California retail H2 fuel stations

[GRA]

California Energy Commission/California Air Resources Board:

Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2016 Assessment of Time andCost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publicatio ... 17-002.pdf

113 pages.

[RegGuheert]

California Energy Commission/California Air Resources Board:

Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2016 Assessment of Time andCost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publicatio ... 17-002.pdf

113 pages.

If you are a fan of H2 FCVs, then you must find the conclusions to be a bit disturbing:

Based on equipment, design, engineering, project management, and overhead costs for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024.

The Energy Commission’s ARFVTP has already provided more than $100 million in total funding for hydrogen station development support with $80.9 million being invested specifically for 49 stations new or refurbished (or, upgraded) publically available hydrogen refueling stations. Note: Three station upgrades will be pursued, instead of the original four stations that were planned so the total number of stations has decreased from 49 to 48.

The point is that it costs MORE ($125M) to build the second 51 stations than the first 49 ($100M). Apparently only 45 of the first ones were new builds. Still, the conclusions are the same: the costs are growing. Why is this? Likely the answer is that the additional costs are for the O&M of the existing stations. In other words, the more of these stations which are built, the more the ongoing expense for the taxpayers of CA.

Also, I think it is important to make a record of the chart on page 20 regarding H2 FCV registrations:



Note that the numbers for 2016, 2017 and 2018 are lowered from previous reports. However, they increased numbers for 2020 and 2021. We can watch this space to see if these projections come true.

But the real question I have about that chart is this: Can the AVERAGE H2 refueling station really support a fleet of over 1500 H2 FCVs? I seriously doubt that. If we assume each FCV refuels about every five days, that is 300 refuelings per station per day (more than one refueling at every station every five minutes). (And that simple analysis assumes that all stations have the same demand and all are working.) Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.

[GRA]

California Energy Commission/California Air Resources Board:

Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2016 Assessment of Time andCost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publicatio ... 17-002.pdf

113 pages.

If you are a fan of H2 FCVs, then you must find the conclusions to be a bit disturbing:

Based on equipment, design, engineering, project management, and overhead costs for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024.

The Energy Commission’s ARFVTP has already provided more than $100 million in total funding for hydrogen station development support with $80.9 million being invested specifically for 49 stations new or refurbished (or, upgraded) publically available hydrogen refueling stations. Note: Three station upgrades will be pursued, instead of the original four stations that were planned so the total number of stations has decreased from 49 to 48.

The point is that it costs MORE ($125M) to build the second 51 stations than the first 49 ($100M). Apparently only 45 of the first ones were new builds. Still, the conclusions are the same: the costs are growing. Why is this? Likely the answer is that the additional costs are for the O&M of the existing stations. In other words, the more of these stations which are built, the more the ongoing expense for the taxpayers of CA.

For one thing, the second round of stations now being funded will have much greater capacity than the first round. They've added more money for stations that have at least 300 kg./day capacity, vs. the 180 kg. typical of the first gen. Haven't had time to read the full report yet (just the Exec. summary), so will wait to comment further until I've done so.

[ydnas7]

Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.

yes, CARB is becoming more and more delusional.
EVs have won, just like Bob Lutz predicted they would.

[TonyWilliams]

Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.

yes, CARB is becoming more and more delusional.
EVs have won, just like Bob Lutz predicted they would.

This quote from CARB is just disgusting, "for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024."

So, more than DOUBLE the original estimates for funding, plus a whole lot less cars than they originally forecast (without the made up numbers in 2020 and beyond... I can find those rosy prediction from DECADES ago).

[RegGuheert]

For one thing, the second round of stations now being funded will have much greater capacity than the first round. They've added more money for stations that have at least 300 kg./day capacity, vs. the 180 kg. typical of the first gen. Haven't had time to read the full report yet (just the Exec. summary), so will wait to comment further until I've done so.

O.K. So then reread the last part of my post that you omitted:

But the real question I have about that chart is this: Can the AVERAGE H2 refueling station really support a fleet of over 1500 H2 FCVs? I seriously doubt that. If we assume each FCV refuels about every five days, that is 300 refuelings per station per day (more than one refueling at every station every five minutes). (And that simple analysis assumes that all stations have the same demand and all are working.) Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.

That means that the average H2 refueling station needs to provide 1200 kg/day. In other words, BEST CASE this overly-expensive H2 refueling network will only be capable of refueling about one-fifth the number of H2 FCVs that CARB is projecting to be delivered (two years before this network is completed). I find it more than a bit "funny" that this calculation is not written in bold letters as a main conclusion of this government "study," or ANY CARB study.

