Or Zero-Emission Multiple-Unit Feasibility Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Low- or Zero-Emission Multiple-Unit Feasibility Study FEASIBILITY REPORT December 30, 2019 Prepared for: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410 Prepared by: Center for Railway Research and Education Eli Broad College of Business Michigan State University www.railway.broad.msu.edu 3535 Forest Road Lansing, MI 48910 USA Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom www.railway.bham.ac.uk Authors: Stephen Kent - BCRRE Raphael Isaac - MSU CRRE Nick Little - MSU CRRE Andreas Hoffrichter, PhD - MSU CRRE Executive Summary The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is adding the Arrow railway service in the San Bernardino Valley, between San Bernardino and Redlands. SBCTA aims to improve air quality with the introduction of zero-emission rail vehicle technology by procuring a new zero-emission multiple unit (ZEMU) train and converting one of the diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains that will be used to provide Arrow service. Using a Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) grant, SBCTA will demonstrate low- or, ideally, zero-emission rail service on the Arrow route. The ZEMU is expected to be in service by 2024 and demonstrate low- or zero-emission railway motive power technology for similar passenger rail service in California as well as a possible technology transfer platform for other railway services. SBCTA commissioned the Center for Railway Research and Education (CRRE) at Michigan State University (MSU) in collaboration with the Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education (BCRRE) at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, to assist with the comparison of low- and zero-emission technology suitable for railway motive power applications. The project seeks alternative railway motive power propulsion options to diesel power, (the current benchmark used in this report), since diesel power has had difficulties meeting current emissions requirements and will likely fail to meet future, more stringent standards. Renewable diesel, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cell, and hybrid options are considered. The emphasis is on a vehicle technology suitable to initially provide the Arrow service with the possibility to expand service to Los Angeles Union Station. Zero-emission propulsion hydrail technology based on hydrogen fuel cells is given priority due to its zero-emission capability while having the potential to offer a practical range between refueling. The Arrow and Los Angeles Union Station services have been evaluated using a simulation model for two-car and four-car train consists to reflect possible demand patterns. Three hydrogen production and delivery options have been evaluated. The production of hydrogen using 100% renewable electricity is the most environmentally sustainable option and true zero-emission from source to use (well-to-wheel). Our methodology explored energy requirements and emission assessments during operation of the services. All hybrid options performed better than their conventional counterparts. Though hydrogen fuel cell technology has the capability to be totally zero-emission, a hydrogen fuel cell battery hybrid (hydrail) was found to be the better solution with lower energy consumption of the two options, resulting in an estimated 50% lower energy requirement than diesel performing the same service. For the Arrow service, a hydrogen-battery hybrid is feasible and provides significant emissions reductions compared to diesel. Hydrogen fuel cell powered trains and battery hybrids are already running in revenue service in Europe. Bus services in California also use this technology successfully. The most cost-effective option of producing hydrogen is through on-site steam methane reforming (SMR). This technology is capable of scaling-up with proportionate emission and energy reductions. The Los Angeles Union Station service will be best performed by a hydrogen-battery hybrid, which will require either additional hydrogen refueling at termini or additional hydrogen storage space on the train if daily refueling is required. The current growth of hydrogen fuel cell technology and hydrogen storage on-board vehicles as well as the development of refueling infrastructure will have the capability of supporting bus, truck, automobile as well as train requirements. -i- Potential for expansion of hydrail to other rail services in California includes SMART, eBART and SPRINTER. The synergistic demand for hydrogen as a fuel will support development of infrastructure to manufacture and deliver hydrogen as well as on-site manufacture where warranted. The total potential annual demand across these services could amount to between approximately 1.7 to 2.0 tonnes per day in addition to SBCTA requirements. The greenhouse gas emission reduction for these three services amounts to approximately 11,000 tonnes per year from operations (100%) and could lead to a 100% reduction on a well-to-wheel basis if on-site electrolysis powered by renewable electricity is utilized, for the other production methods reductions are estimated between 30% and 40% on a well-to-wheel basis. The California services listed above are similar to the Arrow service because they can be performed using multiple-unit trains (where power is distributed throughout the train from point of generation to traction motors powering multiple axles in several vehicles). In the services mentioned above, the nature of the terrain, distance and other factors influencing the duty cycle, indicates that hydrogen hybrid multiple unit trains would be a cost- efficient, zero-emissions option during operation with significant well-to-wheel emission reductions. eBART, having a short route and the potential option to recharge batteries at termini, is possibly achievable with a battery-only solution, subject to further study. Other rail services such as streetcars, light rail, yard switchers, heavy rail commuter and long-distance services have been subject of initial hydrogen fuel cell and hydrogen-battery assessments. More work needs to be done, but hydrogen is already proving suitable for streetcars and light rail services as well as being a likely option for yard and road-switcher freight applications. Longer distance and heavier train applications of the technology may be achievable using a tender car to carry hydrogen fuel supply. The report recommends proceeding with the hydrogen fuel cell hybrid option for the Arrow service if extension to Los Angeles Union Station is a priority. The succeeding phase is to expand the concept to the San Bernardino to Los Angeles Union Station service as demonstrator of technology feasibility and assess the viability on a longer route with a different set of performance requirements. -ii- Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Existing Conditions Along Arrow Service Corridor .......................................................1 1.2 Scope ...............................................................................................................................5 1.3 Report Structure ..............................................................................................................5 2 Background .............................................................................................................................7 2.1 Current Railway Motive Power .......................................................................................8 2.2 Emissions From Diesel Combustion .............................................................................10 2.2.1 Exhaust Emissions Impacting Air Quality ................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 11 2.3 Renewables and Hydrogen ............................................................................................11 2.4 Introduction to Hydrogen ..............................................................................................13 2.4.1 Introduction to Hydrogen Production .......................................................................... 14 2.4.2 Hydrogen Fuel Cells .................................................................................................... 15 2.4.3 On-Board Hydrogen Storage ........................................................................................ 17 2.4.4 Hydrogen Fuel Cells in Transportation Applications .................................................. 19 3 High-Level Motive Power Technology Review ..................................................................20 3.1 Improvements in Combustion Engines .........................................................................20 3.1.1 Diesel Engines .............................................................................................................. 20 3.1.2 Spark Ignition Engines ................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Biofuels .........................................................................................................................22 3.2.1 Operational Application to Arrow ............................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Safety Hazard Considerations .....................................................................................