Hydrogen production could be renewable, and also, would not require the expensive wells, refineries, and distribution networks now used for petroleum products. So it makes some good sense to develop a hydrogen ecosystem.

To make hydrogen, you need water and electricity. Water is available virtually everywhere, and electricity can be produced virtually anywhere too, using renewable resources (wind, solar, tides, geothermal, you name it).

So at least in principle, using hydrogen as a fuel can be seen as monumentally easier than what we have today, not to mention, better for the environment. I think the biggest drawback is the high pressures at which it has to be stored, in order for vehicles to have range comparable to gasoline or diesel.

Now, in a country where the railroad networks are already electrified close to 100%, I'll grant you, it's less clear what hydrogen-powered trains would buy you. Still, building this hydrogen infrastructure could have benefits in the long term, I believe.

Dear Bhaskar

I totally agree with the answer of Mr Albert, Germany, Italy and some other EU countries adopted a full strategy and facilities to put the hydrogen fueled cars into roads. But I think for railways still it is not practical to replace electricity by PEM fuel cells due to the large amount of hydrogen that need to be stored at high pressure and special material of construction. We worked on another solution to hydrogen storage by using metals as a renewable energy storage media. then, this metal can be used for either producing hydrogen on demand or to be used in metal air fuel cell. Yet, I believe that hydrogen-powered transportation will get a good share of future solutions.

A future potential which may increase economic production of hydrogen and in turn increase its use in automotive industry, is hydrogen production by solar pyrolysis of biomass. This is discussed in the below mentioned review. Happy new year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325803601_Biomass_pyrolysis_past_present_and_future?_sg=ITXlnzzX-78K7_tFJjTcbgDonvmUhypghF9idouzbhieAG1V7RoRxKdxKpWtZFg_esQnA5Y8NHpqPqjRrNIuB-KPpstxe48fkMKIvUPT.JfPYEbqemc6vqcVuNUzWwHP_SoEvt6R0NjD_UPluDaJsnW6QEFuk6xPEmMWb3UxNKldWDPdeb-YC0pcjRzOyQg

A word of cation is justified.

Hydrocarbons, be it crude, gas or coal, combining hydrogen and carbon are easily handled, have high power density and besides water form CO2 when converted to energy which is very beneficial to plant life as well as to human and all animal life. Nature gives us that for free.

Separating Hydrogen from Carbon is costly and you have a very light gas, meaning it occupies a large volume, it is difficult to store and transport. And most of all it has no benefit whatsoever to the environment.

That CO2 increases plant growth is well proven and is applied in all sorts of faster and bigger plant growth businesses. Even the marijuana growers use CO2. The notion that CO2 causes Climate Change or Global Warming is another myth.

A further myth is that hydrocarbons can be replaced by the so-called renewable Wind and Solar. Crude and gas also renew themselves.

Why is there no open discussion allowed on the science? If it were the myths would be quickly exposed as such.

(These mystical ideas are all politically motivated by the leftist which have overrun Europe and many other places and have the agenda to create a one world government under socialist rule to control all of humanity. Do we want to go back to the times of Adolf Hitler?)

For a primer on science see these two links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM 45 min, FOS (friends of science) Steve Goreham, Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o 18 min reality check on renewables, David MacKay

Hydrogen fuel cell is a renewable tech cz H2O could be re-separated into H2 & O2 mainly by electrolytic. Even though, Fuel Cell technology is not saving energy if the electricity is coming from burning petrochemical energy. While it is do save energy if the electricity is coming from wind-power or hydroelectric. To pull a train, a huge fuel cell up to several MW is needed. Good job!!!

You agree that separating H2 from water and re-oxidizing it is a negative energy proposition. OK.

Claiming that E-power from Solar and Wind is a viable replacement for hydrocarbons is a bold statement that first must be proven.

So far it is not. E-power from wind & solar is far more expensive than the status quo and starves the plant world of food. It also is more environmentally damaging to what we have now. Obviously, you did not read or consider the links I had provided as true. That is a shame. You rather trust Al Gore, Michael Mann, the main stream media without any scientific base to stand on. All they do is say so.

Please do your own research and educate yourself on scientific issues on Climate. Do you know what the amount of CO2 is in the air at ground level and what concentration of CO2 is at high altitude? Do you know the weight of CO2 relative to air?

Remember CO2 is a trace gas and is considered a weak greenhouse gas. At least that is accepted. Mixing a week substance to a compound weakens the compound not enhancing it. More CO2 has likely the tendency to cool rather than to increase surface temperature. However, the amount is so small its impact is not even measurable.

Although a warmer temperature is welcome as it enhances human life for a far improved economy and well being of us all. History shows us that. Why is warming considered bad? Your argument of sea level rise is bogus. Floating ice does not increase water level when melting. BTW, the volume of ice as a whole, arctic and antarctic is rising, not reducing over the last time period measured in decades. Do you have an explanation why our climate is changing? Could the sun be the prime driver not humans?

Water splitting techniques picking up its pace in extending the fuel resources for future needs. Great works to be acknowledged ahead. And as rightly mentioned by Rolf Pfeiffer, "A word of cation is justified".

The present forum is far to be supported by enough scientific and technical arguments, but more by individual feelings and believings.

First, have a look on https://trends.levif.be/economie/entreprises/alstom-lance-le-premier-train-a-hydrogene-du-monde/article-normal-951139.html?utm_source=Newsletter-17/09/2018&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Newsletter-RNBAVULV&M_BT=1201503456564

Second point, the most coercitive for OUR future, will be the cost of ENERGY whatever will be the source... (fossile, renewable, nuclear...). ENERGY will be more and more expensive, for very different reasons.

