Autoliv collaborating with Seeing Machines to develop driver monitoring systems for autonomous vehicles
30th retail hydrogen fuel station in California opens; fed by pipeline

ARB report: 1,600 fuel cell vehicles in California, 29 stations active; need to accelerate station deployment

As of 5 April 2017, California has more than 1,600 fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) with active registrations with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), according to the 2017 issue of its Annual Evaluation of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development released by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). This represents a net addition of 1,300 FCEVs (1,600 currently registered vs. 331 at the same time last year.

The report also identified 29 currently Open-Retail hydrogen fueling stations from as far south as San Diego, to the coastline in Santa Barbara, and as far to the northeast as Truckee. This represents an increase of 9 fueling stations since June 2016.

In addition to pre-commercial FCEV models, there are now three commercial-era production models on California’s roads, with at least three more expected in the near future.

ARB projects that a total of 13,400 FCEVs will be driving in California by 2020, and 37,400 by 2023. These projections represent slower growth than in earlier estimates (37,400 FCEVs are now projected on-the-road in 2023, compared to the previous estimate of 34,300 by 2021), but it is ARB’s understanding and estimation that they are largely in reaction to missed projections for the pace of hydrogen fueling station development.

Arb1
Current and projected on-road FCEV populations and comparison to previously collected and reported projections. Source: ARB. Click to enlarge.

ARB expects continued expansion of the fueling market, and corresponding growth in deployed FCEVs, to continue throughout the rest of 2017 and beyond. The total number of Open-Retail stations may increase to 34 by the end of this year. The stations that may open between now and the close of the year will expand fueling coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area, communities surrounding Torrance, and within the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino.

In addition, the Energy Commission’s February 2017 announcement of proposed awards for 16 new stations will both expand coverage and build redundancy in many major first adopter markets across the state.

There is much to celebrate about these accomplishments, but there is also a renewed sense of urgency among stakeholders in the hydrogen and FCEV industries. Infrastructure development and FCEV deployment rates are mutually dependent on one another; slower-than-expected growth in the hydrogen fueling network may lead to delays in FCEV deployment. For this reason, although the last year has seen tremendous growth in the on-the-road FCEV population, auto manufacturer feedback to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) indicates more limited future FCEV deployment plans than previously reported, at least until hydrogen station network development can accelerate.

… Accelerated station development through the remainder of the AB 8 program may re-energize these vehicle deployment projections.

—“Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development”

Arb2
Projected hydrogen demand and fueling capacity, given business as usual assumptions in state incentive programs. Source: ARB. Click to enlarge.

ARB further notes that the state’s hydrogen network may face a shortage in hydrogen production capacity, especially for hydrogen produced in-state and with large contributions from renewable resources. The report finds that industry stakeholders are increasingly sharing the expressed desires of their customers to make the greatest environmental impact possible by choosing to drive an FCEV. Continued adoption of the vehicles may rely critically on ensuring the availability of renewably-sourced hydrogen at a reasonable, competitive market-driven price.

Incentives such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard may help build industry interest in establishing new hydrogen production facilities in California, especially for low-carbon production methods, ARB suggests.

Even with reduced vehicle projections, local and network-wide hydrogen fueling capacity are still expected to become a cause for concern around 2021 under business-as-usual station network growth assumptions. Additionally, the revised projection for network growth anticipates 94 stations by the end of 2023, if the State were to proceed at the current pace with the current station capabilities. The 100 stations referenced in AB 8 would be funded by this time, with some stations remaining in development at least through the bill’s expiration date of January 1, 2024. GFO 15-605 resulted in meaningful advances, with much larger stations than previously awarded becoming a new standard. GFO 15-605 also implemented enforcement of critical milestones for awarded stations (pre-application meetings with authorities having jurisdiction for permitting and appropriate entities for granting site control) to ensure faster and more successful station development than previously exhibited.

Additional methods to maintain momentum and further accelerate overall station network growth rate may still be necessary, possibly through implementation of new funding structure(s) as appropriate to match the fully commercial phase of today’s hydrogen fueling and FCEV markets. A new business-as-usual case, with more stations funded per year due to decreasing costs and build times, may become apparent through future analyses such as the upcoming 2017 Joint Agency Staff Report. ARB recommends that the State agencies currently working toward this goal work closely with station developers to identify an appropriate resolution.

—“Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development”

Comments

HarveyD

A hand to California for the five time (5X) increase in the number of FCEVs in one year. It is an accomplishment.

The number of H2 stations is also growing fast but not fast enough to keep up with FCEV's fast growing fleet. It will have to multily by 5X and more to supply acceptable service level.

