US Air Force Plans to Certify All B-52s for GTL-Blend Use by End of Year; On the Ground, More Electric Vehicles
Pacific Gas and Electric to Study Wave Power in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties

Air Products Introduces New Dual-Pressure Capable Hydrogen Fueling Station; First Public-View 700 Bar Station in US

Air Products and the University of California, Irvine (UCI) unveiled a new dual 700 and 350 bar (10,000/5,000 psi) pressure capable vehicle fueling station on the UCI campus.

The 700 bar fueling station is the first in the United States to be sited at a location with wider accessibility for vehicle fueling demonstrations. The station is also the first deployed by Air Products as part of the California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project (CHIP) with the United States Department of Energy (DOE), along with project collaborators Toyota, Honda, BMW and Nissan.

One way for hydrogen vehicles to achieve a greater range between refuelings is through vehicle on-board storage at higher pressures.

This is really a milestone project in the continued development of fueling station technology. The dual-pressure dispensing capability allows drivers to select the pressure at which to refuel their hydrogen fueled vehicles. This station is the first in California and the United States with the ability to dispense hydrogen at varied and advanced pressures, and to be sited in public view.

—Ed Heydorn, business development manager for Air Products

The fueling station features non-interchangeable fueling nozzles, which reduce the potential for user error. The stand-alone dispenser features a familiar gas station-like interface designed for ease of use and safety. The fueling station has a capacity of 25 kg per day—about five to ten fills, depending on vehicle capacity. Computerized vehicle communications help optimize the refueling process, and vehicle fill times are approximately three to six minutes for both fueling pressures.

Vehicle communications help optimize the fill by allowing the station to monitor tank temperature and pressure during the fueling process. Hydrogen can be dispensed with or without vehicle communications.

The gas supply for the station comes from trucked-in liquid hydrogen.

Air Products designed, engineered, installed, and will maintain the dual pressure station with funding from the DOE and California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District. Planning is underway for the addition of a separate liquid dispensing unit which can directly fill vehicles that carry liquid hydrogen on board as a fuel.

Toyota, Honda, and Nissan’s hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and BMW’s hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle, which uses liquid hydrogen, anticipate fueling at the station. The National Fuel Cell Research Center at UC Irvine operates the station, which is open to authorized users in furtherance of the DOE project. Air Products has installed prior 700 bar stations for private use at vehicle original equipment manufacturer facilities.

The CHIP program is a DOE-sponsored multi-year project led by Air Products to demonstrate a model of real-world hydrogen infrastructure and to acquire sufficient data to assess the feasibility of achieving some of the nation’s hydrogen infrastructure goals. To accomplish this, several hydrogen fueling stations employing a variety of hydrogen production methods are planned in the greater Los Angeles area, including the station at UCI.



Ignoring all the other issues of hydrogen....

Is the 5-10 vehicles per day a limiting feature of H2 refuelling pumps / fuel station storeage in general?

If so, then the cost of the pumps themselves would never be repaid at only 5-10 vehicles per day. Assuming $2 of profit per fill for the gas-station owner, that's only $10-$20 per day per pump? You really need to be able to do 100-200 cars per pump per day to break even with today's fuel margins.

Rafael Seidl

Clett -

the whole thing is driven by California's ZEV legislation, which has also been adopted by a number of other states.

Large volume manufacturers/importers (those that sell more than 60,000 PC, LDT and MDV vehicles per year in California alone) have to meet the following minimum ZEV requirements:

MY 2005-2008: 10% of new vehicles sales
MY 2009-2011: 11%
MY 2012-2014: 12%
MY 2015-2017: 14%
MY 2018 & later: 16%

Sales of LDT2 vehicles (vehicle weight in driving condition + 300lbs 3751...5750lbs) are included in the sales volume, as follows:

MY 2007: 17% of LDTs included in volume basis
MY 2008: 34%
MY 2009: 51%
MY 2010: 68%
MY 2011: 85%
MY 2012 and later: 100%

This phasing-in has given manufacturers a perverse incentive to make their vehicles heavier than they would need to be. Because higher weight is compensated with higher engine power, this leads directly to lower fuel economy and indirectly, to troops in the Middle East.

To make things even more opaque, the volume basis for any given model year is actually computed based on historical rather than current sales data. Bottom line: the ZEV mandate is substantial and will bite even harder in the years to come.

