Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

McGuinty looking to hydrogen-fuelled GO trains

JEFF GRAY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:18 AM EDT 26/09/07

Discussions with Bombardier in early stages, prompting opponents to say announcement is too vague ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Our Go trains offer a perfectly serene quiet ride to and from work. I would hate to see that disturbed in any way. And, by the way, that planned Go-TTC terminal and subway connection should be at the Dundas St. West subway station, allowing Torontonians to board there to head to the airport whenever Toronto gets around to building a tiny 2-km track from the Malton Go to the airport as a secondary airport link. Major links can come later.
  2. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, writes: Dalton can't be serious. Please tell me this isn't true.
  3. Ottawa Mens Centre.com from Ottawa Home of Canada's Male Gender Apartheid, Canada writes: “hydrogen-powered trains”, What a wonderful “green” sounding idea that Dalton McGuinty thinks will be another “diversion” to keep him in power. That’s what I’d expect from a lawyer engaged in politics. It shows some rather dishonest logic, no proven technology, its decades away from being a reality and fails to show a real plan based on real proven technology. Lets get real, every major city in the world EXCEPT Ottawa has an underground. Any politician who really wishes to plan a the future of Ontario or Canada’s transportation needs must consider how other major cities such as Moscow, London, Paris and Istanbul have ever expanding underground rail systems. Toronto and Ottawa need underground trains powered by “green” electricity from nuclear reactors. Ottawa is talking about a “light rail tunnel”. Just when are our politicians going to think realistically and logically about the long term choices available. The real value created by underground rail is a little harder to explain but our politicians need to agree on the fact that an electric underground rail is necessary and how, where and when are the issues to be debated by the parties and not IF. Dalton’s plan is flawed. It costs a huge amount of electricity to make hydrogen and then to use hydrogen to power transport. It’s a lot more efficient to just have electricity power underground rail. Obviously, this is what will happen given enough time because it’s the only real solution. Just when will McGuinty and all the other useless politicians start thinking of the countries long term needs and not their own next election. www.OttawaMensCentre.com
  4. D K from Canada writes: ..but first they will run on coal for 7 years. Then, they can make the announcement again. Sound familiar?
  5. G. R. L. Cowan from Cobourg, Canada writes: A candidate for office might do well to promise public funds for this more practical approach: use nuclear electricity to electrolyse water, yielding hydrogen and oxygen. (Same as the McGuinty proposal, so far.)

    Now capture CO2 from air. Combine the CO2 and the hydrogen by methods that already exist, yielding diesel fuel. Voila, the GO diesel locomotives are indirectly nuclear-powered.
  6. John Arthur from Canada writes: Dalton's new campaign theme is "Dreamer".
    Apologies of course, in advance, to Supertramp.
  7. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "G. R. L. Cowan from Cobourg, Canada writes: A candidate for office might do well to promise public funds for this more practical approach: use nuclear electricity to electrolyse water, yielding hydrogen and oxygen. (Same as the McGuinty proposal, so far.)"

    Well, I can support electrolysis for making the hydreogen but suggest that it come from 'small scale green' projects such as small hydro dams, wind energy, etc that have erratic output and therefore can use hydrogen as the 'energy storage' medium. Nuclear is better for base load.
  8. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow... H2 powered rail... what a bunch of hooey! This is definitely not a zero emission technology since electricity needs to be used to generate the H2. LOTS OF IT. If we use our nukes, we might be closer to zero, but at what cost, since the CANDUs generate particularly dangerous waste products when compared to the LWRs in use elsewhere.

    On top of that, the technology to store H2 really does NOT exist - H2 penetrates through and corrodes basically any material, This will result in high maintenance costs.

