this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
474 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59679 readers
4830 users here now

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


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

First hydrogen locomotive started working in Poland.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arc@lemm.ee 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Hydrogen probably has some niche uses but there are some things that proponents like to gloss over.

  1. It's not green since most of it is produced from fossil fuels. It's also disgustingly expensive even compared to fossil fuels. I'd note that the company Orlen Koltrans which is funding this train is a subsidiary of an oil company PKN Orlen so yeah.
  2. Even if it were green (e.g. water electrolysis from renewables) it takes something like 3-4x the energy to produce, store, transport, and convert back to energy as just charging a battery.
  3. Regardless of how it's made hydrogen also contributes to global warming - if any hydrogen leaks or escapes during fueling or venting, it promotes the methane production in the atmosphere.
  4. It can and does go kaboom. e.g. this hydrogen powered bus has seen better days.

All said and done, I think it's crazy to even bother with the tech unless its so niche it cannot be done some other way. Japanese automakers & oil companies looking to do a bit of greenwashing have been the major proponents of hydrogen and that should say something. Also the fact that hydrogen has been a miserable failure in areas where it has been piloted.

In the case of trains it seems more sensible to manufacture biodiesel or synthetic fuels than this. It's certainly safer to transport and store. Perhaps existing trains can be converted relatively easily. Or electrify the train line or stretches of it. Batteries would be an option too - a train might simply hook up to a fresh battery tender and off it goes. Or some kind of hybrid solution that can source power from overhead lines and/or diesel and/or battery. Or even put solar on carriages to reduce fuel consumption during daylight operations. All these things seem more viable than hydrogen.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Biodiesels arent more efficent, a huge waste of land and destroying the local environment through monocultures, pesticides and fertilizers.

The most reasonable solution would be to fucking electrify the train tracks. It is a train god dammit. It runs on tracks and the track aint running anywhere else.

[–] arc@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Biodiesels are still better than diesel and the stuff can be manufactured from seaweed, algae, any biomass really. It doesn't have to be a monoculture. It doesn't even have to be 100% biodiesel either - start blending it in. I agree electric motors and electrification are the ultimate outcome but the rail industry has a lot of lines and a lot of locomotives and and you want progression over time with options for battery, power lines or diesel, potentially all 3 on the same line in different parts. It might take decades to transition. It's certainly not hydrogen, that's for sure.

In support of your point, and to help clarify it, there's a lot of train lines where the cost (and the carbon output) of electrification is far beyond the benefit. A lot of the North Wales coast, for example, because working in the tunnels would be prohibitively expensive. In these cases it makes sense to have bi/trimodal trains, at least until electrification technology makes significant breakthroughs.

Another example might be cases where an old rail line (e.g. ex-mining) is looking at being reopened at a low capacity. It would be madness to immediately electrify. An example I have looked at was running a train for tourists on what is currently a little-used freight line (that still uses tokens!) in the Lake District.

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A whole lot of misinformation about biofuel here. Manufacturing biofuels does not require significant changes to current agriculture practices. Most biofuel is made from byproducts that would be burned as waste otherwise.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is wrong already. Land use for biofuels

But it would get even worse, when we'd expand the land use even further by raising the demand significantly.

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Two things: We're already talking apples and oranges because I'm talking about biofuel production in the United States (the world's largest producer of biofuel) and you're talking about Europe.

Secondly, I'm talking about increasing the production of second-generation biofuels (cellulosic biofuel) which can be made from byproducts and green waste.

I am in favor of electrifying transportation networks in ways that do not require battery energy storage. However, no discussion about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, in particular when it comes to personal transportation, is honest if it does not account for the incredible environmental damage caused by the extraction of materials for and manufacturing and disposal of lithium batteries. Hydrogen power isn't a direct burning of hydrogen as a clean fuel, it works by generating electricity to charge lithium batteries, which are then discharged to power electric motors.

