Alstom Hydrogen Multiple Units

[black and decker boy]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The point is there are several Private sector train building and leasing companies who will happily provide an 'out of the box' Hydrogen solution. GBR has done NOTHING to affect the cosy world of train leasing companies based in tax havens procuring trains from private sector manufacturers for the contracted out train operators to run.

 

If a Hydrogen train provided by say Alstom doesn't work by contrast, is delivered late or ends up costing way more than planned then the PRIVATE sector carries the can - so this will be seen as a very attractive solution by Whitehall. Not only does it keep their city mates and financiers happy it also offloads the risk away from the Government owned (and micromanaged) Network Rail.

 

This contrasts with anything done by Network Rail - where the risk remains with the state and ministers cannot dodge responsibility if things go wrong.

 

 

I don’t see your point tbh.

 

a new build hydrogen powered train using technology proven in EU won’t pose huge risks to the train builders but the additional cost & complexity of running it will fall to GBR and thus the taxpayer.

 

a new build hydrogen train will be more expensive to build than a straight AC unit so lease costs will be higher meaning higher cost to the taxpayer (though may be cheaper than current diesel units due to less mechanical parts)

 

no matter which way you cut it, the ultimate risk & costs of the railway now fall to the taxpayer. That is a huge change from the privatised world.

 

it doesn’t affect OAO though none have shown a desire for hydrogen powered MUs. It also doesn’t affect FOCs who continue to favour type 5 diesels and are now simply switching to HVO to keep their credentials green but risk exposure low.

[cal.n]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

The point is there are several Private sector train building and leasing companies who will happily provide an 'out of the box' Hydrogen solution. GBR has done NOTHING to affect the cosy world of train leasing companies based in tax havens procuring trains from private sector manufacturers for the contracted out train operators to run.

 

Which ROSCOs are based in tax havens? Underlining it doesn't make it true.

 

7 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I'm intrigued by the enormous size of the hydrogen fuel tank in railway vehicles when Toyota has a car that has a range of 600+km with what seems to be a fairly standard sized fuel tank

https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/articles-news-events/2020/mirai-2020 

 

That's a very interesting question. The main reason I'd point out is that most automotive tanks are pressurised to 700 bar, whereas all rail applications to date have been 350 bar tanks. As I'm sure you're aware, twice the pressure doesn't mean twice the mass, so is a law of diminishing returns.

Also worth noting that all automotive EV/FCEV 'ranges' are absolute maximums, whereas rail has an relatively large auxiliary load.

[Dungrange]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

This is where battery technology could come into play - particularly if through services are provided which can use the 25LKV to recharge.

 

One example might be the Oxenholme - Windermere branch where I understand some services start / originate in Manchester

 

Battery technology is indeed being looked at on that service.

[DY444]

15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

This is where battery technology could come into play - particularly if through services are provided which can use the 25LKV to recharge.

 

One example might be the Oxenholme - Windermere branch where I understand some services start / originate in Manchester

 

8 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Battery technology is indeed being looked at on that service.

 

If we had a media that could see the bigger picture rather than trivial details then Windermere would be a national disgrace.  If there is a simpler stretch of railway to electrify anywhere in the country then I'd be surprised.  It ought to be the Styal line of today, where NR can get its act together ahead of a more ambitious programme.  The idea of a small battery fleet for a non-self contained branch is a recipe for service unreliability and there have been reports that Northern is totally opposed to the idea and wants electrification.  In fact everybody concerned wants electrification except the supposedly climate obsessed Government.  Go figure.    

Edited November 13, 2021 by DY444

[APOLLO]

I also can't see the problem electrifying the Windemere branch, not very long, 10 miles or so, passing loop or two. Raise a few bridges, stick some masts & simple catenary up and away you go. It ain't rocket science.

 

Everything touched by government (of all colours) these days is an absolute disaster and cess pit of sleaze.

 

Brit15

[phil-b259]

11 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

 

 

no matter which way you cut it, the ultimate risk & costs of the railway now fall to the taxpayer. That is a huge change from the privatised world.

 

 

No it isn't!

 

The creation of GBR has done NOTHING to affect train procurement! (or indeed TOCS themselves for that matter*)

 

First lets get one thing straight - even in the days of franchising TOCs could not go round ordering new stock (or leasing extra older trains) without the express permission of the DfT as doing so increased the train leasing costs affecting the complex finical arrangements in the franchise agreement and potentially left the Government facing increased costs the next time the franchise was let.

 

Thats why new trains were basically only ordered as part of fresh franchise awards as their effects could be built into the franchise agreement and the finical implications for Government spending be factored in.

 

Hence why Northern was unable to procure any extra stock when it was operating under a 'zero growth' franchise contract several years ago.

 

In other words new train procurement was previously dependent of Governmental approval - just as will be the case under the GBR 'brand'**

 

Under GBR  the Government will still NOT be getting involved in the design or production of trains, all it will do is sign up to lease X amount of units from one of the private leasing companies for a set price and hand them over to a TOC to operate - or ask the privately run TOC to do it for them.

 

Should the manufacture run into problems and the trains cost more to produce than expected, or are delivered late the party which takes the financial risk IS STILL THE PRIVATE SECTOR! 

 

In such a situation the Government / TOC actually gains as they can negotiate a discount or extra units or other freebies for breech of contract.

 

By contrast if NRs electrification runs into problems and costs more than expected or is delayed then its THE GOVERNMENT who have to carry the finical burden of extra spending, paying the TOCs to lease units they cannot use, etc, etc.

 

Thus as far as the been counters in Whitehall are concerned pushing hydrogen technology rather than the Government taking on further electrification is a much less risky and potentially cheaper solution.

 

 

* Under GBR:-

 

TOCs will still exist and be contracted out to the private sector on a concession / fixed term management contract basis.

TOC staff such as drivers, station staff, etc will STILL be employed by said private sector entities all on different T&C + pay scales and NOT BE EMPLOYED BY GBR***.

Network Rail will still exist and all the staff they employ will continue to be NR employees (again on a masive variety of T&Cs +pay scales - NOT GBR ones!

Trains will still be leased from Private sector leasing companies

Trains will still be built by private sector manufacturers.

Major renewals will still be contracted out by NR to the private sector.

 

*** This is important as it minimises the effects of industrial action - if you bring everybody back into what amounts to a BR Mk2 then you could get a nationwide strike of traincrew rather than the action just be restricted to one specific TOC.

 

** Yup I said BRAND. GBR is just a massive con trick to make it look like the Government is doing something radical when in reality virtually everything set up as part of privatisation stays firmly in place. Its a triumph of style over substance which does nothing to shrink private sector involvement or remove the fragmentation endemic in the railway industry.

Edited November 13, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

57 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I also can't see the problem electrifying the Windemere branch, not very long, 10 miles or so, passing loop or two. Raise a few bridges, stick some masts & simple catenary up and away you go. It ain't rocket science.

 

 

Agreed its not a big problem wiring it  - but....

 

(1) I used it as an off the top of my head example - other lines may not be as easy wins so to speak

(2) I would much rather energies were put into doing the MML say than doing 'twigs' as it were. Given the appalling lack of OLE electrification in the country generally and the need to focus on main lines first, battery technology on 'twigs' would help.

[black and decker boy]

58 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

No it isn't!

 

The creation of GBR has done NOTHING to affect train procurement! (or indeed TOCS themselves for that matter*)

 

First lets get one thing straight - even in the days of franchising TOCs could not go round ordering new stock (or leasing extra older trains) without the express permission of the DfT as doing so increased the train leasing costs affecting the complex finical arrangements in the franchise agreement and potentially left the Government facing increased costs the next time the franchise was let.

 

Thats why new trains were basically only ordered as part of fresh franchise awards as their effects could be built into the franchise agreement and the finical implications for Government spending be factored in.

 

Hence why Northern was unable to procure any extra stock when it was operating under a 'zero growth' franchise contract several years ago.

 

In other words new train procurement was previously dependent of Governmental approval - just as will be the case under the GBR 'brand'**

 

Under GBR  the Government will still NOT be getting involved in the design or production of trains, all it will do is sign up to lease X amount of units from one of the private leasing companies for a set price and hand them over to a TOC to operate - or ask the privately run TOC to do it for them.

 

Should the manufacture run into problems and the trains cost more to produce than expected, or are delivered late the party which takes the financial risk IS STILL THE PRIVATE SECTOR! 

 

In such a situation the Government / TOC actually gains as they can negotiate a discount or extra units or other freebies for breech of contract.

 

By contrast if NRs electrification runs into problems and costs more than expected or is delayed then its THE GOVERNMENT who have to carry the finical burden of extra spending, paying the TOCs to lease units they cannot use, etc, etc.

 

Thus as far as the been counters in Whitehall are concerned pushing hydrogen technology rather than the Government taking on further electrification is a much less risky and potentially cheaper solution.

 

 

* Under GBR:-

 

TOCs will still exist and be contracted out to the private sector on a concession / fixed term management contract basis.

TOC staff such as drivers, station staff, etc will STILL be employed by said private sector entities all on different T&C + pay scales and NOT BE EMPLOYED BY GBR***.

Network Rail will still exist and all the staff they employ will continue to be NR employees (again on a masive variety of T&Cs +pay scales - NOT GBR ones!

Trains will still be leased from Private sector leasing companies

Trains will still be built by private sector manufacturers.

Major renewals will still be contracted out by NR to the private sector.

 

*** This is important as it minimises the effects of industrial action - if you bring everybody back into what amounts to a BR Mk2 then you could get a nationwide strike of traincrew rather than the action just be restricted to one specific TOC.

 

** Yup I said BRAND. GBR is just a massive con trick to make it look like the Government is doing something radical when in reality virtually everything set up as part of privatisation stays firmly in place. Its a triumph of style over substance which does nothing to shrink private sector involvement or remove the fragmentation endemic in the railway industry.

You can put as much text in bold as you like but the simple fact remains that going forward, revenue & cost risk of running the passenger railway falls firmly with the taxpayer. It’s has not done so generally since 1994.

 

The cost risk of train procurement / building is tiny compared to the cost & revenue risk of running those trains for 30 years. The risk of building trains that work has been the same since the start of railways with many private builders, some more successful than others.

[APOLLO]

This is interesting, yes its aviation but there is an informative section describing hydrogen V liquid fuels (kerosene, diesel, gasoline/petrol). The same physics would apply to Hydrogen trains / cars etc. Certainly not a game ender, but Hydrogen has more problems than many people think.

 

Watch from 13 minutes in.

 

 

Brit15

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Agreed its not a big problem wiring it  - but....

 

(1) I used it as an off the top of my head example - other lines may not be as easy wins so to speak

(2) I would much rather energies were put into doing the MML say than doing 'twigs' as it were. Given the appalling lack of OLE electrification in the country generally and the need to focus on main lines first, battery technology on 'twigs' would help.

The St Albans branch was electrified on the basis that it was cheaper to do that than have an isolated bit of diesel powered railway. Much the same was true of the LT&SR branch at Romford. 

I think the DfT has so had its fingers burnt by the GWML and Manchester-Liverpool-Preston electrification projects that nobody wants another failure on their CV.

Edited November 13, 2021 by PenrithBeacon

[Mike_Walker]

It is not strictly true to say that a TOC cannot procure additional stock during the course of a franchise although it does require Government approval.  GWR's acquisition of the 2+4 mini HSTs are a case in point, they were not envisaged in the orignal franchise agreement.

 

The DfT has had a major role in the design of some recent train orders, the Thameslink 700s and the various 800 and 801 derivatives for example.  They may not have done the detailed design at DafT Towers but they created the tightly worded specifications to which the trains were to be designed and built.  The result is plain for all to see, overly complex trains that fail to deliver on so many fronts.

 

It is worth remembering that FirstGroup, GNER and Siemens had an "HST2" designed and were about to start cutting metal when the DfT stepped in and insisted the project be cancelled (despite having already sanctioned it) in favour of the IEP.  Had HST2 gone ahead it would have consisted of hauled coaches with a DVT at one end and a locomotive, which could have been Diesel, electric, bi-mode or anything else (gas turbines were under serious consideration at one time) and it would have been in service years before the IET - some even say it would have reached its first overhaul before the IET entered service - and cost much less to build and lease compared to the IET, one of, if not the most expensive trains on the network.

[Covkid]

Can anyone please explain to me why double reverse energy conversion makes any sense economically ?

AIUI a company owning wind turbines obtains a lump of electricity from the turbines, then wastes between half and two thirds of it by converting it into hydrogen.  The hydrogen is then transported in a very safe manner to refuelling depots where it is loaded at high pressure onto trains, buses and trucks.  The on-board fuel cells then convert the high pressure hydrogen back into electricity to power the modes of transport.

 

Obviously I realise that fossil fuels are so so bad they have to cease being used, but surely batteries are a considerably safer medium to store electricity in, and don't waste nearly as much energy in the "double reverse conversion" ? It strikes me that sometimes in life the "better" is not always the "quicker", and I think we experience that with Royal Mail. Once we had a network of 100mph  TPOs and mail was delivered fairly early the next day.  As we know the mail trains were scrapped and mail now travels at 56mph in the back of an artic or sometimes in the air.  So the first class mail is no longer as quick at being delivered.  I guess that because a lot of former Royal Mail has been replaced by e media, it is not such an effective comparison, but what I am driving at is perhaps stopping every hundred miles for a ten minute quick charge of the batteries might be "better" than wasting huges amounts of electricity converting it to hydrogen blah blah blah

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

It is not strictly true to say that a TOC cannot procure additional stock during the course of a franchise although it does require Government approval.  GWR's acquisition of the 2+4 mini HSTs are a case in point, they were not envisaged in the orignal franchise agreement.

 

 

The GWR 'franchise' hasn't been a proper franchise for a very long time! 

 

By the time the GWR mini HST solution was devised the operation was being run as a succession of short term management contracts. Although GWR could suggest things to the DfT, the bottom lines is it was the DfT that had to agree to the proposal (and release funding)  before it could happen.

 

Anyway the whole Mini HST suggestion came about simply because of a national DMU shortage prompted by the DfT scaling back electrification (thus meaning less DMUs could be released) and a reluctance of manufacturers to provide a small run of DMUs to plug the gap.

 

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

The DfT has had a major role in the design of some recent train orders, the Thameslink 700s and the various 800 and 801 derivatives for example.  They may not have done the detailed design at DafT Towers but they created the tightly worded specifications to which the trains were to be designed and built.  The result is plain for all to see, overly complex trains that fail to deliver on so many fronts.

 

It is worth remembering that FirstGroup, GNER and Siemens had an "HST2" designed and were about to start cutting metal when the DfT stepped in and insisted the project be cancelled (despite having already sanctioned it) in favour of the IEP.  Had HST2 gone ahead it would have consisted of hauled coaches with a DVT at one end and a locomotive, which could have been Diesel, electric, bi-mode or anything else (gas turbines were under serious consideration at one time) and it would have been in service years before the IET - some even say it would have reached its first overhaul before the IET entered service - and cost much less to build and lease compared to the IET, one of, if not the most expensive trains on the network.

 

 

This is quite true - and having its fingers burnt by such episodes new trains will be procured via the privately run TOCs engaging with private leasing companies who will then procure the stock from private companies.

 

This reduces the risk to the Treasury compared to direct procurement - or the risks associated with getting Network Rail to undertake works like electrification where the risk factors lie firmly with the Government.

Edited November 13, 2021 by phil-b259

[Dungrange]

23 minutes ago, Covkid said:

Can anyone please explain to me why double reverse energy conversion makes any sense economically ?

 

Are batteries not just exactly the same thing?  With a battery, it is charged by passing current through the cells in one direction to charge it.  When it is discharged, the flow of current is reversed so that it powers the train.  Energy is either stored in the battery or stored in a hydrogen fuel cell.