    Give it perhaps 10-15 years and we MIGHT come up with a solution to the corrosion issues. Until then, we can use diesel.
  9. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow... H2 powered rail... what a bunch of hooey!" If you say so. "This is definitely not a zero emission technology since electricity needs to be used to generate the H2. LOTS OF IT." I disagree since green energy can be used to generate the hydrogen. Even nukes can produce low emissions in the generation relative to diesel. Using 'off peak' power would improve utilization of the reactor capacity to some degree increasing the return on investment for nuclear. "If we use our nukes, we might be closer to zero, but at what cost, since the CANDUs generate particularly dangerous waste products when compared to the LWRs in use elsewhere." Nonsense. Nobody has been harmed in any way by nuclear power from CANDU. CANDU has the advantage that it can use most fissile elements including those extracted from it's own fuel cycle and the short lived fission fragments can be used for thermogenerators. "On top of that, the technology to store H2 really does NOT exist - H2 penetrates through and corrodes basically any material, This will result in high maintenance costs." Total crap. They store LH2 for years to fuel the space shuttle. Hydrogen embrittlement (not corrosion) can be easily prevented by choice of materials and coatings. "Give it perhaps 10-15 years and we MIGHT come up with a solution to the corrosion issues. Until then, we can use diesel." Or H2. We don't need new technology for storage. The only real question is the state of fuel cell development.
  10. Ian MacMurray from Toronto, Canada writes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Bombardier even makes engines anywhere in North America - and certainly not in Thunder Bay - only in Europe - so is McGuinty in effect making a promise to potentially create jobs in Germany with this proposal?
  11. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Ian MacMurray from Toronto, Canada writes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Bombardier even makes engines anywhere in North America - and certainly not in Thunder Bay - only in Europe"

    Yes. Bombardier is multinational with interests in Germany, UK, etc. They build conventional diesel locomotive engines there.

    "- so is McGuinty in effect making a promise to potentially create jobs in Germany with this proposal?"

    I doubt it. http://tinyurl.com/yvt8ru The use of fuel cells is more like electified subway cars than standard locomotive engines so they would probably want to develop it in Thunder Bay where the frames would be built.
  12. D K from Canada writes: Hydrogen buts the bomb in Bombardier ;).
  13. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: Ian,

    Comparing the storage of liquid Hydrogen for the space shuttle, where the costs are not a concern (at least when you think of a normal person's or business expenditures), storage is not an issue. But commercial scale storage for H2 will be tremendously costly when considered against the other rail transport costs. Other hydrogen compounds could be used for storage, but the embrittlement (this is indeed the correct term rather than corrosion) in the pipes/hoses from the tank to the engine and then within the engine itself would. Leading to higher costs.

    On the nuclear front, Candu reactors have lead to deaths and injuries for Ontario Hydro workers. Not in a long time, but there have been serious injuries at least at Pickering. Also, Candu reactors are way more expensive than the competing designs. If we want to go for nuclear, we should adopt the latest Na-Na fast breeder or the pebble designs. These designs are even more fault tolerant and incapable of going critical than Candu. For some of these designs, the half life of the waste products are a few hundred years, which means that vitrification and deep storage will work just fine. So, until we get a modern nuclear system out there, the financial and environmental costs of building nuclear to generate H2 is too high.

    Fuel cells might be a solution, but based on what I have seen and read, they are better suited for stationary power generation. Ballard and a Japanese company have a product in Japan that takes natural gas in the home to generate a few kW as well as heating the water tank. Not bad in my opinion.
  14. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: Ian,Comparing the storage of liquid Hydrogen for the space shuttle, where the costs are not a concern."

    Strawman and Apples/Organges. The cost of LH2 for long periods of inaction for fueling the space shuttle is not a model for high pressure hydrogen for rainroad engines used on a daily basis.

    "But commercial scale storage for H2 will be tremendously costly when considered against the other rail transport costs. Other hydrogen compounds could be used for storage"

    Assertion, not fact. To debate you must present arguments, not dogma.

    ", but the embrittlement (this is indeed the correct term rather than corrosion) in the pipes/hoses from the tank to the engine and then within the engine itself would. Leading to higher costs."

