UK’s first hydrogen transport hub

[Mark]

Pioneering North proud of UK’s first hydrogen transport hub:
https://transportforthenorth.com/press- ... sport-hub/

The Government has named Tees Valley as the UK’s first Hydrogen Transport Hub has been welcomed by Transport for the North, which says the North can be proud that the green transport technology is being researched and developed on both sides of the Pennines. Strategic Rail Programme Manager for Transport for the North, Salim Patel, said: “Green technologies such as hydrogen power and electrification are key components of our future plans for rail in the North. “Today’s news underpins the growing recognition of their importance. Research and development work is now taking place, at pace, on both sides of the Pennines to help secure our place as a leader in these new technologies and I think the North can be proud of that.

“On the west side of the Pennines, Eversholt Rail and Alstom are developing advanced hydrogen train technologies at a research centre in Widnes.�

Continues.......

[Little John]

Meanwhile, EROEI

[kenneal - lagger]

Meanwhile, EROEI

"Not many people know that!" And of the few that do not many can see the inferences thereof.

[Mark]

Meanwhile, EROEI

"Not many people know that!" And of the few that do not many can see the inferences thereof.

As you both know, calculating the EROI of a hydrogen fuel cycle requires many assumptions about how it will be generated, transported, stored and consumed. Different sets of assumptions produce very different results. For example, where hydrogen is generated and consumed in a single site, losses along the way are low, but when it is used in a vehicle, losses are higher.

Hydrogen is colour classified, depending on how it has been obtained. Grey hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. Blue is the same, but uses carbon capture technologies. Green hydrogen is produced using electrolysis from renewable energy.

Unfortunately, I think the balance is currently 95% grey vrs 4% green.
As we get ever more wind generating capacity, there should be more scope for generating green hydrogen - that's the theory, anyway.

[Little John]

Meanwhile, EROEI

"Not many people know that!" And of the few that do not many can see the inferences thereof.

As you both know, calculating the EROI of a hydrogen fuel cycle requires many assumptions about how it will be generated, transported, stored and consumed. Different sets of assumptions produce very different results. For example, where hydrogen is generated and consumed in a single site, losses along the way are low, but when it is used in a vehicle, losses are higher.

Hydrogen is colour classified, depending on how it has been obtained. Grey hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. Blue is the same, but uses carbon capture technologies. Green hydrogen is produced using electrolysis from renewable energy.

Unfortunately, I think the balance is currently 95% grey vrs 4% green.
As we get ever more wind generating capacity, there should be more scope for generating green hydrogen - that's the theory, anyway.

Hydrogen has some practical uses as an industrial gas where it doesn't matter what the EROEI is, within reason. As an energy source in itself, however, the EROEI does matter and it doesn't matter what assumption you use or what is the source of the hydrogen extraction. The EROEI is negative. Additionally, this is true irrespective of technological improvements in extraction. In other words, it is a first law of thermodynamics problem. At least here on earth, in terms of the hydrogen sources that are available.

[kenneal - lagger]

This EROEI problem is one of the reasons that we can't continue with BAU in the economy. A lower EROEI also leads to higher costs and things can become unaffordable economically as well as on an energy basis. Yes, there is a place for some hydrogen based transport in the economy but it will be limited by the cost of production, both energywise and economically. The additional cost isn't just in the cost of the fuel but in the extra cost of manufacturing what the fuel is used in.

This additional cost will transmit through to the goods and services reliant upon it so it will reduce the ability of people to buy other stuff. If hydrogen is used to power long distance trucks, for example, that will hit the cost of almost everything that we buy.

With the change in the economy from one based on cheap, high EROEI petroleum products to less cheap, low EROEI petroleum to more expensive, medium to low EROEI renewable products we will find, and are finding, that we will have less to spend on less essential "stuff", such as the arts and entertainment (highly paid rock stars and football players?) and then as things progress things like the NHS will become more unaffordable with less essential parts of it like infertility treatment and plastic surgery being knocked off the menu first.

There will and must be a realignment of our expectations soon and also a realignment of the distribution of wealth or there will be a lot of unnecessary social unrest as LJ has already predicted.

