New catalytic method for converting algal oil to gasoline- or jet-fuel-range hydrocarbons
ExxonMobil brings Kearl oil sands expansion online ahead of schedule; overall capacity doubling to 220K barrels per day

Automakers develop consensus list of priority locations for next 19 H2 fueling stations in California

The automaker OEM Advisory Group (OEM AG) of the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP) has developed a consensus list of recommended station priority locations for the next 19 hydrogen stations to be built in California. The OEM AG members are American Honda, General Motors, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen.

The priority locations represent general geographic areas that the OEM AG suggests be considered by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), station developers and the California Energy Commission (CEC) in planning the next phase of hydrogen station network development in California. (Earlier post.) The automakers consider their recommendations as preliminary and expect to refine them further through subsequent analysis and further consultation with stakeholders prior to future solicitations.

To prepare the recommendations, the automakers worked individually to ascertain station deployment for their own market needs, then shared the data independently in a double-blind process. The data was then compiled into an aggregate list. The automakers then collaboratively reviewed the data to refine the cluster and regional infrastructure needs.

The automakers worked to ensure:

  1. customer travel-time to the nearest hydrogen station is minimized within a regional market;

  2. network coverage is sufficiently robust for inter-market travel;

  3. increased network capacity; and

  4. creation of redundancy in the network.

The recommendations focus on building hydrogen fueling network coverage and redundant capacity throughout the Northern California, Southern California and Central Valley regions.

OEM AG recommendations
(In alphabetical order, not priority ranked)
Primary Priority Secondary Priority
Berkeley/Richmond/Oakland
Beverly Hills/Westwood
Fremont
Lebec*
Manhattan Beach
Sacramento
San Diego #2
San Diego #3
San Francisco
Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills
Torrance/Palos Verdes
Culver City
Dublin/Pleasanton
Encino/Sherman Oaks/Van Nuys
Granada Hills
Irvine South
Los Banos*
Palm Springs
Ventura/Oxnard
* These two locations will further strengthen the I-5 corridor.

In 2012, CaFCP published A California Road Map: Bringing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles to the Golden State (earlier post) that concluded that California would need 68 hydrogen fueling stations in five geographic clusters in which most early adopters are expected to support the roll-out of fuel cell vehicles. These cluster communities are:

  • Berkeley
  • South San Francisco Bay Area
  • Santa Monica and West LA
  • Torrance and nearby coastal communities
  • Irvine and southern Orange County

An update in 2014, Hydrogen Progress, Priorities and Opportunities (HyPPO), estimated California will reach 100 stations in 2021. HyPPO also discussed quantifiable improvements in cost reductions, investment strategies and station technology since 2012, while outlining a set of specific actions in six areas to further realize the establishment of the infrastructure required. (Earlier post.)

Comments

DaveD

@Geoff M,
"Even a high range 200-mile Bolt (with an effective range of ~150 miles) will not satisfy range needs of something like 30-40% of drivers...".

On what planet? You have some stats to back that up? The vast majority of trips are under 50 miles round trip. And 93% of daily travel is under 100 miles so 200 miles would be a great deal higher percentage.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071688_95-of-all-trips-could-be-made-in-electric-cars-says-study

So how do you claim that 30-40% of people will not be satisfied with a 200 mile range?

DaveD

@Harvey,

I know you live up North and the cold weather makes it tough on EVs. But somehow, the Tesla and other electric vehicles have done just fine in Norway with over 50,000 EVs sold. How are they surviving without the 125kWh pack you claim is needed?

Frankly, even the 85kWh Tesla will get you 150 miles of range in the cold. If you really need more than that every day, then by all means...you don't need to drive an EV. A PHEV or even a really efficient ICE car is a better choice. But there is no need for 125kWh in any normal light duty vehicle.

HarveyD

You are right and wrong DaveD. The about total lack of charging stations is another good reason why our family currently drives 4 Toyota HEVs instead of PHEVs or BEVs.

Our position may be reviewed around 2020 when many more charging stations are installed (we hope) and 2-2-2+ batteries will hit the market place.

DaveD

@Harvey,
Are you in the Northern US or Canada? I seem to remember you were in Canada from an earlier post.

But yes, I can see your point that if there are no charging stations around then it puts you in another situation and a BEV simply may not be practical if you're having to cover any distance.

Regardless, I think that by 2020, you should easily see 2-2-2 batteries. I hope even better than that.

HarveyD

@DaveD...We live north of NY State (120+ KM North of Lake Placid NY). We are not currently using much of the clean Hydro + Wind energy available for transportation. There is a great push to use imported and/or Alberta oil instead.

Some 1,000+ e-taxis are being bought for the city area but that will not be in operation before 2017 or so.

Local city e-buses and school e-buses will start rolling in very small numbers by end of 2016 but it will be a rather slow start.

Private EVs are NOT taking off (yet) due to higher initial price (even with $8,000 subsidy) and very low winter range, forcing the use of a second extended range vehicle.

I too hope that 2-2-2 batteries will be marketed by 2020 or before. It may make a difference? Public and private charging stations will still be a problem to be solved.

GM

@ DaveD - the 30-40% of drivers able to adopt a PEV is my own estimate. Here's my rationale... Pearre et al. (citation below) used GPS units to track ~500 cars in Atlanta, GA for 1-3 years. Of these vehicles, only 21% never exceeded 150 miles in a single day of driving (see Fig. 4). Admittedly, other authors suggest higher max daily mileage, but most of these do not use GPS units or are only a few days worth of data. The 93% you suggest is higher than any number I've seen for a 100 miles of range.

Of course, multi-vehicle households have the ability to swap to a ICE on a higher mileage days. Also, drivers might accept a certain number of "inconvenience" days in which they rent a car or borrow from a friend or fast charge if available. On the other hand, if only ~50% of vehicles currently have access to a level 1 charger within 25 ft (see my comment above), then the fraction of PEV-adopters decreases. As ECI points out, installing more at home chargers is not impossible, but I haven't seen this as a major strategy so far. Thus, my estimate of 30-40%.

I think a mix of PEVs and FCEVs in the LDV fleet plus FCEVs for medium and heavy duty trucks is the way to go. We use our limited biofuels in aviation and marine and voila.... we've got 80% reduction in GHGs.

Pearre, N.S. et al. (2011) Electric vehicles: how much range is required for a days worth of driving. Transportation Research C.

HarveyD

Geoff M ... I agree with you that a mix of short range BEVs and extended range FCEVs could satisfy most current and future car/light vehicle users.

FCEVs would be better suited for heavy long range vehicles, locomotives, ships etc.

Lower cost clean H2 will be a strong possibility by 2020/2025.

Something between $500B and $800B for a clean H2 network in USA is manageable if enough REs or safe Nuclear energy are built in the same time frame (2015 to 2035?)

An end to very costly Oil wars could cover most of the H2 network cost over 20 years or so. USA could let the Middle East fight it out but continue to sell weapons with a 10+% export fee to help over the H2 network cost?

electric-car-insider.com

HD> USA could let the Middle East fight it out but continue to sell weapons with a 10+% export fee to help over the H2 network cost?

Geeezzusss help us. That is the most cynical thing I think I've ever read on the topic, Harvey.

"No blood for hydrogen" doesn't quite have the same ring as "no blood for oil" but if that passes for progress we are all in very deep... trouble.

Some people say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

Mannstein

Better to spend the $1 trillion and take it off the table than to spend it on another war for the benefit of the Neo-Cons.

The comments to this entry are closed.