If you're interested in learning more about the future of fuel cell vehicles in the Golden State, the California Fuel Cell Partnership would like to present you with a couple of options: an infographic with facts and figures or a report called "A California Road Map: The Commercialization of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles" (which you can get either as an overview and technical versions).

CaFCP's infographic has got more visual appeal and is more likely to reach consumers than the white papers. Here are some of the data CaFCP would like to share:
  • Fuel cell vehicles have zero emissions, can go 250 to 400 miles per fueling, and only takes five minutes to refuel.
  • Hydrogen can be domestically produced.
  • Initial H2 stations are being deployed into key markets with connector stations joining these clusters into regional networks.
  • 68 stations are needed by the beginning of early commercialization in 2015 to push the technology forward. So far, a little over half (41) of the fuel station icons have check marks (which means they are operational or in development).
  • $65 million is needed in additional funding to build out these 68 stations.
To figure out how CaFCP got these numbers, you have to get the detailed reports. For example, the $65 million is made up of $8.3 million in operating expenses for current stations, $45.1 million for 22 stations that can dispense 500 kilograms per day and $10.3 million nine 250 kg/day stations. The $63.6 million was rounded up "to better reflect the uncertainties captured in this analysis." CaFCP says, "The allocation of this funding would vary by year and by individual station based on market-factors, but would diminish from approximately $13 million-$15 million in the first year to less than $2.3 million in the tenth year as FCEV volumes ramp up."

See the full infographic below.
hydrogen fuel cell roadmap Infographic


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 114 Comments
      Ryan
      • 2 Years Ago
      If you can get fleet vehicles to use this, while allowing the public to use it too, then it might work. However, electric cars are much cheaper and have a lot more promise at lowering the cost in the next 4 years.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        We already have CNG buses. Ultimately all the hydrogen in the USA will come from CNG, which requires a good amount of electricity to turn it into hydrogen anyway. There is an efficiency loss in doing that, and the only advantage is that you can sequester the emissions on site when you're generating the hydrogen. But the cost of going CNG VS Hydrogen is dramatically huge. The hydrogen cost quite a bit more per mile and the vehicle itself ends up being very expensive too. I say stick with CNG vehicles. CNG is a rather clean fuel anyhow.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          In California, only 70% of hydrogen for transportation fuel will come from non-renewable sources. Already, there are solar hydrogen and wastewater hydrogen refueling stations.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          'Ultimately all the hydrogen in the USA will come from CNG' And your rationale for this? In fact where hydrogen infrastructure is being introduced a substantial proportion comes from other sources than NG. In Korea they reckon they can power 500,000 cars from hydrogen produced as a waste product of industrial processes which would otherwise be vented. Very large numbers can also be run on sewage and industrial run-off, whilst we are told that a sustainable 20% of agricultural waste in Germany could power half the car fleet.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        Yeah, how are battery trucks doing? Hydrogen adds capabilities you simply can't get just using batteries.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Yes, and CNG and LPG already give all the capabilities and low cost that trucks need.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          I'm not sure why you would want to use the natural gas less efficiently than you can in fuel cells even after conversion losses. I thought the big problem with hydrogen was supposed to be it's fuel inefficiency compared to batteries? Why aren't you bothered that the NG vehicles aren't very efficient?
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        Show me a small SUV which can run 400 miles at highway speed, not under the restricted speeds the Tesla gets it's 300 miles on, and which costs $50k and you have a point. You are clearly not comparing like for like. That is why manufacturer's are almost all developing fuel cell cars as well as battery power.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          "I still maintain that they are only "promising" these cars based on trying to procure more gov't incentives." You are welcome to hold that opinion. However, I believe that it is an opinion based on a very cynical POV. The automakers have shown genuine interest in working with other stakeholders to ensure that the commercialization of FCVs happens at an appropriate speed and density so that FCV demand and FCV refueling capability is well-matched.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          A PHEV can do that easily. So can a CNG SUV. And for WAY WAY less than a FCV both in initial costs and operating costs..
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Note to some other posters: You don't change facts by shooting the messenger by downrating posts giving them. It is simply a fact that fuel cells provide energy density which is currently beyond that of any existing battery chemistry.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          "That is why manufacturer's are almost all developing fuel cell cars as well as battery power." I still maintain that they are only "promising" these cars based on trying to procure more gov't incentives. The tech is there, but the automakers won't build them until demand is guaranteed, which in turn won't happen until someone pays for a big infrastructure.
