greywagtail
New Member
I'm new to this forum and trains generally so please understand if I've written this in the wrong place/format, or if I don't know technical terms.
I'm curious about the reasons behind the development of hydrogen trains. I know they're marketed as better for the environment, but there's some problems with that to the point I don't really understand how they're better than overhead electrified trains like we have now.
Hydrogen trains are advertised as better for the environment than electric because the trains' only emissions are steam. But the energy needed to electrolyse that hydrogen mostly comes from natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel, the same as electrified trains if their electricity comes from fossil fuels. Wouldn't it make more sense to work towards powering trains with renewable energy, instead of making trains that use non-renewable energy in a different way?
I've also read that hydrogen trains would have lithium batteries to store the energy produced on the train. Lithium mining certainly isn't sustainable. That ties into the two positive things I know about hydrogen trains, which is that they could be used on tracks that don't have enough traffic to justify electrifying, and can be used even if overhead lines fail.
Using hydrogen trains on non-electrified routes makes sense, because it's probably better than diesel. But I don't understand how that makes hydrogen trains "the future of the rail industry" as I've seen in some articles. There is certainly an issue with "carbon neutral" things ignoring the emissions a step removed from the product, like electric cars with lithium batteries running off electricity that could be made with fossil fuels. So maybe it's a case ignoring the issues because the product just sounds greener. Or maybe it's a case of new and impressive things being built because they're new and impressive.
I'm curious what other people think about it! [:
I'm curious about the reasons behind the development of hydrogen trains. I know they're marketed as better for the environment, but there's some problems with that to the point I don't really understand how they're better than overhead electrified trains like we have now.
Hydrogen trains are advertised as better for the environment than electric because the trains' only emissions are steam. But the energy needed to electrolyse that hydrogen mostly comes from natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel, the same as electrified trains if their electricity comes from fossil fuels. Wouldn't it make more sense to work towards powering trains with renewable energy, instead of making trains that use non-renewable energy in a different way?
I've also read that hydrogen trains would have lithium batteries to store the energy produced on the train. Lithium mining certainly isn't sustainable. That ties into the two positive things I know about hydrogen trains, which is that they could be used on tracks that don't have enough traffic to justify electrifying, and can be used even if overhead lines fail.
Using hydrogen trains on non-electrified routes makes sense, because it's probably better than diesel. But I don't understand how that makes hydrogen trains "the future of the rail industry" as I've seen in some articles. There is certainly an issue with "carbon neutral" things ignoring the emissions a step removed from the product, like electric cars with lithium batteries running off electricity that could be made with fossil fuels. So maybe it's a case ignoring the issues because the product just sounds greener. Or maybe it's a case of new and impressive things being built because they're new and impressive.
I'm curious what other people think about it! [: