• Noobnarski@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    So useless, just use overhead lines or batteries.

    Hydrogen is just so much less efficient that it doesn’t make sense except for industrial processes where there is no alternative.

    The train line close to us already switched to battery trains and most other lines are overhead powered. And then the battery train just charges when it gets to parts of the tracks where there is overhead lines, no extra infrastructure needed.

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I genuinely wonder what the costs comparison looks like for these options.

      I could see the use case for hydrogen as a battery, in rural areas where transporting power over wire would be cost prohibitive. The added benifits being that if you used most of the fuel in between electrified lines you lose the weight of the fuel unlike batteries.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Eh its still a win, a large scale test cast for a still fairly unproven technology is bound to provide some useful information.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah… It makes a modicum of sense for cars where overhead lines are impractical and batteries heavy…

      But TRAINS? Didn’t we figure out electrification of trains via overhead power lines idk… nearly 150 years ago apparently? Quite literally the easiest mode of transport to electrify…

  • bitteroldcoot@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    3 days ago

    And where do they get the hydrogen???

    Fossil fuel… But you really have to dig to find where they admit it.
    Last time this came up it was buried in the documentation about how wind and solar don’t provide enough.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Where are you getting that it needs to be “cryogenically stored”? It’s mostly stored as compressed gas.

          The main problem with hydrogen is stores only 40% but with green energy surplus and 40% is better than 0% and hydrogen store systems are quite cheap and mature/simple so still relevant in highly developing areas like those of India.

          It’s still a good battery for these specific niches so I wouldn’t discount this as some big oil propaganda

      • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        No. No it isn’t. That’s not how it’s made and not how it’s used. Its overwhelmingly made by the fossil fuel industry and calling it green in any sense is just greenwashing mostly the worst environmental problem generators the world knows.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      No specialist or anything, but I imagine most of the kaboom potential is puncture-based. I don’t expect much to make it to the heart of a train as trains generally win in collisions.

      Pressure vessel fatigue is possible too, but generally rated and tested well above pressure relief valves.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Depends on how you define “win”. It only takes one small hydrogen leak for a catastrophe. A train will wreck any car or truck for sure, hit or miss with another train, but even a simple derailment of tanker cars often results in a significant mess.

        There are nuclear rail transport containers that have been tested in collisions, and they’ve never leaked, but they’re very big and heavy for not a whole lot of volume. And they’re sealed, while a fuel tank needs holes to let fuel in and out.

        • Dave.@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Luckily hydrogen floats upwards pretty quickly. So paradoxically, storage tanks are safer the less protection they have around them. Or at least, above them.

          • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Just as well trains and other vehicles don’t have roofs then.

            Fun fact: Unlike natural gas, which needs enough oxygen and enough gas to explode, hydrogen is explosive at almost any concentration of hydrogen and oxygen!

            Boom! Woohoo!