[ssiguy2]

Business Korea has announced that Hyundai will begin production of 300 new hydrogen buses every year starting in next year AND has signed a contract to export 1200 to Europe. SK is constructing 85 hydrogen refueling stations this year. H2B has announced an order for 1,000 hydrogen buses for Denmark, Latvia, and the UK. Chinese car making giant Geely has just produced it's first hydrogen bus and is backed by Beijing as China desperately tries to get a grip on it's extreme pollution levels.

 

[ssiguy2]

Hyundai Motors & Rotem have just announced that they are going to be developing a hydrogen tram/streetcar and will have the prototype available by the end of next year. Van Hool, the Belgian bus giant, this week is rolling out it's new hydrogen double articulated 23 meter bus called Exquicity with a range of 200 km for mostly BRT routes.

 

[steveintoronto]

^All very nice. There seems to be a problem running them on railway tracks for some reason.

Meantime, British Rail Class 769

[...]
During a detailed evaluation to determine a suitable independent power source for the type, Porterbrook decided that the desired performance and range of the vehicle would be at least equal to a Class 150 Sprinter diesel multiple unit (DMU).[12] Furthermore, it was also determined that these trains would be capable of interchanging between electrified and non-electrified lines via a straightforward switchover process, including potentially while in motion. According to Porterbrook, efforts were made to make the driving experience as similar to the Class 319 as possible to make it an attractive option to prospective operators.[12]

The use of various energy storage mediums, including batteries, flywheels, supercapacitors and hydrogen fuel cells were examined, but most were discarded due to the insufficient range provided. A lack of available refuelling infrastructure and risks posed over the approvals process were also present with the hydrogen option.[12] A diesel power unit was selected due to its optimum performance across factors including range, weight, size, power density, and overall cost. According to Porterbrook, the selected engine should produce lower emissions and reduced maintenance costs, as well as a higher tractive effort at low speeds, than a Class 150 train due to its use of modern technology.[12]
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_769

RailEngineer:

[...]
Of course, there was a lot to consider, evaluate and model before any metal was cut. The key decision was the independent power source. Porterbrook determined that the self-powered performance needed to be at least as good as a Class 150 Sprinter train and that it should have a broadly comparable range.

Alternative power sources such as batteries, flywheels, and supercapacitors were rejected because of their lack of range, and hydrogen fuel cells were rejected because of the novelty risk, lack of hydrogen infrastructure for refuelling, and approvals risks (drafted before the announcement of the Hydroflex, covered in this issue).

Consequently, Porterbrook decided that the only fully developed option was diesel power, delivering the best compromise of range, weight, physical size, power density and total cost.
[...]

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2018/09/27/bi-mode-good-tri-mode-better/

How's those Hydrail train protos working out?

BY MALCOLM DOBELL BTECH CENG FIMECHE
28TH SEPTEMBER 2018
RailEngineer.com

When researching an article for the Class 769 Flex, there were lots of ideas discussed about how the concept could be extended for other uses. What was not discussed was the possibility of a hydrogen-powered version. Yet, at InnoTrans on 19 September, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling, Porterbrook announced that it was making a Class 319 unit available to Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education (BCRRE) for conversion into a hydrogen-powered train to be known as HyrdoFlex.

The announcement added that development work has recently commenced and HydroFlex will undertake testing and demonstration runs in summer 2019.

The HydroFlex will retain the ability to operate on existing electric routes (on either third rail or 25kV overhead power) and the addition of a hydrogen fuel cell will allow it to operate in self-powered mode, without the need for diesel engines.

As was reported in Rail Engineer earlier this year, Rail Minister Jo Johnson has challenged the rail industry to develop decarbonisation plans, with the objective of removing diesel-only trains from the network by 2040. HydroFlex is Porterbrook’s and BCRRE’s response to this challenge, bringing together industry and academia in partnership to deliver the UK’s first-in-class, clean energy, main line passenger train.

After the signing ceremony, the Secretary of State joined representatives from Porterbrook and BCRRE to discuss both the potential for hydrogen technology to decarbonise the railway and the world-leading rail R&D and innovation expertise to be found across the UK rail supply industry and through the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN).

BCRRE reported that it has already undertaken a significant amount of research into the potential application of hydrogen fuel-cell technology to railway operations and has worked with a number of global rail businesses to identify potential opportunities to use hydrogen as a clean alternative to diesel.

Strictly a demonstrator

Rail Engineer readers who have been following this topic will understand that the Class 319 is not necessarily the best base for a hydrogen-powered train – the lack of regenerative braking might lead to a bigger fuel cell, for example. Clearly, if the objective was a fully developed train ready for production, then this might be a problem, but this is not the key objective at this stage of the project.

In response to Rail Engineer’s questions, BCRRE said that the demonstrator version focuses on delivering an electric/hydrogen bi-mode to UK gauge, which the UK market is currently looking for given the wider context of the 2040 decarbonisation ambition and the need to make more effective use of existing electrification with additional emission-free running beyond the wires.