The ZEV mandate defines three standards:

Gold Standard (min. 2% of volume sales basis):
true BEVs and FCVs
Silver Standard (min. 2% of volume sales basis):
Bronze Standard (max. 6% of volume sales basis):
PZEVs (ICE & SULEV for 15 years/150,000 miles etc.)

In other words, large volume manufacturers have to sell at least some BEVs and/or FCVs (at "reasonable" prices, btw) or face penalties.

Intermediate volume manufacturers/importers (volume sales basis 4,500-60,000 vehicles) may meet their entire ZEV mandate with PZEVs alone.

Small volume manufacturers (volume sales bases below 4500 vehicles) are not requiried to meet the ZEV mandate.

The Gold Standard minimum sales volume requirement can be met in two different ways:

(a) Credit System

To date, no single manufacturer has been able/willing to actually produce and sell significant numbers of BEVs or FCVs. To keep the ZEV mandate alive and kicking,CARB introduced five sub-categories of ZEVs based on all-electic range in the UDDS cycle:

NEV (neighborhood electric vehicle)
Type 0 (less than 50 miles)
Type 1 (50-99 miles)
Type 2 (100 miles or more BEV)
Type 3 (100 miles of more FCV)

Instead of just adding up unit volume, CARB as introduced multipliers to encourage compliance:

For MY 2007 (2009, 2012), these are the multipliers:
NEV 0.15 (0.15, 0.15)
Type0 1.5 (1, 1)
Type1 7 (2, 2)
Type2 10 (3, 3)
Type3 40 (4, 3)

In other words, every MY 2007 FCV actually sold in CA counts as 40 vehicles for the purpose of ZEV accounting. Starting with MY 2009, meeting the Gold Standard minimum will require substantially higher unit volumes of high-range all-electric vehicles.

(b) Alternative compliance option

Large volume manufacturers can also choose to meet the Gold Standard using a mixture of FCVs and AT-PZEVs. The minimum number of hydrogen FCV units (no multipliers) is given as:

MY 2001-2008: 250
MY 2009-2011: 2500
MY 2012-2014: 25000
MY 2015-2017: 50000


Source: Siemens VDO publication J71001-A-A638-X-7600, "Worldwide Emissions Standards and Related Regulations", April 2005


What all this means is that the natural gas and nuclear lobbies successfully introduced a severe bias in favor of hydrogen FCVs into the revision of the ZEV mandate.

Hybrids featuring ultracaps, hydraulic accumulators or similar would permit much reduced ICE displacements and save a lot of fuel, but they cannot deliver high all-electric range so the credit system does not reward their development. Also, through MY 2008, BEV credits are well below those for FCVs.

The alternative compliance option is wholly biased against BEVs as well as fuel cell systems based on methanol or other hydrocarbons.

The whole ZEV mandate is a case study in how NOT to write legislation. Legislation is supposed to focus exclusively on desirable outcomes, in this case balancing health-related emissions targets, global warming mitigation objectives and economic growth, rathe than pick any specific technology. The fact that they do merely documents how the campaign contributions racket has corrupted the democratic process.

The people best placed to figure out how to meet outcomes society wants to see are engineers and entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats nor politicians.


Are you saying the entire FCV push is merely to allow sales of other vehicle types in California?

If this is the case, surely a BEV-100 with small range extender would be dramatically cheaper to produce than an FCV, even with the 4 times multiplier (40 for FCV vs 10 for BEV)?

Still sense in H2 emerges.


I meant no sense emerges!


Its just a featire of the early fueling stations. They already can make ones that can fuel 100 even 1000 cars a day but there is no need and at this point they are more interested in testing the fueling systems bs real people.


Clett, 5-10 vehicles/day is not a general limit of H2 pumps. They're just sizing to the current market.

Rafeal, ZEV Type 3 is not restricted to FCVs. It has a 100 mile range/10 minute refill requirement commonly thought to exclude BEVs. But Phoenix Motorcars is qualifying their AltairNano-based BEV for ZEV Type 3. It's a niftly little trick -- ZEV Type 3 credits are expected to be worth $200k. That only offsets a part of an FCV's cost, but a credit that large makes a $100k BEV a highly profitable product instead of an impractical curiousity.

