First hydrogen locomotive started working in Poland.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
125 points

Imagine if we somehow could run trains on electricity, that would be even better

permalink
report
reply
55 points

They already do, they just have a diesel generator to make the electricity

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Guessing that replacing that with a large battery that charges at night is unreasonable due to the torque needed? You’d probably need a battery larger than a train engine to be able to even do a few stops and starts. Which is why electric trains are wired all the time.

If someone knows for sure I’m super curious!

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
25 points

Is this whole thread a joke or have you people not heard of electrified rail

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The problem with battery trains is that locomotives hardly sit around long enough to charge unless it’s some sort of switcher or in for maintenance. Really the only use case for battery locomotives outside of switchers is passenger service where it’s fairly common for a train to sit for eight plus hours. Amtrak and Siemens are actually doing this with 15 of the new airo trainsets which will run on the empire line. The trainsets will specifically run on battery while within the new York city tunnels where diesel locomotives are only allowed to operate under emergency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Trains are already pulling what 100 cars. It’s easy enough to have a car that’s a battery. But I think overhead lines are the way to go on the vast majority of lines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

For transport of people, it seems germany has some train with battery. They replace their hydrogen trains.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Supercapacitors.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

If I ran the local power grid I’m not sure I’d want cargo trains using line power for traction, unless there was some mandated weight or length limit 🤔

Without some cargo limit I think sections of the line’s voltage will just collapse under the current being drawn, whenever the cargo train moves off from a complete stop - especially if it’s a multi mile long cargo train that seems common in the US

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Even better, we could also put cables above the train and connect them to an even bigger diesel generator located somewhere close to the railway. That would make the locomotive lighter and the energy production more efficient. Better yet, replace the diesel with uranium and you can easily power many trains.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

That would make the locomotive lighter

That’s not an advantage. You want your loco to be as heavy as possible for traction. If they were switching it to pantograph and it was lighter they’d add iron, or something else to make up the difference

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Show me disel here

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

I don’t know about Poland but I know about France (I would guess we’re not so far appart on this point).

While 95% of railways are electrified, those last 5% are not very worth it to invest in, because really low traffic and hard to operate (eg. in mountains). I’ve already heard of compromises, like hybrid locomotives that can run on battery for more than half the line and rely on diesel for the remaining.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

hard to operate (eg. in mountains).

In Soviet Union Caucasus was electrified first for this exact reason. Without electrification it was too hard to operate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

all trains, even the speed trains, in france run on electricity for who knows how many decades.

same trains go to great Britain, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and maybe some other countries too.

source of the electricity is debatable though. France produces a great majority of its electricity from nuclear since the ww2 trauma.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Oh you mean debatable because it’s one of the cleanest, cheapest, and safest sources of electricity we have?

Which allows France a degree of energy independence which has helped it not suffer the same amount of pain other countries have now that they’re having to kick the cheap Russian gas addiction?

And through huge cross-border interconnects it allows France to sell electricity to neighbouring countries at a huge profit?

Nuclear is not always the answer, but as France has shown, as long as you invest in reliable infrastructure and don’t put it in earthquake/tsunami-prone areas, it can be a huge positive for your country.

And you don’t have to rely on antagonistic petrostates for to power your homes with gas, or on strip-mining huge swathes of land by equally-antagonistic China for rare-earth metals for your wind turbines/solar panels/battery storage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

by “debatable”, i mean that the moment you mention it, debate starts. You proved me right and i thank you 😉

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Not trying to start a fight or anything, but don’t we still ‘need’ to burn a lot of coal to fuel electricity? Renewables haven’t gotten close to pushing the necessity of coal away yet, no? Why not alternatives like this in some places to offset the need for electricity?

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Hydrogen doesn’t exist randomly in a well or something it has to be created by using electricity - and that transformation is very inefficient if you then use the hydrogen in an inefficient way to power an engine instead of just using the electricity directly

That argument that energy is coal-heavy actually counts against hydrogen…

Hydrogen powered stuff only makes sense when electric isn’t an option like for planes that just can’t carry heavy batteries

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Apparently, some hydrogen does come out of the ground like methane: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/white-hydrogen-deposit-france/ but I assume it’s not abundant enough to make a difference

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You don’t have to use electricity to make hydrogen! You can make it from methane! But yeah, it’s probably even worse than a diesel engine when it comes to CO2 emissions…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Nuclear is the energy source that scares everyone but that is actually the most viable option to power the world until renewable becomes the dominant one.

Thorium has been the best solution all along but it can’t be weaponized so countries have been ignoring it for decades until recently

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The issue to me in term of effeciency is that the production of hydrogen needs electricity, the movement of it needs electricity, the storage and pumping of it needs electricity, and so on. I’d rather see all that electricity in the process simply be moving the vehicle. Though lugging batteries along is an issue in it’s own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What about wire?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 554K

    Comments