 

From an operating perspective, full electrification makes much more sense than either hydrogen or battery technologies, as the operating costs are lower.  However, overhead electrification comes at a significant capital cost, particularly where bridges need to be raised to accommodate the overhead wire, so service frequency needs to be considered as part of the overall business case.  There is also an issue with capacity.  There will be a need to electrify thousands of kilometres of the rail network over the next two decades and its unlikely that the funding and resources are there to do it all at one.  That therefore produces the need to prioritise.

 

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

(2) I would much rather energies were put into doing the MML say than doing 'twigs' as it were. Given the appalling lack of OLE electrification in the country generally and the need to focus on main lines first, battery technology on 'twigs' would help.

 

I agree.  Neither battery technology or hydrogen technology are suitable for freight trains, as neither can provide the range or power necessary to transport thousands of tonnes of goods for several hundred kilometres.  Decarbonisation of the rail freight sector is almost wholly dependent on overhead electrification, so all freight routes should be seen as the priority, with 'twigs' left for other technologies until such times as the electrification of all freight routes (and suitable diversions) is complete.

[Dungrange]

On 12/11/2021 at 07:34, Mike Bellamy said:

Looking at the Rail Engineer magazine article quoted on the previous page, I see that Arcola plan to use underfloor storage on their 314 conversion. Have a look near the end of the article in the link below - there is a drawing there of how they plan to make it all fit.

 

Link to Rail Engineer Feb 2021 about Arcola 314 Conversion

 

In the absence of hydrogen fuel tanks on the roof, underfloor storage, where the current diesel tanks are on a diesel multiple unit, makes sense.  However, I note that the article states "The 3-car Class 314 hydrogen train will store 80 kg of hydrogen, which is sufficient for its use as a demonstrator train. Doubling this amount for passenger use would require some hydrogen to be stored within the coaches".

 

Ultimately there will be a trade off between range and loss of passenger space.  I think the Concordia iLint stores 98 kg of hydrogen, so I'm not sure if there is a need for a significant increase in the quantity of hydrogen storage required to make the train usable, but that will obviously depend on where such trains are to be employed.  In some parts of the UK, the 15x units that these would be intended to replace will be busier than others and some routes will present the opportunity for more frequent refuelling.  That may lead to small batches of slightly differently specified hydrogen multiple units.

[Zomboid]

28 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

Neither battery technology or hydrogen technology are suitable for freight trains, as neither can provide the range or power necessary to transport thousands of tonnes of goods for several hundred kilometres.  Decarbonisation of the rail freight sector is almost wholly dependent on overhead electrification, so all freight routes should be seen as the priority, with 'twigs' left for other technologies until such times as the electrification of all freight routes (and suitable diversions) is complete

Certainly the trunk routes should be electrified, though having last mile capability with on board energy storage (in whatever form - batteries, hydrogen etc) ought to be viable.

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

You can put as much text in bold as you like but the simple fact remains that going forward, revenue & cost risk of running the passenger railway falls firmly with the taxpayer. It’s has not done so generally since 1994.

 

 

If you go and actually study the reams of legal documents specifying what is permitted under Franchises the 'hidden hand' of HM Government is still very much in evidence. The de-facto ban on franchises not being allowed to lease additional stock is a classic example - the official logic being the potential for garter leasing costs depressing profits generated which then impact the subsidy or payback the Treasury was expecting to receive, plus concerns that if additional stock was leased by one franchise owner then the Government would face immense public pressure into keeping it in use for the next franchise owner and upsetting the Treasury's long term forecasts.

 

Virgin tried several times during their WCML tenure to increase the length of their Pendalios but got repeatedly slapped down by the DfT (on instruction of the Treasury)  and when they did relent it was only to lengthen a portion of the fleet. If the previous system was so wonderfully independent of state influence then explain why this was the case.

 

Similarly I believe the management of XC have made many requests to strengthen their fleet over the years - but such requests have been repeatedly blocked by the DfT due to the adverse finical effects such a move would have on HM Treasury.

 

What about Northern - let on a 'no growth' franchise basis and explicitly prevented by the terms of their franchise from leasing extra stock even though ridership was rising before and during the duration of that Franchise?

