Western Railroad Discussion > Caterpillar, BNSF and Chevron Agree to Pursue Hydrogen Locomotive

On December 14, 2021, announced a program to develop a hydrogen locomotive demonstrator. Here is a link to the announcement posted on the BNSF website:
https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/news-releases/newsrelease.page?relId=caterpillar-bnsf-and-chevron-agree-to-pursue-hydrogen-locomotive-demonstration
This definitely is a very interesting threesome to be working together.

ALLEN

krm152 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On December 14, 2021, announced a program to
> develop a hydrogen locomotive demonstrator. Here
> is a link to the announcement posted on the BNSF
> website:
> https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/news-releases/news
> release.page?relId=caterpillar-bnsf-and-chevron-ag
> ree-to-pursue-hydrogen-locomotive-demonstration
> This definitely is a very interesting threesome to
> be working together.
>
> ALLEN
Will see how this plays out have been hearing about such a thing for fifty years on and off still not much has happened.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. It's likely more feasable than the battery locomotive WABCO tested.

Interesting. Everything I've read about the use of hydrogen as a fuel, indicates that the production of hydrogen requires such a tremendous amount of energy, as to compared to the energy that hydrogen can produce. So,,,,,,,,,where will the energy come from to produce all the required hydrogen?

There's a great movie out, called "The Planet of the Humans", which shows how futile our efforts at carbon reduction are.   People want solar, but it takes lots of "carbon" to produce solar panels, transport them, install them, etc., and then they only last for 20 years, and then you have a very difficult item to dispose of.  Huge solar farms in the Mojave desert have been abandoned, while new ones are being built.

The movie goes thru it all, and exposes some of the connections made politically by groups and individuals to "look green."  But's it's all pretty ridiculous.  It shows that it's still a lower carbon footprint to just burn carbon for energy, vs. using carbon to make non-carbon energy.  Kinda the same as using carbon (diesel fuel) to grow corn, only to make it into ethanol, and for it all to be a waste of time, as there wasn't any reduction in carbon use in the end.

The movie made one very good point, one which I've always felt was the ONLY answer:  less humans on earth.  Less humans = less need for carbon.  The world is a giant petri dish, with the atmosphere being the lid, and we're filling up the dish with ourselves pretty fast.  Pretty soon, it will become too much.

Less people is the only answer.  And if we did that, we could still burn oil, gas and coal for energy, but only as long as we controlled the total need for carbon, meaning the total number of carbon using humans on the planet.  Everything else is a waste of time, just to make people feel good that they're "doing something for the planet!"  If we really want to help the planet, we need to control ourselves.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting. Everything I've read about the use of
> hydrogen as a fuel, indicates that the production
> of hydrogen requires such a tremendous amount of
> energy, as to compared to the energy that hydrogen
> can produce. So,,,,,,,,,where will the energy come
> from to produce all the required hydrogen?

Cmon man, everyone knows the energy comes from little pink flying ponys that fa4t rainbows, no joke.  

"eat the babies" as AOC nodded knowingly :-)

One item that a lot of arguments against "green" power do not consider is pollution control at generation source.  It is far easier to control pollution at a single, large point of power generation than at multiple smaller locations.

So, yes, it takes energy and creates carbon to generate hydrogen, but that can be localized at a major hub and then you have lower pollution at the traveling use points: the locomotives.  Also, the pollution control at the generation point is typically far more efficient for power generated than at the smaller use points.

The net result is less pollution.

Also, there are already industrial processes that produce hydrogen and oxygen for other uses in place that can be scaled up.  Electrolysis is one system and you can generate the power for that in many ways.  One is burning fossil fuels.  Another is hydroelectric.  Hydroelectric obviously is way cleaner than burning fossil fuels.

As for solar, the technology there keeps improving by leaps and bounds.  I have added new panels to a set I use when camping that are 1/2 the size and almost double the power of those I bought just 10 years ago.  And those old panels are still going strong.  My clients in the space are producing and using panels with expected 50 year lifespans.

No solution is ever perfect.  But no one actually working with alternate power believes that using an electric or hydrogen engine miraculously eliminates pollution (and those that do are ill informed).  What they understand is that of the logistics are properly managed one can achieve lower pollution levels into the environment and better manage those that are created.  

Z

the US now under 2.00 children per family  At that rate we lose population,   unless of course we let  the many come illegally over the border.  We need to go into these poor countries and enforce   one child child laws, by killing the children and sterilizing women.  These  methods are are  humane and have been very effectivre in China.    This said sarcastically  I hope you understand                 
coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a great movie out, called "The Planet of
> the Humans", which shows how futile our efforts at
> carbon reduction are.   People want solar, but it
> takes lots of "carbon" to produce solar panels,
> transport them, install them, etc., and then they
> only last for 20 years, and then you have a very
> difficult item to dispose of.  Huge solar farms
> in the Mojave desert have been abandoned, while
> new ones are being built.
>
> The movie goes thru it all, and exposes some of
> the connections made politically by groups and
> individuals to "look green."  But's it's all
> pretty ridiculous.  It shows that it's still a
> lower carbon footprint to just burn carbon for
> energy, vs. using carbon to make non-carbon
> energy.  Kinda the same as using carbon (diesel
> fuel) to grow corn, only to make it into ethanol,
> and for it all to be a waste of time, as there
> wasn't any reduction in carbon use in the end.
>
> The movie made one very good point, one which I've
> always felt was the ONLY answer:  less humans on
> earth.  Less humans = less need for carbon.  The
> world is a giant petri dish, with the atmosphere
> being the lid, and we're filling up the dish with
> ourselves pretty fast.  Pretty soon, it will
> become too much.
>
> Less people is the only answer.  And if we did
> that, we could still burn oil, gas and coal for
> energy, but only as long as we controlled the
> total need for carbon, meaning the total number of
> carbon using humans on the planet.  Everything
> else is a waste of time, just to make people feel
> good that they're "doing something for the
> planet!"  If we really want to help the planet,
> we need to control ourselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/22 07:26 by dougd.