Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United Kingdom

World's First Hydrogen Double Deckers Arrive In Aberdeen (theengineer.co.uk) 112

Posted by BeauHD from the first-of-its-kind dept.
The world's first hydrogen-powered double decker bus has been revealed in Aberdeen, a move that demonstrates the city's commitment to tackling air pollution and implementation of its Net Zero Vision. The Engineer reports: Hydrogen double deckers will now be driven around the city for several weeks during a period of final testing along with training for drivers. The UK's first hydrogen production and bus refueling station opened in Aberdeen in 2015 as part of a green transport demonstration project. The Aberdeen City Council-led project tested the economic and environmental benefits of hydrogen transport technologies and aims to drive the development of hydrogen technologies.

In a statement, Aberdeen City Council Co-Leader Councillor Jenny Laing said: "We are very proud to bring the world's first hydrogen-powered double-decker buses to Aberdeen as it shows the city continues to be at the forefront of developing green technologies." "The roll out of the new double-decker buses will help to cement Aberdeen's position as an entrepreneurial and technological leader as the new buses come with even more advanced technology which pushes established hydrogen boundaries and greatly assists us in tackling air pollution in the city." First Aberdeen is to run the 15 buses along one of its most popular service routes, with the vehicles expected to be in service in November, 2020.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's First Hydrogen Double Deckers Arrive In Aberdeen More

World's First Hydrogen Double Deckers Arrive In Aberdeen

Comments Filter:

  • What generates the hydrogen? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward



    • Generally, and mostly, hydrogen taken from fossil fuels of course. You know, the stuff that has driven civilization and quality of life forward for over 3 centuries.

      • Yeah, just like that hole under your home drove building your mountain of dumb confidence for the past three decades and you totally won't collapse into a volcano in the next 3... 2... 1...

        How willfully dumb are you?

      • You know, the stuff that has driven civilization and quality of life forward for over 3 centuries.

        You mean the stuff that has driven cancer rates and AGW forward for over 3 centuries? Got it.

        • You are confused, overall lifespan, wealth and disease have gone down due to fossil fuels, the benefits far outweigh any issues.

          Of course, you are also a hypocrite, typing on computer and in building and with health fossil fuel made possible. You wouldn't have survived without fossil fuel.

          • You are confused, overall lifespan, wealth and disease have gone down due to fossil fuels, the benefits far outweigh any issues.

            They created positive and negative effects at the same time, and the negative effects have now accumulated to the point that they are winning. But instead of changing course to do something which would make more sense now, we're continuing to let the oil barons run society. It made sense to burn fossil fuels at one time, now it doesn't, but we're still doing it. And you're cheering for it because... why? Just because you want to believe that it makes sense and you refuse to change your mind? That mentality

            • Negative effects aren't winning, wealth and lifespan still going up. What makes sense is to ease to non-polluting resources, not do the man-hating thing of aburd rash cutting off...

              You have rose colored glasses view of 1970s terrestial solar panel tech, efficiency was ass, 14%. Your assertion about payback in 7 years is bullshit from marketing shysters at the time. Even now with subsidies and MUCH cheaper panels it's 8 years. Solar tech at power plant scale historically was crippled by lack of dece

              • Considering that solar does have a pay back time, how long does it take for a gallon of burning fuel take to pay you back and can you reuse that gallon of fossil fuel? The 20th century is over, fossil fuel burning has reached it limit of efficiency development, it now time to move onto cleaner and safer tech that will return the quality of air into a far more pleasant experience.

                • Not true, higher temp plants are being rolled out and carbon scrubbing perfected. Fossil not at peak anything, since China still ramping it up in foreign countries discounting dip solely due to pandemic. Really it doesn't matter what the U.S. does now, it'll matter what China and later India does for global carbon load.

          • Re:What generates the hydrogen? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2020 @10:00AM (#60602590) Journal

            This. Actual measurements show fantastic progress to the average wellbeing. And nations without freedom have no such progress.

            The west's worst problem is the abundance of cheap food, a wonderful novelty problem to have historically. Social anthropologists even had to come up with a new term, food insecurity, to deal with capitalism's kicking the ass of raw starvation.

            It's ok to say, here's a problem I think we should solve. But to lay it at the feet of capitalism, as if there's something wrong with it at its core, is nothing other than an old-school class warfare retread not supported by actual measurements of its benefit.

            • There is something wrong with burning fossil fuels at its core, and the problem is at the core of capitalism: people who don't give a fuck about you are motivated to do things which harm you because it makes them profit.

              It's not a problem that cannot in theory be mitigated, but in practice people become dependent on the things that harm them and experience conflicts of interest which impede them taking actions to protect themselves from the harm that is profitable to others.

      • Generally, and mostly, hydrogen taken from fossil fuels of course.

        That might be true, but according to H2 Aberdeen [h2aberdeen.com] this hydrogen is split from water using electricty, in a Hydrogenics [hydrogenics.com] electrolyser installed specically for this project

        Due largely to its vast wind resources, Scotland currently generates 90% of its electricty from renewably resources, and is well on the way to having a surplus. Admittedly this is because Scotland features heavily in the UK's overall plans for green power, but even so this seems like one case where using hydrogen for transport actually makes

        • Due largely to its vast wind resources, Scotland currently generates 90% of its electricty from renewably resources, and is well on the way to having a surplus. Admittedly this is because Scotland features heavily in the UK's overall plans for green power, but even so this seems like one case where using hydrogen for transport actually makes sense.

          Except for the obvious alternative: take all that excess electric energy (not power) and use it to run BEV busses. That gets rid of several wasted-energy steps in the hydrogen sequence.

          • agreed, but there is no harm in having another clean fuel source albeit a lot less efficient - it could become the answer for the huge tankers etc where a battery could be too heavy to be useful
        • wow, someone should mod up parent. They are using renewables for the H2.

  • 85 years late (Score:3)

    by nickovs ( 115935 ) on Monday October 12, 2020 @10:36PM (#60601370)
    Aren't they a little late to the game? There were hydrogen double-deckers back in the 1930's [airships.net], and they were much classier than a bus from Aberdeen at that!

  • Where's this coming from?
    Some traitor* pushing his latest profit love interest?
    (And him being lucky it is popular due to being in line with not causing a mass extinction.m for a change. ;)

    I'm not against hydrogen. It would be nice if we had a tank that could permanently contain it and it wouldn't diffuse out and rise to space, never to be seen again. Just wary whenever there is a sudden surge in stories about a subject out of nowhere.

    _ _ _ _
    * I refuse to say the misleading euphemism "l*bbyist". The law lite

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 )
      Just more horseshit from Big Hydrogen.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Hydrogen could be great for aviation and some corner cases in surface transport. For most stuff though batteries are the future.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      We need something to store energy. We're all ears if you have a better solution. Storing energy is a very big problem. If you can convert that energy to another form very quickly you could have an explosive event on your hands. After all a stick of Dynamite has the same energy as a candy bar. It simply converts it all in a short period of time. Some people want to store energy via water. Use gravity to convert it back. Same problem, lots of water can wipe out towns. No free lunch it seems.

      What's with the hy

  • Daily mileage? (Score:3)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2020 @04:39AM (#60602000) Homepage Journal

    TFA doesn't mention how far these busses travel in a day, but it does mention that they cost about £500,000 each and will need special hydrogen refuelling infrastructure.

    Given that battery electric busses are already cheaper, well established and have a range that likely covers the needs of most of these routes I'd be interested to see the justification for going hydrogen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bazorg ( 911295 )

      I think the "likely covers" is the dangerous part of your assumptions. For a bus that runs many hours a day, perhaps a daily stop for refueling works better than charging a battery.
      Another thing to consider is that Aberdeen is quite far to the North, so maybe the efficiency factors are better suited for one source than the other.

      Now I've offered my unsubstantiated opinion, I'll have a quick look at TFA. With some luck, it's not even the same Aberdeen I was thinking about.

      Have a good day.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        In London busses do an average of 97 miles/day. Couldn't find stats for Aberdeen but I think it's pretty likely that they could avoid charging during the day on most routes and just do it overnight. Maybe a quick top-up at the terminal while they change driver and clean it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by orzetto ( 545509 )

          Are you dividing the fleet mileage by the number of buses? There are plenty of buses that work only during rush hour, and they reduce the average a lot. Buses in service all day will have longer mileage. Of course some may be rotated during the day, but this complicates logistics and depends on depots being in just the right spots.

          Hydrogen makes most sense for longer routes, and there are always some in a transport system.

          • Hydrogen makes most sense for longer routes, and there are always some in a transport system.

            The days when electric buses topped out at 100mi range are over. 200mi is now commonplace. There's no good reason to use hydrogen, especially with fast charging being able to extend range every time the bus stops at the depot. It might take four hours or what have you to get a full charge, but 15 minutes' stop will make a substantial improvement (especially since the battery charges faster when it's not almost full.) It takes five minutes or so to refill with hydrogen, one hydrogen filling station has alrea

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by umghhh ( 965931 )

              To be fair - the ideology behind looks like religion to me. In both cases.

              • To be fair - the ideology behind looks like religion to me. In both cases.

                Religion is "do what we say because we say it". Logic is "that doesn't make sense and here are the reasons, and you can check them out yourself". I'm working with logic, not religion, and I'm actually providing the reasons to back that up. Maybe you don't understand religion.

          • No you just look at how long a bus route takes in time to get from start to finish. You can then work out how many times a bus can do that during a day, and the knowing the route work out how far that is. Turns out very very few buses will ever do more than 200 miles in a day. You need to remember that a bus takes much longer to traverse a bus route than you do in a car.

            In a big city like London it is lower. An electric bus with a 150 mile range has been available for some years now. I would be stunned if a

        • In London, buses are still not entirely electric - it appears the electric engine is only partly used particularly when setting off?
          I assumed it was because the torque and efficiency for carrying so much weight is still not viable?

          Another issue is the cost of lithium batteries on the environment [wired.co.uk], the environmental damage, not to mention refinement and transporting is prohibitive compared to a lab extracting hydrogen from water?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            China is leading the way, lots of fully electric busses.

            London is not quite that technologically advanced.

    • Some politician received an envelope filled with money, methinks.
    • Cost benefit studies are a forgotten art. Now we have buy now, think later. Funny thing is, Scots invented cost benefit analysis, and had a reputation for being tight.

    • >> will need special hydrogen refuelling infrastructure.

      That is exactly why this will fail at scale (appart from the horrendous cost of Hydrogen, both economically, and energetically)
      In a city in germany, they tested a pilot of 5 H2 busses, but could not add more because it was _NOT_POSSIBLE_ to add the refueling station anywhere in the city. (too dangerous to build such a big bomb close to a big city)
      Now they buy 49 electric busses.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The really silly thing is that there aren't any real advantages to hydrogen for busses. They can simply adjust the schedule to account for any charging needs. In fact it will likely be cheaper to do that than to buy larger batteries.

    • A new Neoplan Skyliner - a mass production diesel doubledecker bus - costs about half a million as well. What makes you think that an electric bus would be cheaper?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Seems expensive. London Routemaster busses are about £355,000 and that's including Boris funnelling money to his mates. More typically a double decker bus is around £200k.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It's a scam (Score:4, Informative)

    by zmooc ( 33175 ) <zmooc@[ ]oc.net ['zmo' in gap]> on Tuesday October 13, 2020 @07:45AM (#60602280) Homepage

    It's a scam. There are three ways to make hydrogen:
    1. From natural gas. It's much more efficient and easier to just use the gas directly.
    2. Through electrolysis. It's INSANELY MUCH more efficient and easier to just use the electricity directly.
    3. Through thermolysis. When using direct sunlight to do so, this MIGHT equal the efficiency of cars powered by PV-electricity. However, there's just one experimental plant that does this and it relies on direct sunlight (so no clouds).

