Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ScrabCrab t1_ix7iy3v wrote

...but why?

Electrified rail has existed for over a century, what's the point of this?

10

Cyclist007 t1_ix7kglb wrote

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but our province (Alberta) has a hydrogen strategy which includes trucks and trains. Hydrogen is a byproduct of natural gas - of which we have plenty here - and as the world moves away from O&G, we need to keep our industry up and the money rolling in.

I don't know who funded this particular locomotive, but it would not surprise me in the least to find out there was some sort of provincial incentives behind this.

Not that I believe this is wrong in the least, I'm interested to see how this all works out as we go forward.

4

ScrabCrab t1_ix7of0b wrote

Huh, I thought hydrogen required ridiculous amounts of energy to extract, didn't know it could also be obtained as a byproduct

3

formerlyanonymous_ t1_ix7lld7 wrote

All of this is accurate. The province is keeping a transition from oil and gas to electric in mind. The early plan is use grey or blue hydrogen, so by products of natural gas production. It doesn't reduce green house gasses beyond encouraging less flaring.

The plan is have it in place as they start more renewable gas collection (harvesting from garbage/animal waste) which is also heavily subsidized from both a natural gas and agriculture standpoint.

All of this with hope that green hydrogen becomes cheaper in the next 20 years.

2

thehourglasses t1_ixa7vqn wrote

>> 20 years

Yeah, we’re not lasting that long given the current rate of warming.

0

Stavinair t1_ix7lp93 wrote

...trying to electrify a majority of the existing rail lines here in the US would be too much of a headache to be honest...

4

netz_pirat t1_ix7l808 wrote

Cost. If you've got long rail lines that see one train a day or even month, the cost to electrify that line is huge. Way easier and cheaper to send a hydrogen engine.

4