FCEVs manufacturers (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and others) and existing H2 firms will have to find ways to install many more H2 stations. States + Cities should help to accelerate the installation of the first 2000 H2 stations.

electric-car-insider.com

Harvey: "FCEVs fast growing fleet"

Manufacturer own estimates from original post indicate less than 45k FCVs by 2022, five years from now.

Porsche has announced 800v charging that will provide a 15 minute charge time. And of course, for most people, overnight charging at 2kW, about 6 miles per hour of charge, will satisfy all in-town travel requirements.

In five years there will be at least 5 million EVs on the road in the US. By that time, solar and overnight time of use rates will make EV fuel about $0.05 per kW, 1.5 cents per mile, equiv to about $0.37 per gallon gas.

That is going to be a really hard act to follow.


Davemart

The troll is back.

Funnily enough, you don't have a hot line to God and your inevitable triumph is more doubtful by the day.

Not only is your poster boy Tesla now down to issuing debt, living off its credit cards, but there is no chance of long range BEVs being fully competitive using current batter chemistry.

You might be better occupied taking remedial arithmetic 101 than trolling hydrogen threads on someone else's forum.

What time you can spare from posting hagiographies of a con-man and his company on your own site that is.

A child could see through what is going on, but not you, of course,

Don't worry, when it blows up, I will be there to remind you that your contribution to the electrification of transport has been not only worthless, but actively damaging.

Paroway

Deep breath there Davemart. Those meds are wearing off. Keep this up and you might start believing your own drivel.

SJC

Just calling out delusional arrogance, ECI is pompous.

Davemart

Paroway:

It is not I who spends time trolling other people's forums on one subject to spread negativity and propaganda.

ECI has a whole forum to show he has no idea of what journalism consists of, and to run as a fan site and propaganda organ.

Brent Jatko

Man. you guys are harsh on ECI.

My opinion is that he's much less irritating than gorr.

Davemart

gorr has his issues.

He does not hide behind a corporate identity and have the ill manners to troll other sites though.

Disgustingly unprofessional and personally lacking in any hint of standards.

The fast that he is also near innumerate and and an obsessional fanatic with no hint of judgement is beside the point.

It is not what he says, although that is daft beyond belief and the product of a childish lack of understanding, but the trolling of another forum by the owner or whatever he is of another, and that to post on one subject only in a propaganda offensive which is nauseating and accounts for the treatment I give the profoundly silly little man.

frankr

Brent, I disagree. gorr's comments are dumb, but people like eci/change/lad are far more irritating.

Lad

Hydrogen makes a good fuel for airplanes and sea-going ships. I think BEVs will win the battle over FCEVs, relegating them to a niche market. The momentum for BEV is there now and one by one the legacy car makers are finally announcing their EVs while only the die hards remain hanging on to hydrogen.

DaveD

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You guys keep huffing that H2 and the few thousand vehicles that will be on roads around the world by 2020 while there are literally millions of BEVs. But hey, don't let a small thing like reality bother you.


:-)

Lad

Good Man Dave:
LOL, Back on topic, and a good comment...

Roger Pham

Lad stated: "I think BEVs will win the battle over FCEVs, relegating them to a niche market."

The competition is NOT between BEV vs FCEV, for they both are niche-markets, catering toward different consumer preferences.
1) Those who want maximum power and performance and don't mind plugging-in will choose long-range BEV's.
2) Those who don't want to have to plug-in, or who don't have access to a plug would rather have FCEV's.

The more ZEV choices we can provide the consumers with, the faster ZEV's will grow. It should be a cooperative effort between BEV supporters and FCEV supporters, NOT antagonism.

An advertisement for a FCEV may get people looking at ZEV's in general and comparing different types. Many ZEV shoppers will end up buying Teslas instead of FCEV's after looking at many FCEV's on the market, and vice-versa.

Davemart

Lad, Dave D:

You guys have a valid view which I happen to disagree with.

No problems at all about that, that is what a discussion site is all about.

You do not though have ownership or heavy involvement in another site and troll hydrogen threads on another, any more than I troll sites knocking Tesla on every thread, even though I think it a disastrous mess which will end in ruin.

It is the sheer ill-manners of whoever the individual who hides behind a corporate identity as ECI and his utter want of professionalism which draws the response I give.

HarveyD

If FCEVs and H2 stations keep growing at 500%/year rate, sales may get closer to extended range (500 KM) BEVs sometime during the next decade, specially in areas with harsh winters and for larger vehicles.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)