Workhorse Group secures $35M in financing from Marathon Asset Management; $1.3M battery purchase by Duke Energy
Tsinghua review of solid-state Li-metal batteries finds great promise, but much work still to be done

California Energy Commission and ARB report on status of hydrogen refueling station network

The California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board (ARB) have released a joint report on the planning, design, development, and deployment of hydrogen refueling stations critical to supporting the adoption of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs).

This joint report satisfies an Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8) requirement for the two agencies to report on the remaining cost and time needed to establish the hydrogen refueling station network. The focus of the agencies’ efforts continues to be the development of a hydrogen refueling network that meets varied drivers’ needs and enables Californians to adopt FCEV technology seamlessly into their daily lives.

Among the key takeaways of the 2018 report:

  • This year, CARB approved a package of updates to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation and included a new provision for Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure (HRI) credit generation. HRI credits offer incentives for accelerated station deployment by providing a relatively assured revenue stream to offset part of the cost of station ownership during the early low- utilization period of the life of a new station. Combined with purchasing station equipment in larger quantities, the LCFS update may help achieve economies of scale.

  • Hydrogen stakeholders are focused on scaling up infrastructure to meet the longer-term vision of “a network of 1,000 hydrogen stations and a fuel cell vehicle population of up to 1,000,000 vehicles by 2030.”

  • California has 38 ARFVTP-funded open retail stations.

  • The total daily hydrogen refueling station network capacity increased from 15,000 to 17,000 kilograms in one year. This increase in capacity is due to an increase in the nameplate capacity design, from 310 kilograms per day to 500 kilograms per day, for a dozen funded stations.

  • There are 5,658 FCEVs sold or leased in California as of 1 December 2018. Based on auto manufacturer surveys, CARB projects 23,600 FCEVs in California by 2021 and 47,200 by 2024. A pathway to 1 million FCEVs by 2030 is not yet defined.

  • The time spent before station developers filed an initial permit application decreased substantially due to critical milestone requirements.

  • By 2024, the station network will need to provide nearly double today’s funded fueling capacity.

  • The full remaining ARFVTP funding allocations will be needed to meet and exceed the 100-station goal by 2024.

  • Public support and public funding remain necessary to achieve the 100-station goal, and more funding will be needed to support the 200-station goal.

Assembly Bill 8 (Perea, Chapter 401, Statutes of 2013) directs the California Energy Commission to allocate $20 million annually, not to exceed 20% of the funds appropriated by the Legislature, from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund for planning, developing, and deploying hydrogen refueling stations until there are at least 100 publicly available stations in California. The Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP) funds the development of hydrogen refueling stations to support the early FCEV market and the increasing population of on-road FCEVs.




A hand to California for a progressive H2 program for 1,000 H2 stations and 1,000,000 FCEVs by 2030. Will one H2 station for every 1,000 FCEVs be enough unless they are very large multi position stations?

Nick Lyons

Except for local emissions, hydrogen does not compete well with liquid fuels for transportation use cases--this effort is like rowing upstream against the wind in a leaky rowboat.


This money would be much better spent for distribution of M100.  M100 can be used both directly in ICEVs and reformed to H2 for FCEVs.  M100 is an easily-stored room temperature liquid which reforms to 6 g H2 out of 32 g MeOH, easily beating the desired weight fraction of H2 specified by the managers of the hydrogen program.


M100 methanol fuel (normally composed of 95% pure methanol and 5% Tiande methanol gasoline additive) is a high octane fuel usable in most ICEVs. One could ask Big Oil why M100 is not normally available?

ICEVs and specially PHEVs on M100 would produce a lot less pollution and GHGs than gasoline and diesel fuels. All weather, on board extraction of pure H2 from M100 for FCEVs could be tricky?


Harvey, Tiande additive is used for mixing MeOH with gasoline and isn't for use above concentrations of M60.  In a fuel meant for simple reforming to hydrogen it would be worse than useless.

Much like you in that respect.


E-P/sa may never admit it but he is misinforming/misleading posters on M100.


Harvey, you are lying and projecting your own propaganda tactics onto me.  Here is a direct quote from the product page I linked above:

About M15-M60 methanol gasoline additive:

Tiande brand M15—M60 methanol gasoline additive is a new type of alcohol-based additive in national patent number ZL 97 1 22155 3, which is strictly developed and prepared by certain production technologies. First step is to make denatured methanol: put certain amount of Tiande brand additive into methanol (methanol shall meet standards of GB338-2004), and then mix it with regular gasoline in accordance with required ratio to get finished product—vehicle fuel. We can prepare M15, M20, M30, M50 and M60 according to requirements of customers.

M60 is the limit, stated by the manufacturer.

M100 is 100% methanol and needs no mixing additives because it is not mixed with anything.  It will require another starting fuel in low temperatures because it cannot form a combustible mixture by itself when cold.

Now say goodbye, Harvey.  Having caught you in a direct lie, I doubt you will be permitted to post here any more.



Once more your are deceiving by not giving all the information. M-85 and M-100 are new derivatives fuels (blends) created by adding Tiande (additives) to methanol and gasoline.

M30 = 29.4% methanol + 0.6% Tiande + 70% gasoline

M60 = 58.8% methanol + 1.2% Tiande + 40% gasoline

M85 = 83.3% methanol + 1.7% Tiande and 15% gasoline

M100 = 95% methanol + 5% Tiande

M60 is not the limit. The proportion of Tiande/additives is increased with methanol content. I know that you are not a liar, just an SA.


You're still here?

This official 2010 AFDC document on methanol fuels makes no mention of your "essential" additive.  No US government program would use, let alone specify, a Chinese brand-name product in any event.

Once again you post arrant nonsense without giving your source.  This is the modus operandi of a propaganda operative.  Cease and desist.



You should know that additives have to be used with a blend of methanol and gasoline to protect engine parts and ensure that your ICEV will start in very cold weather.

I've given you the name and % of the additives required. What else do you need? I could send you a sample?

What have you against Chinese products? Like most of us, you have probably knowingly or unknowingly been using many for years? M y made in China Lenovo 27-inch AIO computer has been working great for the last 5+ years. Our 60+ LEDs, our GREE SEER 30+ very high efficiency heat pumps, our smart 6-inch cellphone, our smart robot vacuum cleaner and many other gadgets and appliances operate as well if not better than the made in USA units. Our next vehicles may very well be two extended range BEVs/FCEVs imported from China-So-Korea or Japan. We have not purchased/used a Big-3 product for over 25 years and will not do it again.

You should know that additives have to be used with a blend of methanol and gasoline

@HarveyFuckwit:  M100 is not a blend.  It has NO gasoline in it.  Its purpose is different from standard motor fuels, though it can be used as one.  Two of its uses are (a) catalytic conversion to dimethyl ether for diesel fuel and (b) thermo-catalytic cracking to H2 and CO as higher-energy gaseous fuel for Otto-cycle engines.  Anything that gets in the way of the required conversion is not just useless, but an obstruction.

You understand none of this, which is why you need to STFU.

What have you against Chinese products?

It's what I have against your BULLSHIT.  You claim those products are essential.  I doubt those products even existed when the California M85 program began.  STFU, Harvey.


SAEP may have a major undetected progressive health problem? Is he properly insured to get appropriate treatments? He is calling too many posters bad names (specially all those who dare calling his assumptions). His condition seems to be getting worse. Was he born with bad manners?

SAEP may have a major undetected progressive health problem?

My diagnosis is AIF:  Acute Idjit Fatigue.

Is he properly insured to get appropriate treatments?

The cure is simple, get rid of the idjits.

The comments to this entry are closed.