Hydrogen Powered Locomotives?

FarmallBob wrote:The dreamy-eyed liberals now running this country proclaim hydrogen is the “fuel of the future”.

Not sure if I'd call The Governator from California a liberal. He's very pro-hydrogen.

Conversely, I find myself leaning to the liberal side of the spectrum more often than not, and I think hydrogen (and ethanol) is nothing more than a big scam. The fleecing of America, if you will.

MEC407 wrote:I think hydrogen (and ethanol) is nothing more than a big scam. The fleecing of America, if you will.

I could not have said it better!

Notice it's primarily politicians, liberal arts college-graduate greenies and the Hollywood left that are gung-ho for ethanol, hydrogen, etc. Those with practical business or hard science backgrounds are much less enthusiastic.

FarmallBob wrote:...the Hollywood left...

Or the Hollywood Right, in the case of The Governator.

Hey FarmallBob the first demonstration of a fuel cell was powering an Allis Chalmers tractor as I remember. They run fine on methane (natural gas) and who can tell the difference anyway. One hiccup from Mt. Saint Helens out here throws out all the savings in high tech stuff anyway.

RickRackstop wrote:Hey FarmallBob the first demonstration of a fuel cell was powering an Allis Chalmers tractor as I remember. They run fine on methane (natural gas) and who can tell the difference anyway.

Yes indeed!

However did you also notice that cell tractor concept was never repeated – not by Allis-Chalmer’s or anyone else. I can think of several possible reasons for this:

1 – Cost. Current installed price for a gas fuel cell runs in the neighborhood of $4 per watt (they require expen$ive catalyst metals in order to work). For a 20 HP tractor that’s nearly $60,000 just for the fuel cell assembly(!). Note also the tractor's original gas engine was good for 30 HP – ie. the fuel cell tractor was underpowered by 33% relative to it’s gasoline-powered twin.

2 – Weight. The A/C fuel cell tractor scaled out at 5,300 lb. The original gasoline powered tractor upon which it is based weighed 2,800 lb. Means the fuel cells added about 3,500 lb of extra weight

3 – Size. While actual dimensions are not given you can see A-C fuel cell stack was enormous relative to the gas engine it replaced:



4 – Fuel efficiency. The “fuel to drawbar” efficiency of the gas fuel cell is only a few percentage points better than the stock gasoline tractor engine – and then probably only under tightly controlled conditions.

Now if we scale this technology up to power a 4,400 HP locomotive here's how it might look: $14 million to buy the fuel cells. The cell assembly would weigh around 600,000 lb (300 tons!). The dimensions of the cell assembly we can only guess. However based on that experimental tractor it would occupy the long hood volume equivalent of at least 2 or 3 diesel locomotives.

----

Bottom line still is physics, thermodynamics and economics all conspire against the fuel cell as a viable locomotive prime mover.

This is great fun. I think other problem for application to locomotive service is that fuel cell can't respond to load changes very well like a diesel,especially EMD can. Its also fussy about fuel unlike the Rankine cycle (steam) that can use methane, coal, oil - all kinds and sometime actually runs on garbage -a renewable resource by the way. That photo of that tractor brings back memories. As a city boy I wondered why it didn't sink out of sight in the mud it makes no sense as to why use a tractor as a demonstrator.

RickRackstop wrote:This is great fun.

Great fun indeed RickRackstop! Examining new technologies and their possible application always makes for fascinating intellectual exercises.

RickRackstop wrote: I think other problem for application to locomotive service is that fuel cell can't respond to load changes very well like a diesel,especially EMD can. Its also fussy about fuel unlike the Rankine cycle (steam) that can use methane, coal, oil - all kinds and sometime actually runs on garbage -a renewable resource by the way.

Agree - especially about "fussy about fuel" statement.

Fuel cells depend on exotic metal catalysts for their operation. Trace amounts of certain contaminents in the fuel (particularly lead) poisons these catalyts and renders the cell useless.

Another problem not discussed are the shock, vibration and extreme temperature excursions inherent in locomotive operation. I suspect fuel cells would not hold up well to that stuff.

RickRackstop wrote:That photo of that tractor brings back memories. As a city boy I wondered why it didn't sink out of sight in the mud it makes no sense as to why use a tractor as a demonstrator.

Brings back memories for me too!

I'm a farm kid who’s been around and operated tractors of every shape and size. I too wonder how well that fuel cell experimental would work on soft ground – especially considering it’s modest power output. (A tractor that heavy needs least 50 – 60 HP in order to be truly useful.)

NPR's Talk Of The Nation (science Friday) show today featured a lengthy segment on the fuel cell locomotive initiative that started this thread. The link given at the beginning of this thread is still good:
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/011008/ ... 9420.shtml
Also, from BNSF:
http://www.bnsf.com/communities/environmental/fuel.html

Apparently this locomotive is now operational, though the real demonstration will not happen for a couple months. It features two 125-kW fuel cells for a total output of 250kW. Note, that's only 335 HP. But a large battery bank is used in conjunction with the fuel cells to provide up to 1 MW (1340 HP) for transient loads. Presumably "transient" means more than a few milliseconds, or I don't think this locomotive will get much switching done. One idea mentioned on the radio program is that a train has plenty of room to pull a bunch of hydrogen along with it for fuel, so range could still be pretty good. Obviously a switcher only confronts this problem indirectly, since it pulls smaller loads over shorter distances and can be refueled more readily. I would like to know how feasible a road freight locomotive would be. Interesting possibility, but I am skeptical.

The NPR program featured three guests that were, unfortunately, all enthusiastic about hydrogen's prospects for the rail industry (and vice versa, really). I would have liked to see a more balanced discussion. I'm not that impressed with Ira Flatow's handling of the discussion. He throws out a lot of softball, almost irrelevant questions and seems pretty starry-eyed about the whole idea. The expert guests also seemed to have only limited knowledge of the railroad industry's requirements. The Army Corps of Engineers' manager of the project said the fuel cell locomotive saved weight over the standard unit (they had to add it back, actually), but could not give even a ballpark answer of how heavy a typical locomotive is. Another guest, when asked about the prospects for batteries alone to power a train for long distances, admitted that he didn't know much about batteries.

The audio won't be up until tonight or tomorrow, but here is the link to the NPR story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =112557416

If you really want to go green without being pie in the sky or introducing ridiculous inefficiencies, electric locomotives are the way to go.

OK, they are no greener than however you happen to be generating electricity. But as the grid is improved in whatever manner there is no need to replace the locomotives.