        Ryan
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        Spending that money on solar powered EV charging stations would do a lot more.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 2 Years Ago
      Congratulations to the University of Maryland Team! "The team’s design also includes using the hydrogen produced by the fuel cell to power the university’s large shuttle bus system. The students estimate their CHHP system would produce enough hydrogen to power 20 fuel cell electric buses, helping displace about 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year." http://energy.gov/articles/winners-hydrogen-student-design-contest-turn-urban-waste-energy
      ronwagn
      • 2 Years Ago
      Natural gas is the way to go. Much cheaper and clean.http://ronwagnersrants.blogspot.com Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty, dangerous, expensive coal and nuclear plants. It is producing the electricity for electric cars. It will directly fuel cars,pickup trucks, vans, buses, long haul trucks, dump trucks, locomotives, aircraft, ships etc. It will keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. It is reducing CO2 emissions. Here are over 1,500 recent links for you: NbaKYme3bqOw0b6KMxXSjOLHLNeflalPy9gIAiTYhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1FMQ/edit
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ronwagn
        Because fracking on a dramatically larger scale wouldn't be dangerous or dirty! Good joke! :)
      Giza Plateau
      • 2 Years Ago
      ABG, when you do these hydrogen fool cell articles, could you please list upfront the oil companies and cohorts who are behind these groups. You might have to dig a little since the fossil fuel companies have finally realized it doesn't look so good if they are obvious members or founders. Here's a cute lie from their website: "FCVs and BEVs are about equally as efficient". That might technically sort of be true if you get your hydrogen from natural gas and you power your electric car from coal power. It's less true when you power both from renewable electricity which is the way we have to go. Then HFC falls to combustion engine levels of efficiency.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      Taxpayers need confidence in a real available affordable Fuel cell vehicle before funding this boondoggle.
      goodoldgorr
      • 2 Years Ago
      They can also include the hydrogen infrastructure into the car instead of an outdated costly external big hydrogen stations infrastructure. Put a miniaturized water electrolyzer into the car that fill the hydrogen tank while driving or when park and plug to a 110 volts outlet. Cease to feed big oil with the help of this california fuelcell partnership, car compagnies, big oil and frackers and obama goverment along wall street dealers, russia, japan, europe, canada tar sands. A big ship running on fuelcells cannot store all the hydrogen before a long trip but he can make his hydrogen from salt waters while running on the sea. Hydrogen apply to any transportation, even a guy walking cuz you can wear hydrogen filled clothing that remove some mass and you endup walking with less weight.
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        Unlike the rest, I will not ridicule you, as I do not enough to be able to. However, a few questions (feel free to use big words, I am a rocket scientist): The miniature electrolyzer, as you call it - how long would it take to make enough hydrogen to move the car a significant distance? Will the electricity required to break down the water be less than the power required to charge a battery? You are joking about the clothing, right? In the labs, when we were board, we would sometimes create hydrogen electrolyzers just so we could burn up the hydrogen in practical jokes, have fun with the oxygen etc. they were never very practical, but we had equipment laying around, and we were bored... The point is, none of these were very practical from the standpoint of energy used to that produced. Has their been a breakthrough? Has miniaturization gotten to the point a small enough unit could actually work? Curious....
          Ele Truk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          I daresay that we already have a more efficient solution, it's called batteries. The Hydrogen cycle as GOG states never really works to exceed the miles/kwh ratio you get from charging overnight. Plus then you have the added weight of the electrolizer and compressor system. Hydrogen works best when generated from an external source, in massive quantities.
        Grendal
        • 2 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        Sounds perpetual motion-y to me. TANSTAAFL.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 2 Years Ago
      From Honda "Summary of CEO Speech on September 21, 2012": "As for fuel cell electric vehicles, which Honda considers to be the ultimate environmentally-responsible vehicle, and therefore has been leading the industry in R&D and sales, Honda will launch an all-new fuel cell electric model sequentially in Japan, the U.S. and Europe starting in 2015. This new fuel cell vehicle will showcase further technological advancement and significant cost reduction that Honda has accomplished." http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/article.aspx?id=6902-en
        krona2k
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        Ok - not an Honda announcement here, but an likely to be missed Hyundai announcement from 2010: http://www.futurecars.com/news/fuel-cell-cars/hyundai-plans-to-sell-500-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-in-2012 There's plenty more like this if you have the time to look - that's why people are skeptical, the day you can go into a dealer an buy one is the day they are available, and not a day before.
        krona2k
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        For what it's worth I have complained to ABG about the crumbling comment system. I took the reported failure of my first post as a chance to fix some typos but obviously it was posted anyway. The second post was also reported as failed but I thought it best to stop there given the recent problems.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @krona2k
          Don't worry, I sympathize with you on the 2xposting issue. It's fair for people to be skeptical. But much of the comments are far more than just skeptical; many commentators on ABG really cannot stand to accept that FCVs might actually be produced. There are a few reasons typically mentioned for the dislike - mostly they don't like the idea that at least initially hydrogen will be produced by SMR of natural gas. They also focus to an extreme on the inefficiency of FCVs relative to BEVs, while ignoring very real market advantages like light weight, quick refueling, and long range.
        krona2k
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        http://www.futurecars.com/news/fuel-cell-cars/hyundai-plans-to-sell-500-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-in-2012 There's plenty more like this if you have the time to Google, that's why people are skeptical. The day you can go into a dealer and buy one is the day they are available, and not a day before.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @krona2k
          Toyota has built more than 100 FCHV-adv. Daimler has built 200 B-Class F-Cells. Hyundai building 500 ix35 FCEVs before the end of 2012 isn't that hard to fathom. It sure would be nice to have a website dedicated to alternative-energy autos that kept up-to-date on that kind of information, wouldn't it?