    Your claims are not supported and obviously poorly researched. They use hydrogen in industry to the tune of 50 million metric tons per year and this is commercially viable, safe and effective.
  15. Ian St. John from Canada writes: Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: IanOn the nuclear front, Candu reactors have lead to deaths and injuries for Ontario Hydro workers. Not in a long time, but there have been serious injuries at least at Pickering." Lie. No accidents related to NUCLEAR material have ever happened at Pickering or in any CANDU reactors. If a steam turbine falls on you or you fall off a high platform in the generator room, that is NOT because of the CANDU part of the generation station. "Also, Candu reactors are way more expensive than the competing designs." Not shown. http://tinyurl.com/yqo4wa "Based on applying the lessons learned on Qinshan III, future CANDU® 6 units can achieve first concrete to 100% Power in 51 months, at a unit cost less than US$1500$/kW." "If we want to go for nuclear, we should adopt the latest Na-Na fast breeder or the pebble designs." Total crap. We HAVE gone nuclear, you nitwit. We are 50% nuclear and that is just going to get bigger as the advantages grow. "These designs are even more fault tolerant and incapable of going critical than Candu." Pebble bed reactors have a 'skin' of pyrolitic carbon. It has NOT been shown that oxygen infilitration will not cause a fire similar to Chernobyl ( as similar situation ) and a massive contamination problem. CANDU has very low criticality and thus takes a very long time (compared to PBW) to go critical. This gives way more time for shutdown than needed by even the laxest of operators. One reason that it sells well in countries that are not confident of their nuclear skills. It also has the advantages of relatively wide fuel compatibility. OTOH, it is relatively complex and so has taken longer to reach its design potential. That said, it is now mature and ready to take off. But this was NOT about the future of CANDU. It was about using EXISTING reactors for hydrogen production.
  16. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: Also, Candu reactors are way more expensive than the competing designs." At $1500/kwh the CANDU built in China are now on a par with 'clean coal' in terms of construction costs. Please try to keep up. "We should adopt the latest Na-Na fast breeder" I have already pointed out the fire hazard for pebble bed reactors. Anyone that has seen the high school experiment of dropping Na ( sodium ) metal in a beaker of water knows how potentially dangerous liquid sodium breeders are. "These designs are even more fault tolerant and incapable of going critical than Candu." But are serious fire hazards and fire caused most of the contamination at Chernobyl, not meltdown. "For some of these designs, the half life of the waste products are a few hundred years, which means that vitrification and deep storage will work just fine." Not true. The spent fuel is ALWAYS of mix of high radiation/short lived fission fragments and low radiation/long lived fissile elements, either part of the original fuel ( burnup is never 100% ) or generated by 'breeding' aka neutron capture by non-fissile elements. "So, until we get a modern nuclear system out there, the financial and environmental costs of building nuclear to generate H2 is too high." On the contrary. CANDU is the only clean and dependable power system with the cost competitive to coal and the safety to be built near cities. That said, I would rather hydogen for this purpose be built to use 'renewable' energy to alleviate the 'fluctuating availability' of such things. There has to be short term hydrogen storage anyway so it make sense to use it 'synergistically' to level the production of wind power, for example. Nuclear can form a 'backup' for shortfalls.
  17. Ian St. John from Canada writes: Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: Fuel cells might be a solution"

    Fuel cells are an engine. They do not produce anything. They convert chemical energy (hydrogen/oxygen) to power (electricity).

    "but based on what I have seen and read, they are better suited for stationary power generation."

    Nonsequitur. Fuel cells are not compromised by motion. The first Ballard cells fueled a bus.

    "Ballard and a Japanese company have a product in Japan that takes natural gas in the home to generate a few kW as well as heating the water tank. Not bad in my opinion. "

    Cogeneration of heat and power is one nice thing, yes. However, cracking natural gas to get hydrogen to produce power is not particularly efficient. The systems were probably designed as 'backup generators' and may be used where natural gas is cheap( by comparison) for fulltime power/heat.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top