Additionally, there is not enough lithium in the earth to sustainably replace carbon fuels for transportation. Renewable biofuels, combined with a reduction or cessation of the use of fossil fuels and an increase in clean nuclear energy are a much more likely and rational solution for the transportation energy problem.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can appreciate the electrification push for passenger vehicles. Good luck moving frieght with electric.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I fail to see the problem? Freight trains in Europe regularly run electrical already. There is no technological reason as to ehy they shouldnt or couldnt be electrified.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And if you want to go to mountain area, then electric is your only option

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

RTFM. EMUs are more capable than DMUs.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  1. Green hydrogen is being produced at scale.
  2. So what, renewables are infinite
  3. That’s overblown
  4. You think the toxic (deadly) lithium thermal runaways that can’t be stopped are somehow better? No. They are worse and a deadly underground carpark disaster waiting to happen.
  5. Not enough lithium in the world to supply the global suv market let alone compete with other markets and let’s not forget that the rest of the transport market…Lithium batteries are yet again another finite mined resource with the same problem as dinosaur juice.
  6. Rail lines won’t be electrified, they are barely being maintained as is!
[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You think the toxic (deadly) lithium thermal runaways that can’t be stopped are somehow better? No. They are worse and a deadly underground carpark disaster waiting to happen.

Yup, all those trains waiting to explode in carparks. Nor are we developing better batteries that don't have these problems. Nope, just leaving things exactly as they are.

Not enough lithium in the world to supply the global suv market . . .

Even if lithium was our only battery option, this is just plain wrong. People misunderstand what "reserve" means in mining. It's not the amount of something that's available to be mined. It's the amount that is available profitably under current economic conditions. Both better technology and other shifts in the market mean more reserves "magically" open up.

Oceanic lithium mining may already been commercially viable, and the amount of lithium we can get from that is basically unlimited. On the lab side, there's a promising string-based evaporation method, which would substantially reduce costs and environmental footprint--exactly the sort of tech that makes more reserves open up. It still needs to be demonstrated at scale, but the strings involved don't use any exotic materials or have any difficult production.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wish they gave a $ per KG estimate in your link about harvesting with strings. The methods detailed in this Journal article gives estimates of $2-5 per KG which is like a 5 to 12x return at current prices.

I wonder if you could couple that string method with desalination plants? Take the brine output, extract the lithium with the string method before releasing back into the ocean. Two birds one stone sorta deal. I also wonder if the string method is as technically easy to implement and separate the end products, and it's just a lot of labor if this will end up economically benefitting countries with extremely low wages. If so, that could be ecologically very bad, especially if it's possible to do with salt water brine. (As it could incentivize people to pump ocean water inland to make brine pools for harvesting).

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The fact you couldn’t put the recent derailments and toxic unstoppable fires together shows clear ideological bias.

“Developing” cool so 5 years? 10 years? For these super safe “in-development batteries”. Neat. More clear ideology borderline fantasy.

“Reserve” Hahahaha More fantasy. Demand has never been higher but don’t worry. “Reserve” will save us all..

“Other technology” “Profitability “ hahaha good god how much of a fantasy are you selling.

[–] arc@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. Not really. There are plans for hydrogen plants. The vast majority is "blue". Secondly what are the chances that an oil company is going to make green hydrogen?
  2. The renewables aren't the problem. The cost of capturing energy is the problem. If hydrogen takes 3-4x the energy then that's 3-4x the land with 3-4x the solar and/or windfarms at 3-4x the expense. Do you not see the problem?
  3. No it isn't. Scientific studies suggest the impact on the atmosphere might 12x worse than releasing CO2.
  4. Lithium isn't the only battery material. Nor I daresay even if it were, that the safety risk is anywhere near as bad as driving a train with a hundreds of kgs of hydrogen on board
  5. Lithium isn't the only battery material. There are numerous battery chemistries in existence. It might even be that some less dense chemistries like sodium ion would be viable.
  6. Which is why I clearly I suggested a progressive approach. Switch from diesel to biodiesel, start building hybrid trains where the motor and tender are almost separate things and where the source of power can be 2 or 3 potential inputs - diesel, electrification, battery. And where rolling stock can use solar to reduce consumption further.
[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. Sorry to burst your bubble. Australia, Africa, take your pick, both have huge multimillion dollar green hydrogen plants being built. Like the 1GW North Queensland hydrogen project currently in contract.
  2. Again see above
  3. Right… that is bullshit. Plenty of real world studies and events HAVE occurred and the toxic release is not a maybe flip flop study. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09784-z

