The issue is is the energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. You could adapt car engines now to run on hydrogen in the short term before fuel cells are available but again the issue is the energy required for the elecotrolysis of water.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The future of transport
- Thread starter Zoe
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Hydrogen might easily be a by-product of deuterium extraction for nuclear fusion. If we ever develop a fusion reactor that can produce more energy than it consumes (a very big if) then that would provide enough electricity to make its own fuel from the small heavy water fraction in seawater. I don't know enough about the numbers to be sure if this is possible, but I'm sure I've mentioned it before.
SS4
Established Member
That's impossible, it directly contravenes the first law of thermodynamics - you can't create energy from nothing
What I mean is, the energy to extract the fuel from seawater (or from lithium if you want tritium as well) and the energy used to start the reaction must be less than the energy produced by the reaction for the power station to be a nett energy producer (and thus turn a profit). Selling hydrogen would be a possible sideline, since it is a by-product that might be much in demand as a fuel one day.
- Seawater goes in
- ***Electrolysis***
- Hydrogen comes out and gets bottled, oxygen gets vented to atmosphere
- Deuterium goes into reactor
- ***Reaction***
- Helium and energy come out of reactor
- Energy gets converted to electricity and fed to grid, don't know what they do with the helium
- When you burn the hydrogen, it combines with free oxygen to become water, then eventually ends up in the sea
Apart from depleting the oceans of heavy water, no real environmental cost.
For freight; I have always considered the idea that in the future we would have a nationwide network of freight consolidation centres. Goods would move long-distance by rail and then do the final short distance either by local rail or Tram or by using electric vehicles to overcome the problem of the fact rail is rarely suitable for door to door transport.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...esel-fuel-using-sun-water-carbon-dioxide.html
Could be a big thing is it turns out to be as good as it sounds.
Could be a big thing is it turns out to be as good as it sounds.
I believe the term used to be "concentration yard".
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Oh dear; that's asking for ridicule in the press isn't it?
Why not call them distribution centres?
That's actually where "concentration camp" came from, as used by the British in the Boer War to concentrate refugees into larger numbers and make them easier to handle. A few other countries took up the idea, and the rest is history, thank God.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Right... back to the drawing board...
How about:
Freight Forwarding Centre?
How about:
Freight Forwarding Centre?
Many cities already have these and they're called Consolidation Centres, although it's not on the scale which I've described and they tend to involve a number of large HGVs dropping off at a warehouse and a smaller vehicle making the trips to the shops rather than Rail.
For more information on the Bristol Freight Consolidation Centre which has been running for a good few years now. See http://www.start-project.org/bristol.html and the page after page 12 of this http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/london-construction-consolidation-centre-tool
For more information on the Bristol Freight Consolidation Centre which has been running for a good few years now. See http://www.start-project.org/bristol.html and the page after page 12 of this http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/london-construction-consolidation-centre-tool
)
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Does it? the only three letter acronym I can think of that is anywhere near that ends with S instead?
Anyway....
What about Freight Interchange Depot?
I did also think of "National Integrated Transfer System" but.......
:roll:
Anyway....
What about Freight Interchange Depot?
I did also think of "National Integrated Transfer System" but.......
:roll:To get back to the point, how do we plan one of these <insert acronym here> places. The idea is that the basic marshalling yard model, flat, since you can't hump-shunt modern stock. Road vehicles come in one end, various goods gets moved about, either by pallet and forklift or some kind of belt system like an airport, then ends up in vehicles in the loading sidings, then these get put through the marshalling sidings until they form decent length trains and move over to the departure sidings for a loco to pick them up. When they arrive in the reception sidings, the process goes into reverse. This cuts out the stage of pick-up goods, which means that there would be a need to move goods by road to reach the yard. Otherwise, the pick-up goods would have to make a comeback.
For smaller traffic, I would love to see Red Star revived. It would be very useful, even for passengers with lots of luggage. It also might save a lot of courier van movements.
For smaller traffic, I would love to see Red Star revived. It would be very useful, even for passengers with lots of luggage. It also might save a lot of courier van movements.
If you look around the country there is a lot of railway land sitting unused. Taking Newcastle for example, there is plenty of space on the Forth Banks. Going a bit further out there is the former Tyneside Freight Marshalling yards on the line to Sunderland, again unused. Plus plenty of space at Tyne Yard if needed.
Really? Well they seem to have worked well in submarines for over 30 years - and also in Aircraft carriers too -why would a commercial ship be any different? In fact there was a feature in last months E&T about the yanks building a commercial nuclear powered ship
Admit it - your not to sure are you
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
I'd be happy to travel in a nuclear powered express liner.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Well, a nuclear powered ship is a steamship - they're usually turbine driven!
I'd actually suggest a nuclear ship should be a steam - electric propulsion though; that would by far be the smoothest and fastest.
QE2 was, after her 1986 conversion, a diesel electric and was said by many who had travelled by both methods to be far smoother than a steamship with direct drive. And many also said QE2 was smoother after the conversion than before.
I'd actually suggest a nuclear ship should be a steam - electric propulsion though; that would by far be the smoothest and fastest.
QE2 was, after her 1986 conversion, a diesel electric and was said by many who had travelled by both methods to be far smoother than a steamship with direct drive. And many also said QE2 was smoother after the conversion than before.
Last edited:
So would I. There was a cargo-passenger liner once, the N.S. Savannah.
I don't think she was very successful, but it was probably a worthwhile experiment.
- Status