John Baldwin

Take a look at a CNG station in Germany:

Can fill 1000 CNG cars in a day, market for CNG growing fast, 750 stations built in last 3 years, expect 500,000 CNG vehicles in Germany within 5 years, all relatively low CO2 especially on well to wheel basis given the ease of transporting natural gas and the use of bio-gas as well

Rafael Seidl

Clett -

no, I'm saying the ZEV mandate as it stands today is intended to create a market for hydrogen by government fiat, regardless of what common sense would suggest. BEVs would also meet the zero tailpipe emissions objective but the natural gas and nuclear lobbies stand to make a lot more money off the wasteful process of producing hydrogen.

Back when the ZEV legislation was updated, GM had just crushed the fleet of EV-1s it had leased and recalled. BEVs appeared to be an impossible holy grail while FCVs appeared to be just the lifeline CARB was looking for to avoid the humiliation of having to give up on its ZEV dreams altogether. Now that CA has got religion wrt CO2 in addition to its clean air zealotry, the ZEV mandate's skewed focus has arguably become counter-productive.

It's actually richly ironic that in spite of all the public money that has been spent on FCVs, private investments in BEV technology are now likely to prove much the better bet after all. The one sliver lining is that from MY 2009 onwards, the credits awarded to BEVs and FCVs will be similar.


The ZEV mandate has never made a lick of sense to me, even when I was politically farther to the left than I am now. The law required that X percentage of vehicles sold have Y emissions. But if people don't buy your product, you won't sell X% of vehicles as the law mandates. And you can't exactly make your customers buy these vehicles.

No sense at all.



In Environment Protection simple legislation of desired results does not work. Industry just say that the goal is impossible to achieve, do nothing to develop appropriate technologies, and at the end claim that they were right – it was impossible.

As a result, both EPA and CARB are basing their work on legislation of “best available technology”. It is the only approach which proved to be effective.

Mechanics is very simple. They identify best technology which could solve the problem (mostly relying on university science), and legislate it implementation in near future. Naturally, industry outcry that it is technically, physiologically, and economically impossible. EPA and CARB say that they do not give a rat how industry will iron out technical problems, force customers to accept it, and make it economical. If industry fail to implement it, they will be heavily taxed and money will go to anybody who will be capable to solve the problem. So far, there always have been “traitors” inside the industry who somehow managed to achieve the goal in anticipation of fat profits. For example, Japanese automotive manufacturers were this Trojan Horse when CARB legislated three-way cats, engine computer control, and on-board diagnostic (OBD).
About the same happened with diesel emissions, which were widely claimed as impossible to curb.

Same is happening with ZEV mandate. CARB identified available technologies, like FC and BEV, and legislated their implementation. If particular car manufacturer is incapable to achieve it, they will pay hefty price for ZEV credits to whoever could provide ZEV vehicles, like Phoenix and Tesla is anticipated to profit from.

Now, the real life is way more complicated then this simplistic approach. Mandates should be fine tuned all the way to implementation. Hence the piecemeal of bins, tiers, schedules, exemptions, etc. ZEV mandate proved to be very tough nut to crack, hence addition of partial credits for SULEVs, HEVs, alternative fuel vehicles, PHEVs, etc. If someone will invent solar powered hovercraft, you can be sure it will get ZEV credits too. Nevertheless, the core requirement for some quantity of zero pipe emission vehicles remains intact, and this is sole guarantee of ongoing multy billion dollar investments in technologies which could in some future be THE SOLUTION.

Naturally, proved efficiency of CARB and EPA in solving environmental problems is disliked by many. Lazy industry executives, ineffective government bureaucrats who prefer to parasite on the problem rather then solve it, political and ideological groups who use environmental problems to move their agenda, or just people who are looking for somebody to hate.


No what happend is as always a buricrat pulled a number out of his ass 100 /10 and thats what stuck.

As for fcv vs ev vs bev the real end result is in question because we realy dont know how cheap the batteries or fuel cells will become or how effective.

Doe uses a time proven strat to get results. If you dont know who to aim for use carpet bombing instead.

Rick Eramian

"The whole ZEV mandate is a case study in how NOT to write legislation.... The people best placed to figure out how to meet outcomes society wants to see are engineers and entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats nor politicians."

Very good Rafael. All these complex laws and regulations only help bureaucrats and government growth.