Don’t like papers in nature? This guy is a bit of an asshole but he is not wrong at all and reports on the recent event/s Watch it to the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7l4wR1zhbc 4. Sure but none are here and more competitive or suitable for application (like compressed air) the leader is clear and underwhelming. Here we need to understand promises of development realistically don’t occur more often than do. 6. I won’t knock on biodiesel as we need a solution, something but we can’t create religions on one in development “potential” more likely to fail than succeed

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

The hydrogen propaganda machine is spamming lemmy. It's not green technology until fossil fuel companies don't benefit from it

[–] shinyLane@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I agree hydrogen has a lot of challenges, but as you said, it does have niche uses, and I do see some places (Steel Arc Furnace) where it could make an impact IF driven by green energy. Not really disagreeing with you persay but you are downplaying Hydrogen a bit in my opinion.

We are still finding new ways to utilize it both in the electrolyzer and in chemical synthesis so there is more ground for us to cover in the near future I feel like (opinion).

I'm not sure a train is the right place though... yeah.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's not green since most of it is produced from fossil fuels.

Dear Faust, it's them again. Them who say "electricity is not green since most of it is produced from fossil fuels"

It's also disgustingly expensive even compared to fossil fuels

Hydrogen is mean of storage, not source

it takes something like 3-4x the energy to produce, store, transport, and convert back to energy as just charging a battery.

Ehhh. 60% efficiency means 1.6x the energy to produce. And battaries are transported too.

In the case of trains it seems more sensible to manufacture biodiesel or synthetic fuels than this. It's certainly safer to transport and store. Perhaps existing trains can be converted relatively easily. Or electrify the train line or stretches of it.

Electrify? Yes! Everything else? Meh.

Or even put solar on carriages to reduce fuel consumption during daylight operations.

Small area, create drag, may be even energy-negative. Worse idea than hydrogen storage.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One use case for hydrogen is sea amd aircraft. H2 has a very high power density. Sea abd aircrat can't use batteries because they woukd take all tge space for people and cargo.

[–] arc@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's more complicated than that. Hydrogen has a higher energy density than gasoline on a mass basis (i.e. 1 kg of hydrogen is about 3x the energy density of 1kg of gasoline). But for volumetric density the situation is reversed - 1Kg of hydrogen takes 4x the space of 1kg of gasoline. So you're not really saving anything by using hydrogen.

On top of that gasoline is a liquid at atmospheric pressures and can flow into any nook and cranny of your aircraft. Most aircraft will store fuel in the wings and under the fuselage. If you use hydrogen you have to store it in heavily reinforced pressurized tanks, preferably spheroidal, cylindrical, toiroidal in shape. That means you're looking at putting some honking great cylinders on your aircraft and there is no convenient place to do it. They'll either have to be mounted on struts or in the body somewhere.

I don't think batteries will find much application in aircraft until solid state batteries come along. But there are some high density batteries appearing for aviation applications (drones, taxis etc.) and just like with gasoline they can be incorporated pretty much anywhere in the structure of the aircraft.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

even solid state batteries are not close enough to come close to what aircraft need. Also there are some way to store hydrogen in a liquid form that does not need pressure. Although then you have to have a water to mix with to make the h2 gas for the fuel cell.

[–] arc@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I don't even know where to start with that.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I personally see hydrogen as a great energy dense storage solution to utilize excess generation from solar/wind/etc.

But we're a long way off from that, so it seems the consensus is that if anything, hydrogen research should primarily be in preparation for a time when it could be utilized reasonably. That may be 20-30 years out, or more. Idk.

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Actually, we're not a long way off from that. Hydrogen production facilities utilizing (excess) renewable electricity output are under construction as we speak. For example, a large project in Kazakhstan (which has large stretches of windy, sunny and empty steppes) is aiming to be online in 2030 with 30 GW of production going towards green hydrogen.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

There's a ton of options there besides hydrogen. Flow batteries are far more efficient than hydrogen, and there's no particular barrier to mass production at this point. Then there's anything from flywheels, other battery chemistries that are too heavy for EVs, or just pumping water uphill.

We need options there today. We want to be on 80% renewables by 2030 in industrialized countries, and that will require some kind of storage solution. Fortunately, we already have quite a few.