Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
I confess I don't understand all the claims about the size of the infrastructure being a major impediment to H2 fuel cells.
For me, it's more an observation that H2 infrastructure must be built whole-cloth. There is essentially no
existing infrastructure to support it. This makes the investment required - time, money and materials - much greater that the alternatives.
It's true that BEVs also require more infrastructure, but the vast majority of what's required is already there: virtually every inhabited destination in the US has electricity. If you have a wall outlet, you have your charging infrastructure.
We're certainly starting from next to nowhere as far as H2 retail stations, but H2 production at refineries exists now and retail dispensing could be added (although I'm not suggesting this). As it is, much of the H2 is hauled by tanker truck to customers (who use it for other purposes than transportation), and that's not very energy-efficient.
Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
Inevitably there will be a need for some people to travel further than they would like to fuel at the start, but those people will probably hold off buying until there's a station more conveniently located. Or maybe they'll be able to buy a FCHV like the variant of the Highlander that's now available, so that they do their local driving on batteries.
As far as I know, *all* fuel cell vehicles are "FCHV." Which is to say, all fuel cell vehicles use traction batteries to help provide peak power so the (very expensive) fuel cell can be reduced in size. I suppose the distinction is more about the size of the battery.
Right, or how it's used. Instead of using it strictly as a power booster, I'm talking about batteries sized to allow battery-only driving for considerable distance, like a Volt/Fusion Energi etc.
Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
Where H2 fuel cells really shine is that with their range, long road trips don't need many stations.
I disagree. A single individual might not need many stations for any one particular trip, but given the number of possible "long range trips" from every possible starting location to every possible destination, you will need a lot of H2 stations to make it work. Not everyone would be willing to drive 20+ miles out of their way to refuel. If you don't believe me, consider how nearly every gasoline vehicle has a 300+ mile range and how many gas stations there are. They wouldn't be there if there were no customers!
I've devoted considerable time to studying it, and you could provide a good basic infrastructure for California's major highways with just 20-25 stations spaced every 100-150 miles, not counting those in urban areas. 300+ miles of range eases the siting problems considerably. For example, Google maps shows that it's 265 miles from LA to Vegas, so you could probably make it non-stop, although the need to climb over a 4,730 foot pass might make it iffy. Not to worry, an H2 station in Barstow, at the junction of I-15, I-40 and SR 58, solves that by allowing people to top up.
I-8 from San Diego, you can drive the 173 miles to Yuma, Az. no problem, but stick one in El Centro anyway. I-80 from the Bay Area, you can reach Reno or Lake Tahoe non-stop (and much of the time, do the round-trip from Sacramento to the Lake un-refueled), but there will be fueling stations in Sacramento in any case, and one each in Truckee on I-80 and South Lake Tahoe on U.S. 50 for those who are worried.
As to the number of gas stations, that's due to the number of cars, not the distance they have to cover. Go to many intersections and there are gas stations on all four corners; they certainly aren't needed to give cars enough range to cross the intersection
. The number of FCEVs will be limited to start, and so will the number of fueling stations (and their capacity) needed to serve them.
Summarizing, 100 stations will be more than adequate to cover travel in the whole state as well as provide at least one fueling station in all 66 California cities with a population of 100k or more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_California_cities_by_population" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Note that I'm not saying that it will provide the ubiquitous cover that the 100 year-old gas infrastructure will, but then we don't need it to yet. If you'd like to see my suggestions of where all the non-urban H2 fueling stations should go, I'll be happy to send it to you via a private message; I doubt most people (esp. non-Californians) would find it interesting. Besides, most of the locations are blatantly obvious to anyone with a California road map and a knowledge of regional tourist attractions.
Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
And the fast refueling time gives another benefit. While co-locating 24/7 services like food and bathrooms at the H2 refueling stations is nice to have, it's not essential in the way it is for 30 minute or more QCs.
Again speaking from experience with CNG - fueling times are not guaranteed. I've witnessed times from 3-4 minutes to over 20 minutes depending on the station and how busy it is. In other words, you have no way of knowing how long it'll take until you're done. At least with BEVs, you'll know how long it'll take based on how low your battery is and can plan accordingly!
In all the examples I know of, hydrogen and CNG fueling are identical except for the gas involved. I can describe the fueling cycle and why the time can vary so much if you want, and it should still be applicable.
Sure, but you also can't guarantee how long it will take you at a QC, because you never know how many people will be ahead of you, how much they need, whether the max. rate is shared between cars or is dedicated, whether someone is blocking the dispenser, etc. In short, delays are a universal problem, varying only in the technical details between the different sources of energy.