 

What about the IEP feasco where private TOCs were effectively told to ditch an industry lead HST replacement in favour of something drawn up by Whitehall?

 

No the truth is only a fool would say that the majority of risk has laid with the private sector up till Covid hit. That is simply political propaganda and not borne out by close study of the legal documents and the contractual relationships governed by them. The only place where the risk could legitimately be said to have been transferred to the private sector (other than the building / leasing of rolling stock) was fare revenue - but even here things are not as clear cut as you pretend because many fares are regulated by said Government thus compromising the system and preventing private TOCs from being fully responsible for changes in revenue.

 

 

P.S. It has been noted that rail franchises were nothing of the sort anyway. Consider HiQ, ATS, Burger Kind, Costa, WH Smith, etc. Many of these outlets are Franchises and as per all proper franchises, things like branch branding staff uniform service provision and in many cases prices charged to the consumer are identical and dictated by the owner of the brand so as to create a uniform customer experience. Very much what some are falsely thinking will happen under GBR in fact.....

 

The rail 'franchises' by contrast had more or less total freedom in matters of branding (and all that goes with it) with precocious little evidence of the formerly unified railway structure being retained. In truth Rail franchises were actually always 'concessions' the Government dolling out the right to operate a specific group of train services. The only difference between the former practice and the proposed GBR setup being the terms of the contracts which did formerly seek to push revenue risk onto the winning bidder.

Edited November 13, 2021 by phil-b259

[black and decker boy]

41 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

If you go and actually study the reams of legal documents specifying what is permitted under Franchises the 'hidden hand' of HM Government is still very much in evidence. The de-facto ban on franchises not being allowed to lease additional stock is a classic example - the official logic being the potential for garter leasing costs depressing profits generated which then impact the subsidy or payback the Treasury was expecting to receive, plus concerns that if additional stock was leased by one franchise owner then the Government would face immense public pressure into keeping it in use for the next franchise owner and upsetting the Treasury's long term forecasts.

 

Virgin tried several times during their WCML tenure to increase the length of their Pendalios but got repeatedly slapped down by the DfT (on instruction of the Treasury)  and when they did relent it was only to lengthen a portion of the fleet. If the previous system was so wonderfully independent of state influence then explain why this was the case.

 

Similarly I believe the management of XC have made many requests to strengthen their fleet over the years - but such requests have been repeatedly blocked by the DfT due to the adverse finical effects such a move would have on HM Treasury.

 

What about Northern - let on a 'no growth' franchise basis and explicitly prevented by the terms of their franchise from leasing extra stock even though ridership was rising before and during the duration of that Franchise?

 

What about the IEP feasco where private TOCs were effectively told to ditch an industry lead HST replacement in favour of something drawn up by Whitehall?

 

No the truth is only a fool would say that the majority of risk has laid with the private sector up till Covid hit. That is simply political propaganda and not borne out by close study of the legal documents and the contractual relationships governed by them. The only place where the risk could legitimately be said to have been transferred to the private sector (other than the building / leasing of rolling stock) was fare revenue - but even here things are not as clear cut as you pretend because many fares are regulated by said Government thus compromising the system and preventing private TOCs from being fully responsible for changes in revenue.

You don’t seem to know what angle you are arguing for now (it’s all private risk has suddenly become it’s all public risk) so best to leave it be. You clearly think you know everything and as you seem to suggest I am a fool then I really can’t be bothered with you

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

You don’t seem to know what angle you are arguing for now (it’s all private risk has suddenly become it’s all public risk) so best to leave it be. You clearly think you know everything and as you seem to suggest I am a fool then I really can’t be bothered with you

 

The majority of risk was never was private risk in the first place.

 

What is so very hard to understand!

 

If the Government tells you at the start of your 'franchise'....

 

• what fares you can charge (i.e. what ticket types must be offered and what is the maximum price rise on certain products
• How many trains (and the types) you can lease during the contract (thus fixing your leasing costs and preventing moves to lower this cost)
• What timetable you must operate (in order to satisfy the commitments made that no station will be worse off than under BR).
• The amount of subsidy or the percentage of profit the Government provides or clan claw back
• What the TOC pays for traction power (via the Government owned NR or via the Rail regulator who they appoint)
• What the track access charge will be  (via the Government owned NR or via the Rail regulator who they appoint)
• That if you default they will step in and keep trains running (and how much of a penalty you will pay)

 

... its fair to say that its not a very 'private' organisation is it?