Third point is the abundance of resources in terms of mineral or natural resources we can extract from the EARTH comprising solar and wind energy systems (amounts, what countries possesses the ke-elements and besides the advanced technologies,...) ancillary question storage and recycling!

Fourth point is the drawback of a new mass technologies: Are these technologies adding too much inconvenients: if one observes a change of climate, could be due to the Sun, Jupiter, Proxima Centaur etc... but the human activites, undeniably accelerate the changes in terms of global warming and its many consequences. Will be the humanity able to break enough the tendancy (due to each individual activities) for a supportable world??

Fifth.. "individual activities" x times 8 billions persons.. what will be the issue, consideration to the points 2 to 4?. I don't like to enter into philosophy (I am not philosopher), butplease let the engineers, techniicians and scientists propose acceptable solutions for mankind future, that must be tested and experimented, for a long enough given time, then used if really YOU decide acceptable...

At present let us return to Resarch Gate!

Article Hydrogen Production from Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re...

Read this article paper

But D, that article doesn't say anything convincing. All it says is that a hydrogen-powered train exists. The question is, how is that hydrogen-powered train better than trains that run off overhead power lines, once that infrastructure exists (which it does, all over western Europe anyway).

If you can justify separating H2 from H2O using electricity made from renewable energy, it is equally possible to justify supplying such electricity directly to the overhead cables, in the electrified train infrastructure. In fact, the latter is more efficient, because you are avoiding that extra conversion, H2 back into electricity.

Please read this recent information... among others

https://www.automobil-industrie.vogel.de/hyundai-schafft-kapazitaet-fuer-700000-brennstoffzellen-a-784678/

Now the challenge is to produce GREEN and cheap hydrogen, to store masses of such a fluid and make it easy accessible to users. The best solution is on site (close to refilling stations) production from Renewable Energy capture (Wind Mill, PV etc) when off-peak consumption, to use solid state storage with heat management (energy efficiency better than 85%), and distribute... But mobility is by far not the unique issue for hydrogen energy....

D. Fruchart

And I say again, this misses the point. Yes, for cars, trucks, buses, H2 power makes sense. For trains that are already electric? I added this to my previous answer, in case you missed it:

If you can justify separating H2 from H2O using electricity made from renewable energy, it is equally possible to justify supplying such electricity directly to the overhead cables, in the electrified train infrastructure. In fact, the latter is more efficient, because you are avoiding that extra conversion, H2 back into electricity.

This isn't just a matter of unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Yes Albert you are true.. why dismount the overhead cables which were installed almost everywhere (costly operation)? It looks folish and quite stupid. However please have a look on the mass of CO2" transported in the electric cables" Have a look please on how is produced electricity in most of the countries... Europe (Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Serbia)... America (USA, Mexico etc...) Asia (China, India, South Asia countries etc...), Africa (Nigeria, Morrocco, Algeria)...

More than 63% of energy we dispose originate from fossil resources, almost 30% of this energy is distributed as electricity... So most of the "clean" trains are very dark.. why not try changing? A big challenge in terms of energy dispatch is the national, even international grid networks... which appears less and less inadapted to the growing and growing number ReN capture systems. Local collapses (Canada-USA-California) had still occured and major chaos is possible... One has to maintain large grids for efficient mass production and efficient mass distribution, provides generation of electricity is made cleaner and cleaner, but one has to consider as well local ans smaller size production and consumption, which are mode adapted to renewable energy resources (sun, wind, wood, water falls) leading also to some economy in terms of network disposal and management.

I am not so GREEN and Ecolo, since I consider as well interesting the future of high temperature (but small size) nuclear plants able deliver efficiently heat (for electricity production and H2O dissociation).

Here the main idea is to de-fossilize the energy for manking, expecting that presently we have kept enough strategic reserves of ores and minerals aiming overpass more quietly the next centuries for.... billions people...

I have a direct question to you Albert.. since you belong to the Boeing company: Can you say me, please, how many aircrafts are moving per unit of time above us and how many MegaTons of CO2 they produce a year? Let me say that I have nothing against the marvellous aviation, but effectively the efforts made to propel trains with hydrogen, the invitation to use clean-electrical cars, the incitation to use bikes, also to walk a little more could really appear quite ridiculous.

Kind regards

Daniel

Daniel, I don't work in commercial aircraft, however on this topic, take a look at this:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/hy4-fuel-cell-plane/index.html

What can apply to trains, cars, buses, trucks, can also apply to aircraft. Also, there are plenty of parts of the world, including the US, where the majority of railroad miles are not electrified. So of course there, hydrogen powered trains would potentially apply.

In my replies to this thread, I have avoided going back to square one, to argue whether global warming is caused by human activity, whether the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approaching any excessive levels, or any of this. I was only pointing out that in West European countries, where the railroads are already electrified to a very large extent, hydrogen powered trains would seem to be less impactful.

(And on the basic fundamentals on CO2 equilibrium, I would only mention that humans are adding a small amount of extra CO2 into the ecosystem, on a daily basis, just a few percent of the CO2 nature is dumping into the ecosystem. But, simultaneously, we are still deforesting the planet, overall. Western countries have been reforesting, for a few decades, but unfortunately, the net is still minus.

https://ourworldindata.org/forests

At least, this should be troubling, the two simultaneous effects - adding some CO2 and destroying the CO2 sequestering mechanism.)

Solar is the best solution for energy in future

Such brainwashed statements do not really deserve an answer.

Do you have any back up for that? Do you know how many years it takes before an investment on return is realized? Just about the same as its useful life. In other words it costs about the same or more than you get in return.

Can you make steel form sunlight?