    All in all, hydrogen powered whatever is a scam, mostly fueled by misguided subsidies. It's wildly inefficient compared to any alternative in any scenario and will always be much more expensive than those alternatives (which is why it is an attractive scam to invest in).

    • All in all, hydrogen powered whatever is a scam, mostly fueled by misguided subsidies.

      It's not a scam, it's just a distraction. Electricity to generate hydrogen could be 100% green if you designed it that way. However the reality is for every MWh of electricity we waste on hydrogen, that's a MWh of coal or gas being burnt to keep the lights on at home.

      Hydrogen may have a viable future, ... once the grid itself is green. Until then there are better places to direct resources to solve climate change. Such hunting down bitcoin miners and forcing them to a life of browsing the internet through a

      • It's not a scam, it's just a distraction. Electricity to generate hydrogen could be 100% green if you designed it that way.

        Irrelevant canard. It doesn't matter how green it is if it would be greener to use it in some other way.

        However the reality is for every MWh of electricity we waste on hydrogen, that's a MWh of coal or gas being burnt to keep the lights on at home.

        That's not even the biggest problem! For every MWh of electricity we waste on hydrogen, that's (hydrogen inefficiency*electricity) worth of electricity we could have used somewhere else! Having to make it in the first place, having to store it which is itself energy intensive, transporting it which costs more energy than transporting the electricity through a grid... It's just wasteful at best.

        • So this is based in Scotland. Scotland has lots of land, lots of wind and not all that many people. I don't think it will be long until there's enough wind that there will be substantial excess generation every so often in which case you may as well do something with it.

          But the other thing is that ICE engine problems are about more than carbon. The low level particulates and NOx are damaging to health and anything that moves them out of dense city centres is a good thing.

          • I'm not here to argue in favor of ICEs being used in populated regions. And as far as ICEs go, I'm only actually in favor of long-haul diesels running on bio/green diesel and using DEF injection, which all but eliminates NOx, and even those only until battery technology improves by another major step. All I'm saying is that the additional inefficiency involved in using hydrogen makes it totally bananas.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by zmooc ( 33175 )

            Most low level particulates these days don't come from the ICE but from tires and brakes (in cars without regenerative braking, that is, which hydrogen cars won't have without implementing additional measures).

            • All HFCVs have batteries, charge the batteries off the fuel cell, and can regen to the batteries.

        • Irrelevant canard. It doesn't matter how green it is if it would be greener to use it in some other way.

          Not irrelevant, rather literally my fundamental point. This precise notion here is what separates it as a scam from being not the right technology for the time.

          For every MWh of electricity we waste on hydrogen, that's (hydrogen inefficiency*electricity) worth of electricity we could have used somewhere else!

          This however is a complete falsehood. You're under the impression that we want to burn energy infinitely. That's not the case. Electricity use has has a limit dictated by consumption, not the other way around. Once we have satisfied consumption every additional bit of green energy is completely and utterly wasted, a perfect scenario to develop a hydr

  • hybrid (Score:3)

    by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2020 @09:20AM (#60602458)
    it doesn't say if they also have batteries. I would have thought that the stop-go nature of a city bus ride would benefit a lot from regenerative braking. Mind you, if they also carry the lox on board, the thrust from the rocket engines would make it quick to get back up to speed after a stop.

    • AFAICT literally all hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also have batteries. The fuel cell is only efficient at one rate of consumption, and also even if it is reversible it is only efficient at one rate of energy consumption/hydrogen production. So if you want efficiency you have to have batteries. Maybe one day they will use batteries of small fuel cells which can be run individually and then they won't need battery, or they can use much less battery — perhaps even a smallish supercapacitor which can be us

      • I'm sure you're right, but TFA doesn't even mention fuel cells. So far as I know they might be burning the Hydrogen in an ICE (or better still, an RS-68 [wikipedia.org]).
  • If you combine the hydrogen with carbon, then it forms long chain molecules that are stable liquids at room temperature. In that form, it can be stored and distributed very easily and used in conventional IC engines without modification.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close