[vtsnowedin]

The math changes as the technology improves but I see Hydrogen as a energy carrier from a green source (hopefully) to a store-able fuel source for vehicles and some losses would be exceptable if you were using otherwise waste wind or solar power. I'm not up on the current state of the art but I think solar and wind charging lithium batteries are currently a better option when all costs and losses are considered. I would be interested in seeing a comparison study of the present means of production and vehicle miles delivered.
The fact they are already building out the charger system for the battery vehicles indicates the big money has already placed their bets.

[kenneal - lagger]

From what I have read, Hydrogen has the advantage on heavier transport forms, trains and trucks, and over distance while battery has the advantage on round town driving of small and medium weight, delivery vehicles.

[vtsnowedin]

From what I have read, Hydrogen has the advantage on heavier transport forms, trains and trucks, and over distance while battery has the advantage on round town driving of small and medium weight, delivery vehicles.

Perhaps but a hydrogen powered train vs. one electrified directly off a green grid would be an interesting case study. Might come down to the miles of track needing to be electrified.

[BritDownUnder]

I can see hydrogen being more economic on larger vehicles rather than batteries while also larger vehicle batteries being a disadvantage. A hydrogen storage tank as it gets larger will require less materials for its walls and relative to volume of hydrogen stored and thus become more economic. At the same time if a battery gets larger it will require more cooling and complexity will increase as it gets larger.

Whether hydrogen will be more useful on rail lines that are not electrified compared with diesel I am not sure. It is probably more economic not to electrify lines and use hydrogen trains on less used lines. I am sure there is a breakeven point that determines if a train line is worth electrifying.

[kenneal - lagger]

..................... It is probably more economic not to electrify lines and use hydrogen trains on less used lines. I am sure there is a breakeven point that determines if a train line is worth electrifying.

Just what I was thinking.

Also these hydrogen powered trains could be fitted with a pantograph system and transformer, if necessary, to connect to the main line when necessary.

We have dual power diesel/overhead electric trains on the GWR lines to Wales and the West Country because Network Rail made a balls up of the overhead installation and ran out of money when they reached Newbury and Cardiff, I think it was.

[vtsnowedin]

I can see hydrogen being more economic on larger vehicles rather than batteries while also larger vehicle batteries being a disadvantage. A hydrogen storage tank as it gets larger will require less materials for its walls and relative to volume of hydrogen stored and thus become more economic. At the same time if a battery gets larger it will require more cooling and complexity will increase as it gets larger.

Whether hydrogen will be more useful on rail lines that are not electrified compared with diesel I am not sure. It is probably more economic not to electrify lines and use hydrogen trains on less used lines. I am sure there is a breakeven point that determines if a train line is worth electrifying.

Yes all true of course but as hydrogen tanks get larger the potential explosion rises as well. Rail cars normally carry 100 tons of cargo. Would a five ton battery in each car give a useful service that was flexible for any train size?.
Using Tesla public figures (a 1200 lb battery holds 85 KWHs of energy) scaled up to 10,000lbs, 5 tons would give you 708 kwhs per rail car battery.
A five KW locomotive could go seven hours at full power per battery laden car and a fifty car train could go round the clock for two weeks between charges even if it never went through an electrified section of track or used regenerative braking. All that with current technology and no need to build hydrogen production plant or storage facilities.
As an alternative a 100 ton battery car would serve the same train for over five days while another car sat on a siding charging.

[kenneal - lagger]

You are assuming, VT, that there is enough lithium cheaply available to build all these millions of 5 tonne batteries along with all the hundreds of millions of car batteries along with all the house batteries that will be required to power the BAU world which you seem to foresee.

[vtsnowedin]

You are assuming, VT, that there is enough lithium cheaply available to build all these millions of 5 tonne batteries along with all the hundreds of millions of car batteries along with all the house batteries that will be required to power the BAU world which you seem to foresee.

I did not say anything about cheap. And Lithium is not the only battery technology out there and others are being developed. It would come down to the actual supply and lifetime cost of the batteries vs. the cost of the hydrogen production transport and storage/delivery system. I'll take the cheapest pollution free system whichever it turns out to be. I also do not insist on a continuation of BAU but do expect a BAC "business as changed" with a successful effort to improve the quality of life for the population by cleaning up the environment without impoverishing the masses.

[kenneal - lagger]

But how are we going to go into a future with the 1% taking an even greater share of the spoils, as they are at the moment, the third world getting a fairer share of the spoils and the western masses not being impoverished? After all we only have the resources of one planet and the west already lives outside that boundary.