Is the infrastructure for hydrogen cheaper than placing powelines along the tracks?
Hydrogen station in San Diego cots $700-800k, so propably. However hydrogen costs a lot more then electricity, so operating the trains will be significantly more expensive.
Yeah I kinda thought so, I know usually the simplist solution is usually the best. I wonder why they went with hydrogen. Was money involved in this decision?
The trains will mainly run between Merced and Sacramento on Union Pacific track. That route is part of the second phase of California hsr, so after the LA - San Fransico part is built. For that the relativly cheap hydrogen infrastructure is propably cheaper, at least for three round trips per day right now. Long term it will be built properly.
We should consider that here in Boston as well. Every time the T talks about electrifying the commuter lines, it quickly turns into decades and too many billions of dollars. Maybe hydrogen trains would let us step away from diesel
Honestly. Id be happy with them correctly funding the T and having it function first. Id love for a more eco friendly train system, but a functional system will reduce the number of drivers.
With that said. Hydrogen would be great, as would electric.
For transportation hydrogen will be the fuel of choice in the long haul. You cant beat its bang for the buck.
Seems way easier to build electric infrastructure than to convert electricity to hydrogen then hydrogen back to electricity.
Sorry people didn’t understand your joke
Thank you.
Gotta put /s too many people can’t tell the sarcasm apart.
What are your arguments for hydrogen over something like catenaries? Seems to me like they would win out in the long run on cost and efficiency, no?
You can’t beat its bang for the buck
I think they were referring to hydrogen’s explosive potential