BCRRE added that a part of the project includes developing the product approval and safety cases for hydrogen running on the UK railway.

The team working on this demonstrator project has a lot of work to do to make hydrogen rail a reality. The demonstrator will take passengers in 2019, but BCRRE will need to prove the technology to the regulator and the infrastructure manager before the demonstrator can go into full passenger service.

BCRRE promised more technical details later, so watch this space!

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2018/09/28/hydroflex-the-next-iteration-of-the-flex-concept/

 

[Neutrino]

A hydrogen fueling station fire in Norway has left fuel-cell cars nowhere to charge

Japanese carmaker Toyota and South Korea brand Hyundai have both halted sales of Fuel-cell vehicles (FCVs) in Norway after the incident.

qz.com

 

[steveintoronto]

A hydrogen fueling station fire in Norway has left fuel-cell cars nowhere to charge

Japanese carmaker Toyota and South Korea brand Hyundai have both halted sales of Fuel-cell vehicles (FCVs) in Norway after the incident.

qz.com

Excellent heads-up. This may or may not have been the product of of an intrinsic weakness, I'm sure the Nords will fully investigate, but it is the nature of Hydrogen, and this might be a sobering wake-up call to counter the avid hype being touted for H.

 

[crs1026]

Excellent heads-up. This may or may not have been the product of of an intrinsic weakness, I'm sure the Nords will fully investigate, but it is the nature of Hydrogen, and this might be a sobering wake-up call to counter the avid hype being touted for H.

The accident may prove to demonstrate a fatal flaw, or it may turn out to have a unique root cause that is easily fixed for this and all future designs, and never again proves to be a risk. Lots of things have catastrophic failures early on that go on to be highly successful.

The point is, it underlines how a whole bunch of people, including insurers, liability lawyers, risk analysts, codes and standards authors, fire and building inspectors, and other regulators will not be willing to sign off on any design for ML anytime soon. A whole lot of codes and standards work will be needed before anyone sets up even a trial prototype. Wires may be needed to span the gap, and once the wires are up, they might as well be maintained for their life cycle.

- Paul

 

[jje1000]

Fundamentally, it would be imprudent to adopt hydrogen this early on- let other countries do the prototyping.

It needs a few more cycles of innovation for the technology and the policy surrounding it to mature further- I would give it around 5-10 years.

 

[steveintoronto]

I would give it around 5-10 years.

I think that's optimistic save for specialty applications where regulators will be willing to offer waivers. Five or six years will be needed for the first working trials to show what must be addressed, how cost effective and how the performance fares.

There remains every reason for Ontario (and other jurisdictions, the UK engineering press will find this occurrence 'explosive') to continue to build the tried, trued, trusted, predicable and proven off-the-shelf continuous high-torque OHE model.

Just had chance to Google on this, there's quite a lot up on this, tags: "norway hydrogen fuel cell explosion"

Hydrogen station explodes, Toyota halts sales of fuel cell cars, is this the end?
Fred Lambert
- Jun. 11th 2019 9:28 am ET

@FredericLambert


A hydrogen refueling station exploded in Norway on Monday and the company operating the station has suspended operation at its other locations following the explosion.

Now, Toyota and Hyundai are both halting sales of fuel cell vehicles in the country.

Does this spell the end of fuel cell hydrogen vehicles as a “zero-emission” alternative?

The Uno-X hydrogen station in Sandvika in Bærum exploded on Monday and resulted in two injuries in a nearby non-fuel cell vehicle.

According to the police, the explosion was strong enough that it activated the airbags in the vehicle without any impact.

The cause of the explosion is currently unknown and the rest of the refueling network is being shut down.

Jon André Løkke, CEO of Nel Hydrogen, the company operating those hydrogen refueling stations, commented:

“It is too early to speculate on the cause and what has gone wrong. Our top priority is the safe operation of the stations we have delivered. As a precaution, we have temporarily put ten other stations in standby mode in anticipation of more information.”

With the refueling network crippled, Toyota and Hyundai have announced that they are temporarily halting sales of fuel cell vehicles.

Toyota Norway manager Espen Olsen said (via TU):

“We don’t know exactly what happened on the Uno-X drive yet, so we don’t want to speculate. But we stop the sale until we have learned what has happened, and for practical reasons, since it is not possible to fill fuel now.”

They will be offering loaner vehicles to customers who currently own the Mirai since they won’t be able to refuel.

Toyota insists that this is not changing their view on fuel cell hydrogen vehicles:

“This does not change our view of hydrogen, and it is important for us to point out that hydrogen cars are at least as safe as ordinary cars. The hydrogen tanks themselves are so robust that you can shoot them with a gun without knocking them.”

Hyundai, the only other automaker delivering fuel cell vehicles in Norway, has made similar announcements and statements.