A simple way to increase fuel efficiency is to eliminate all taxes on HEV's, PHEV's, BEV's and any other vehicle that gets 40+ mpg for all producers, consumers, and distributors. Free the people and free the market.



Both EPA and CARB have no authority to set fuel efficiency standards. Their mandate is to regulate harmful to US and California people emissions, correspondenly.

“Free the people and free the market” is carrot approach, and it works, sometimes very effectively. In Environment Protection it does not work, or works too slowly. We do not want to wait decades when clean technologies will naturally emerge and become more profitable. Hence “stick and carrot” or sometimes (in simple cases) just “stick” approach. Anything less aggressive is just the way to conserve the problem rather then to solve it.


The flaw in cafe was by doing it the way it did it was SLOW and had to be slow.

Iys like having a race combining hotrods trucks and go garts and trying to come up with a good sopeed to set everything to.

Now if they had segmented it they could have set the speeds xseprately and thuis kept the push on ALL the segments to a greater degree then with the fleet wide seyup. In short they would have done more.



I believe that the most effective way to protect the environment is by privitization and property rights.
The main source of environmental polution is "the tragedy of the commons". Owners have a big incentive to protect their property. For example, why are the oceans over-fished? Because they are collectivly owned. If someone pollutes the air that you breathe, you should be able to use the law in order to stop them and pay damages.

The free market gives people what they want. (which is why control freaks hate freedom). There is a big demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. Why is this demand not being met? Because the heavy burden of laws, taxes, and regulations prevents people from competeing to provide them. Why are there no cheap, serial hybrids on the market considering the fact that these machines can be built and have been built by backyard mechanics, students, engineers, etc.? The same reason why there are not tens of thousands or millions of independent, efficient transportation providers. Thousands of taxes, laws, licences, regulations, fees, permits, registrations, etc. These burdens prevent the little guy from competeing.



It is old discussion what is better: government regulation or free market. My position is quite simple. Market is way better. Experienced it on my own hide.

Unfortunately, in some cases market does not work. In this case there is no choice but government regulation, however inherently ineffective it is. Environment protection is one of such cases, at least today. Energy and fuel efficiency is much more complicated case. Find right mix of free market and governmental regulation and incentives is not trivial task.

Robert Schwartz

Read this, click the link and RTWT:

MythBusters Workshop: Extreme Plumbing: A mythbusters primer on turning plumbing and high-psi tanks into things that go boom. As always, don't try this at home. By Jamie Hyneman, Published in the April 2007 issue of Popular Mechanics

On MythBusters, Adam Savage and I often build scary rigs out of pressure tanks, pipes and fittings. When we want to get a job done, we round up a supply of plumbing tools and fittings and all of a sudden we have rockets, guns, powerful machines — everything we need to get into a whole lot of trouble. ...

We saw firsthand what they can do when testing that classic scene from the movie Jaws in which police chief Brody, played by Roy Scheider, shoots the scuba tank wedged in the mouth of Bruce the Shark with a rifle. The tank blows up, shredding the great white's head.

We tried it — minus the shark. We placed an M-1 Garand rigged for remote-control firing in the MythBusters testing facility — i.e., one of our scorched and battered shipping containers — and aimed the rifle at a 3000-psi scuba tank. The .30-caliber bullet drilled a neat hole, and the tank rocketed around impressively — but didn't blow up.

We like things to blow up. So we tried it again, this time with a cigarette-pack-size block of C4 explosive strapped to a fresh tank. When we detonated the C4, the blast from the ruptured tank was so powerful that it bulged the sides of the shipping container.

Another myth we tested was whether a high-pressure air tank would take off like a rocket if its valve was knocked off. So we dropped a large weight from a height of 10 ft. onto the valve of a tank at 2500 psi. The tank punched through two cinder block walls before it came to a dusty, battered rest. Scary stuff. ...

Now ask yourself. Do I want to drive a car with a tank of 5,000 psi hydrogen in it?


Well if the tank is chopped in half your dead already;/


Has anyone thought of using the earth to compress hydrogen? More precisely, what stops a company from running two cables down into the ocean 10,000 feet and supplying the cable with wind powered elecrtricity, thereby producing hydrogen from the ocean at a pressure of 4454 psi. The hydrogen would be collected at depth and piped, at a collection pressure of 4454 psi, up to a surface collection station and further into existing high pressure gas distribution infrastructures.

The comments to this entry are closed.