So, what do you think? People are going to go out and purchase a quarter-million-dollar home hydrogen refueling station since they are tired of waiting for hydrogen or maybe they will simply purchase an EV instead?

This calculation is so obvious that it's not possible that CARB is unaware of this fact. But if you think it's hard to sell the idea of enabling 150,000 heavily subsidized cars by spending a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS of infrastructure to the legislature, imagine how much harder it would be to sell that same amount to enable only 30,000 of those subsidized cars, if that many. Interestingly, the cost-per-vehicle of the H2 refueling infrastructure is very close to the number I calculated WAY back at the start of this thread. And since this H2 infrastructure has approximately the same service life as the vehicles, that fee gets tacked onto EVERY H2 FCV put onto the highway.

But don't worry: CARB will be able to blame those evil automobile manufacturers, since they will not be able to build (or sell) that many H2 FCVs before that time. Their ONLY hope to sell 150,000 H2 FCVs by 2024 is to make nearly all of them plug-in hybrids and fueling most of their miles using grid power. Good luck selling those!

[GRA]

For one thing, the second round of stations now being funded will have much greater capacity than the first round. They've added more money for stations that have at least 300 kg./day capacity, vs. the 180 kg. typical of the first gen. Haven't had time to read the full report yet (just the Exec. summary), so will wait to comment further until I've done so.

O.K. So then reread the last part of my post that you omitted:

But the real question I have about that chart is this: Can the AVERAGE H2 refueling station really support a fleet of over 1500 H2 FCVs? I seriously doubt that. If we assume each FCV refuels about every five days, that is 300 refuelings per station per day (more than one refueling at every station every five minutes). (And that simple analysis assumes that all stations have the same demand and all are working.) Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.

That means that the average H2 refueling station needs to provide 1200 kg/day. In other words, BEST CASE this overly-expensive H2 refueling network will only be capable of refueling about one-fifth the number of H2 FCVs that CARB is projecting to be delivered (two years before this network is completed). I find it more than a bit "funny" that this calculation is not written in bold letters as a main conclusion of this government "study," or ANY CARB study. <snip rest>

Reg, I'm not clear as to where you get the idea that each station needs to service 1500 FCEVs. Even by 2022, when there are projected to be 43,600 FCEVs and 90 stations, that only works out to 484.44 cars/station. Did you perhaps misplace a decimal?

Appendix D contains all sorts of actual usage data, including average fills, utilization rates, fills by time of day/week, and by 350/700 bar. One oddity is that unlike gas/diesel, which see the majority of fills during morning and evening commutes, the majority of 700 bar H2 fills have been happening around midday. They didn't suggest a reason, and I can't think of one. Haven't quite finished reading all the appendices yet.

[GRA]

This quote from CARB is just disgusting, "for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024."

So, more than DOUBLE the original estimates for funding, plus a whole lot less cars than they originally forecast (without the made up numbers in 2020 and beyond... I can find those rosy prediction from DECADES ago).

Tony, how do you arrive at the bolded claim? The bill provides for up to $20 million a year for up to 10 years, which is $200 million total for 100 stations. They've spent $100 million to date for the first 50 stations, and forecast that it will take another $125 million to finish all 100, By my math, that's $225 million total, or a cost increase of 12.5% over the original projection (AFAIA the extra isn't funded as of yet, and I imagine it won't be until they're a lot closer to completion and they have more current cost data).

BTW, actual costs for four different stations of various types (Gaseous or liquid H2 delivery, central SMR and on-site electrolysis) are included in Appendix F.

[RegGuheert]

Reg, I'm not clear as to where you get the idea that each station needs to service 1500 FCEVs. Even by 2022, when there are projected to be 43,600 FCEVs and 90 stations, that only works out to 484.44 cars/station. Did you perhaps misplace a decimal?

You're right! I was thrown by the bar chart labeled "population". Typically a scatter plot with lines would be used to represent a growing quantity. I was reading that chart as deliveries per year.

Appendix D contains all sorts of actual usage data, including average fills, utilization rates, fills by time of day/week, and by 350/700 bar. One oddity is that unlike gas/diesel, which see the majority of fills during morning and evening commutes, the majority of 700 bar H2 fills have been happening around midday. They didn't suggest a reason, and I can't think of one. Haven't quite finished reading all the appendices yet.

My conclusion remain: I don't see 100 station supporting more than 30,000 vehicles, and even that is a real stretch since it assumes equal loading between stations and that each station can deliver their daily output during the peak periods. Each assumption is highly unlikely to be true.

[webeleafowners]

Who are the manufacturers still building Hydrogen fueled vehicles.

200 million bucks could put in a a lot of HVDC stations. Just sayin...