Electrek’s Take
I’ve always been really critical of the hydrogen fuel cell powertrain as an alternative to battery-electric vehicles. This isn’t the first incident of Hydrogen detonating (and no that’s not a link to the Hindenburg).

My concerns were always more about the efficiency of the powertrain and the entire supply chain versus the simplicity and efficiency of electricity and battery-electric vehicles, but we also can’t avoid the safety concerns of carrying and storing something like hydrogen.

This is a big blow to the technology that a few automakers, mainly Toyota and Hyundai, have been holding to as their alternative to making all-electric vehicles.

Despite battery-electric vehicles being several times more efficient, Hyundai said that they are only “making electric plug-ins until hydrogen fuel cell vehicles take hold” and Toyota has invested billions into hydrogen while it has yet to launch an all-electric vehicle.

These companies have lobbied for strong subsidies for those vehicles in many markets and in some, they are even getting more subsidies than battery-electric vehicles.

Yet, they have been having a hard time selling their fuel cell models while electric vehicle sales have been growing fast.

This situation in Norway is not going to help make their case.

I don’t have the data to claim that fuel cell hydrogen is any more dangerous than any other type of car, but it is a concern when something like that happens with so few fuel cell cars and hydrogen refueling stations around.

https://electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen-station-explodes-toyota-halts-sales-fuel-cell-cars/

 

[maxt797]

so is it going to be electrified or not...? and when?

 

[rbt]

so is it going to be electrified or not...? and when?

All of these decisions are up to the contractor, who hasn't been selected yet.

 

[maxt797]

All of these decisions are up to the contractor, who hasn't been selected yet.

Seems like a major decision to be left up to just a contractor.

 

[ssiguy2]

Metrolinx better be open minded about the technology when the winner of the contract and their respective technology choice is announced. If the pick hydrogen and it is learnt that catenary was never really considered an option or vice-versa, I can see the lawsuits piling up from here.

I don't know when the winner will be announced {does anybody?} but the longer the process takes the more chance that it will be Hydrail. All 4 RER electrified lines have to be open by 2025 and that is about 300 km of catenary electrification and electrification of all storage tracks like Miminco/Union, garages, and the new under-park areas developing just west of Union. This will have to take place the same time more stations are being built and upgraded and service is increasing significantly. All these things make catenary a logistical nightmare and the shorter the time they have to do it, the more chance it will have to be Hydrail.

Catenary will need electrical substations but Hydrail will need refueling stations so there is not much difference there especially because they will not be constructed right on the functioning rail lines. Both systems will have to order new cars but both are standard rail so the timeline for deliveries shouldn't be any different.

 

[crs1026]

Seems like a major decision to be left up to just a contractor.

Absolutely, and it has knock-off implications that the public ought to be informed of and have input to.

One example - ML just released their latest design proposal for the Junction Railpath. It has bridges over rail lines that might be electrified. Because of the potential electrification of these lines, the height and design of these overpasses has to meet codes for electrified lines. ML is prudently leaving their options open, but if the contractor elects for hydrail or diesel, perhaps prettier, cheaper designs could have been chosen.

While we groan at our politics, there are some decisions that are properly made by our elected officials, based on objective technical analysis and input from staff people who (we hope) have little or no vested interest in the decision. This is one.such decision.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

Seems like a major decision to be left up to just a contractor.

Yep. Metrolinx decided they didn't have skillset to make those big decisions, so they've written a spec for minimum capacity, performance, and pollution characteristics leaving it up to the vendor to achieve them with whatever mechanism they feel appropriate. Electrification will almost certainly be used but it could be with an onboard battery bank with some portions not electrified, electric locomotives (rather than every car being powered), or some other combination.

The deadline is also left to the vendor to select. The tender basically specifies a value per day of service which is subtracted from the price. So, using made-up numbers, a vendor promising service Jan 1st, 2025 @ $9.9B might have a lower `effective bid price` than someone promising service Jan 1st, 2026 @ $9.7B. A vendor missing their own deadline will have heavy penalties.


I would guess the Ontario Line tender will be setup using the same methodology. It's not a bad way to go about it but it does extend the timelines significantly over going with a straight construction bid as TTC typically uses.

That said, Metrolinx has proven terrible at writing technical specs (Georgetown and Presto) both of which were well over budget and missed their deadlines or were adjusted so they no longer fit the needs needed for service (401 tunnel removed from original Georgetown project, Presto missed on a large number of marks). Perhaps tendering for a customer service result (nobody left on the platform, 90% get a seat, etc.) is a better fit for their skillset. Their core competency is being defined as project management, legal, and customer communications; not technical or operations.

 

[nfitz]

Seems like a major decision to be left up to just a contractor.

They all know that the contractor isn't going to take the risks, and it's unlikely with the Conservative's huge Metrolinx operating costs, that there is going to be money to guarantee payback on this stuff.

Effectively the decision to keep running it as diesel has already been made, but this sham let's them avoid the bad press, and ultimately blame the market, rather than themselves.

It's the Conservative mantra ... promise more, but do less.