How wind can power the world's mass transit

[MCL1981]

Do you even look at what you're posting beyond the cheerful headline?? Five of those links are for different versions of the same story about the same train from a single concept test in 2015. 3 more links are again duplicates of the same thing, a small hydrogen fuel cell train still in development and nothing to do with batteries. Just FYI, unicorns are not actually real. But anyway... Yay, batteries!! We're all saved! And we can charge them wind and solar... very slowly... only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining... and then use them to drive the train a mile or two down a test track! Then we'll publish blogs on the internet for people who don't actually read.

[johnthefireman]

If you read the links about the fuel cell powered train, the fuel cells power batteries.

Several stories about the same train does not negate it. The fact that it was a test does not negate it. The start up time from concept through tests to mainstream commercial use is long. Glass half empty, glass half full again. I see these tests leading to something. You seem to assume that the status quo is more likely than progress.

[george matthews]

Do you even look at what you're posting beyond the cheerful headline?? Five of those links are for different versions of the same story about the same train from a single concept test in 2015. 3 more links are again duplicates of the same thing, a small hydrogen fuel cell train still in development and nothing to do with batteries. Just FYI, unicorns are not actually real. But anyway... Yay, batteries!! We're all saved! And we can charge them wind and solar... very slowly... only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining... and then use them to drive the train a mile or two down a test track! Then we'll publish blogs on the internet for people who don't actually read.

Can I remind you that I posted a piece about a trial of a battery electric train that began in 1958?

There is a real problem about the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. I would suggest to you that it is one of the two most important global problems that we have to deal with. We do need to reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted by human activities. I appreciate that the poor education and communication industries in the US are hindering acceptance of these problems in America, but they don't go away just because of ignorance.

I assume that the original purpose of the Ballater train was an experiment to reduce the running expense of that line, and potentially other similar branches. On the whole the reductions in running costs were not enough to warrant wider adoption of the system, but now we have other incentives - abolishing CO2 emissions.

[MCL1981]

LOL! Nowhere in any of this have I suggested or implied anything about CO2 emissions. You completely made that up in your head. So kindly quit putting words in my mouth. I understand that is generally all most hardcore socialists can do, but I encourage you to try anyway. I'm not debating CO2. I'm debating the validity of your ridiculous fantasy land solutions to it. My glass is not half empty. My glass is filled with realism and practicality. A concept you seem to lack.

[lpetrich]

I had wanted to start a thread on renewable energy sources for powering locomotives, but here it is.

Most renewable energy sources are best adapted to generating electricity. That is true of the biggest long-used one, hydroelectricity, and also of the two big recently-developed ones, wind and solar energy. In fact, I'm rather surprised that photovoltaic cells have done as well as they have.

Though wind and solar energy are both rather obviously intermittent, renewable-energy supporters have stepped up to that challenge, like doing large-scale production of lithium-ion batteries and researching alternatives like flow batteries.

CleanTechnica and Renewable Energy World are both enthusiast sites, but it's good to see what the enthusiasts are enthusing about.

The two sites have a rather interesting gap: coverage of synthetic fuels (synfuels). They do not have many articles on synfuel-related subjects like electrolysis, Fischer-Tropsch, power-to-gas, power-to-liquids, and ammonia.


But IMO, synfuels are necessary for extending the reach of synfuels into transport, because their usable-energy density is much higher than for batteries, even the best ones.

The most successfully electrified form of transport is rail transport, though it must be noted that rail-line electrification is only practical on lines with heavy traffic and relatively short lines, lines like urban-transit lines. For other lines, one will need batteries and synfuels.

[lpetrich]

I will now consider the prospects for various synfuels.

The simplest to make is hydrogen, by electrolysis of water. Its boiling point is 20 K at 1 atm pressure. That is 20 Celsius degrees above absolute zero. One can liquefy hydrogen at higher temperatures with higher pressures, but the limit is its critical point, at 33 K and 13 atm. An alternative is pressurized hydrogen, but one needs a lot of pressure and strong storage tanks.

Hydrogen can be used by either burning it in an engine like other fuels, or else by making electricity with fuel cells. I suspect that the former option would use modified diesel engines. A locomotive that uses hydrogen would likely draw it from hydrogen stored in a tank car, thus reviving an old steam-locomotive practice.

One can also use electrolysis to make ammonia (NH3): Synthesis of ammonia directly from air and water at ambient temperature and pressure | Scientific Reports -- that involves getting the nitrogen for the ammonia straight from the air. Ammonia has a boiling point of -33 C at 1 atm and a critical point of 132 C and 112 atm, so it is much easier to store.

But the most common way to make liquid fuels with electrolysis is a more indirect way: the Fischer-Tropsch reaction. It combines carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make a variety of hydrocarbons. It has been used at places and times where petroleum is scarce or expensive, but it has had only limited use otherwise. The main use of it that any of us are likely to run into is manufacture of synthetic motor oil. It is much more durable than most petroleum-derived motor oil, because the latter often contains heavy hydrocarbons that make waxy buildups. It is usually more expensive than the petroleum kind, but that expense is relatively tolerable, since one needs much less motor oil than fuel, and since it may pay for itself with less engine maintenance.

The Fischer-Tropsch reaction may also be used to make methanol (CH3OH) and similar liquid fuels.

So do we have ammonia in our future? Fischer-Tropsch fuels?