also encourages people to spread out along the platform.

Before fitting PV solar panels, first they should put in automatic lighting controls (BR used to fit them to some stations in my area in the past) to switch off station lighting during daylight or at night when there is no booked services. It’s surprising how many stations have some or all lights left on during daylight hours or when there are no trains in the middle of the night (yes, some stations do have overnight staff so not all the lights can be switched off, but motion sensing lights can be used).

And the existing roof area of railway buildings is quite large. So fitting PV solar panels would definitely help. And where there are occupied rooms/buildings (staff accommodation, or toilet blocks), the railway should also use solar water heating. Every watt of energy from the sun is one watt less on electricity from the national grid.

And don’t get me started on the lack of draft proofing or other insulation measures. The last time I was in the upside waiting room at Taunton, there was a large gap at the bottom of the door.

 

[InOban]

In Scotland perhaps, for the whole of the UK probably not, its not a case of total wind generation it's a case of being able to transmit the energy from where it happens that the wind is blowing at any one time to where the hydrogen plant is.

Which is why there are plans to build a hydrogen plant in Oban, largely to replace 20% of the town gas, but also to provide fuel for hydrogen -powered trains.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

To be fair we really don’t know where the price will settle at this point. So many variables. Anyone taking their bet on offshore wind in the early days was called mad - accused of risking economic travesty. It is now super cheap, cheaper than fossil fuels and that has been achieved in super quick time.

The problem that renewables costings don't include is the cost of dealing with lack of wind or sun. Currently only gas can provide rapid response so its going to have to sit on the system will all the associated costs. The other issue, particularly in Scotland who have flooded the system with high density of onshore wind, is when there is too much wind generators are paid to switch off and this running into 10's of millions some month. Then finally even when the wind is blowing and the sun is out its dependability to run at a continuous level like a gas fired station isn't there (wind varies by the second as does cloud cover) so National Grid are now spending considerable amounts with battery companies who can provide very rapid response to keep frequency within tolerance. These are just the day to day costs to manage the system on top of this you have the costs running into the billions to reconfigure the NG from being based around big land based power stations to offshore wind.
Unfortunately this is cost for moving to net zero and politicians need to be a bit more honest about the true cost.

Biomass - totally agree that has been overhyped, applied stupidly etc. We seem to be seeing a big dialing back on that globally which is good.

Agreed. Utterly bonkers Drax spews out more CO2 than gas and it only works if the replacement trees are left for at least 30 years

I would not make big systemic bets yet and concentrate instead on picking off chunky but pretty much no brainier, no regrets, ideation that offers maximum bang for the buck, all things being equal, at the end of the day.

you can for rural branch lines they will never get electrified

Leaving the language debate aside for a second, an example for me is TRU. We should have had an electrified east west line connecting 8 million people really some time ago. Before we worry too much about the Whitby branch line , let’s at least get on with doing that well.

Well TRU is a government aspiration but even then its going to take a decade to get it done. Weaver to Motherwell is longer and was done in three years.

 

[Starmill]

Before fitting PV solar panels, first they should put in automatic lighting controls (BR used to fit them to some stations in my area in the past) to switch off station lighting during daylight or at night when there is no booked services. It’s surprising how many stations have some or all lights left on during daylight hours or when there are no trains in the middle of the night (yes, some stations do have overnight staff so not all the lights can be

Lighting is slowly being replaced with LED heads which go into power saving mode automatically, where they become very dim but helpfully do not leave the station in total darkness, and are then activated by the passage of a train or person walking along the platform.

 

[Irascible]

Also a tanker requires fuel to operate it, seems rather environmentally unfriendly to move Hydrogen by a tanker powered by diesel (oil based fuel as appropriate).

You can power ships via a combination of wind & battery though. That unsurprisingly seems to be a big area of development right now. ( And I don't mean traditional sails, you can use flettner rotors or just plain wind turbines on ships too ).

-

Nuclear often seems to fall through the gap between fossil & green/renewables in discussion, because it's understandably not really in either camp. I would be very interested in a comparison between the environmental impact of a nuclear plant vs a wind farm of similar output, if you account for the supply chain and the life maintenance, plus part costs of a nuclear waste repository of course. It's by far the sane option for reliable power though - whlie you can shut one off ( some of France's plants seem semi-permanently offline ) it's not exactly fast to react to changes in demand, and there's *no point* anyway. If only we'd actually got round to replacing our older plants in a timely manner...

Are there any serious attempts at building geothermal plants here?

What seems to really be needed is some sort of localised renewable storage so you can take peak demand off the national grid as well as making use of spare juice. I think something a little larger than stacks of batteries might be wanted.

 

[Annetts key]

Before fitting PV solar panels, first they should put in automatic lighting controls (BR used to fit them to some stations in my area in the past) to switch off station lighting during daylight or at night when there is no booked services. It’s surprising how many stations have some or all lights left on during daylight hours or when there are no trains in the middle of the night (yes, some stations do have overnight staff so not all the lights can be

Lighting is slowly being replaced with LED heads which go into power saving mode automatically, where they become very dim but helpfully do not leave the station in total darkness, and are then activated by the passage of a train or person walking along the platform.

Yes, I believe I did mention motion sensing lights which are the LED heads you mentioned.

By the automatic lighting controls, I mean something as simple as a light sensor and time clock controlling a contractor. The contractor is switched on if the light sensor does not detect daylight AND the time clock is within one of its ON periods. The contractor then supplies the power to all the lights or a group of lights.

Hence during winter, typically, during the hours of no booked service, the lights are off because it’s not within the either of the time clocks ON periods. About 15 to 30 minutes before the first timetabled booked service, the time clock switches the lights on (assuming it’s still dark according to the light sensor). Then when the light sensor detects daylight, it turns the lights off. They stay off during the day. In the evening, as the sun goes down, the light sensor switches the lights on again. They stay on until the time clock ON period ends, which is set to say one hour after the last booked passenger service (the hour being the allowance in case the train service is delayed). Then they are off until the morning again…