 

The only thing that TOCs could control with total freedom under franchising was staffing, pay, minor consumables (e.g. floor cleaner, bin bags uniform suppliers, etc) and marketing stuff. Everything else was subject to Government control - though naturally they were at great pains to avoid it - hence the rather nebulous status of Network rail in its first few years which was officially not a state company even though pretty much all its income came from the DfT (either directly or through the TOCs)

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by phil-b259

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, Covkid said:

Can anyone please explain to me why double reverse energy conversion makes any sense economically ?

AIUI a company owning wind turbines obtains a lump of electricity from the turbines, then wastes between half and two thirds of it by converting it into hydrogen.  The hydrogen is then transported in a very safe manner to refuelling depots where it is loaded at high pressure onto trains, buses and trucks.  The on-board fuel cells then convert the high pressure hydrogen back into electricity to power the modes of transport.

 

It's hardly wasteful converting what would have been wasted generating capacity into a stored energy source you can use at your leisure.  You've then got a chargeable commodity rather than zero income from that excess.

 

The fuelling depots and the production plants are also likely to be one and the same facility.

[APOLLO]

35 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

It's hardly wasteful converting what would have been wasted generating capacity into a stored energy source you can use at your leisure.  You've then got a chargeable commodity rather than zero income from that excess.

 

The fuelling depots and the production plants are also likely to be one and the same facility.

 

Wasted energy ? I very much doubt that there will be that much in the UK, even in coming years. If the wind don't blow we burn expensive gas. If it's too windy we turn off the wind turbines and burn expensive gas. If the country is just right for wind we utilise that and turn off the expensive gas plants. Solar in the UK is just a few hours a day useful top up. Nuclear will be expensive energy.

 

So Hydrogen will perhaps power a few branch lines, the politicians will green grandstand, and most of our trains will remain diesel, electric or both (bi-mode).

 

Real time, (1 hour delay) 13 Nov 2021 at 15.27, Gas = 45.82%, Wind = 13.96%, and old king coal 4.35% (That'll please old Alok up at Glasgow !!!!!).

 

https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?&_k=kf46zt

 

Nowt spare for Hydrogen today, and it's not very cold (11.8 deg c national average)

 

Brit15

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by APOLLO
typo

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Wasted energy ? I very much doubt that there will be that much in the UK, even in coming years. If the wind don't blow we burn expensive gas. If it's too windy we turn off the wind turbines and burn expensive gas. If the country is just right for wind we utilise that and turn off the expensive gas plants. Solar in the UK is just a few hours a day useful top up. Nuclear will be expensive energy.

 

I'll just leave this here shall I..?

 

and this...

 

and maybe this as well...

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, frobisher said:

 

I'll just leave this here shall I..?

 

and this...

 

and maybe this as well...

 

Leave it where you wish.

 

Scale is the problem. 

 

How many Gigawatts will Orkney produce ? - How many equivalents of Heysham, Drax or Sizewell etc etc ?

 

Such power (if, it is as you suggest, a lot), will be needed to replace both gas fired plant (as gas becomes more expensive and the North Sea depletes) and ageing nuclear power stations due to be closed soon.

 

https://www.simplyswitch.com/edf-warns-more-nuclear-plants-could-shut-early/#:~:text=Plants can only safely continue,t develop cracks by 2023.

 

There will be no excess energy available to make hydrogen in any sizeable quantities, not in the UK anywhere, Orkney included. 

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

[Zomboid]

The nature of weather driven renewables is that there will be peaks and troughs. So some energy storage is going to be needed to balance that out. In which case storing some of it as hydrogen for use in transportation seems like as good as any.

[Andy Hayter]

But that is not balancing in the strictest terms.  Balancing would be using the hydrogen to produce electricity for the grid.