      Dave
      • 2 Years Ago
      http://www.nasdaq.com/article/vision-industries-enters-into-a-joint-development-agreement-with-balqon-to-build-its-fuel-cell-powe-20120921-00065 "Vision Industries Enters Into a Joint Development Agreement With Balqon to Build Its Fuel Cell Powered Zero-Emission Terminal Tractor (Zero-TT) TORRANCE, Calif., Sept. 21, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Vision Industries Corp.(OTCBB:VIIC) announces that the Company and Balqon Corporation have entered into a Joint Development Agreement to build its zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell /electric hybrid terminal tractor, the Zero-TT. The intended markets for the Zero-TT are distribution centers, rail yards and marine terminals. "We are very familiar with Balqon's technology and are excited to implement their drivetrain into our Zero-TT tractors," says Martin Schuermann, CEO of Vision Industries Corp. This agreement combines the Cargotec USA Kalmar chassis with Balqon's proven drivetrain and Vision's hydrogen fuel cell range-extender. "We believe consolidating our efforts to address zero emission cargo transportation which combines our drive system and lithium battery technology with Vision's fuel cell technology will add to zero emission offerings available to customers seeking to reduce diesel emissions," says Balwinder Samra, CEO of Balqon Corporation. "
      Ad van der Meer
      • 2 Years Ago
      @DaveMart Ok, Dave let's use your numbers Toyota runs 68,7 mi/kg hydrogen, so that's 873 Wh/mi. (Thanks for the link: Bookmarked) Several tests have shown Tesla Model S can do 265mi per 85kWh charge. That's 353 Wh/mi (incl. 10% charging loss) Now you can make hydrogen every which way you want, but please add a link to industrial level examples of those methods.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ad van der Meer
        Downraters who can't manage a coherent argument? What a surprise! No doubt they also downrate the laws of gravity, as they don't much fancy reality.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ad van der Meer
        I hit the word limit. Here is German progress on using stranded wind to produce hydrogen: http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2012/08/21/e-on-starts-construction-of-power-to-gas-pilot-plant-in-germany/ Note that this is using resources which would otherwise be thrown away, so traditional efficiency calculations are irrelevant.
          Ele Truk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          I think this would be ideal in areas like the Pacific Northwest where they are shutting down wind farms rather than produce excess electricity. Using that energy even if inefficiently is better than not using it at all.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ad van der Meer
        Your comparison of range is about right, although it is not entirely clear how the EPA cycle compares to the road test done on the Toyota. I have not been able to locate EPA test figures on the Toyota. So you can run 431 miles in the Toyota, compared to about 265 of the Tesla, and in the former you then have a 4 minute recharge to carry right on driving. It is pretty clear that this is whole different level of capability to the Tesla. The pack in the Tesla is one heck of a size though to do that. The assumption of battery only advocates is that the costs will drop rapidly so that a 85kwh pack becomes affordable for everyone. To actually get comparable range to the Toyota, you would actually need around 130kwh of battery. Now I have nothing at all against using batteries, and am in fact technology neutral, I just want cars and transport including trucks which can provide comparable levels of movement to today at reasonable cost and phase out oil, together with zero pollution at point of use. Now if there are massive breakthroughs in batteries, great, but at the moment there is no prospect of doing the job with any battery technology we can do, at less than huge cost. We have very thorough costings on fuel cells, and without any breakthroughs at all merely normal production engineering and volume production it is clear that they can: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/learning_demo_final_report.pdf As for the fuel efficiency, if you take into account grid efficiencies and so on, together with things like the availability of waste heat from the fuel stack for cabin heating, which is of course not possible with batteries, you came out to something like a 1.5-2 times penalty for the fuel stack. As a matter of routine that sort of penalty is accepted in lots of things, including driving bigger cars than a Smart. However, if you combine a fuel cell stack with present batteries, with no breakthrough needed, so that you have around 12 kwh or so of batteries and a 30-40kw fuel cell stack, then all your running around is done on batteries, and to the extent that you are going short distances, which is where batteries excel, you have equal efficiency. You would still have the range capabilities of the fuel stack, and have saved yourself the expense and weight of around 120 kwh of yet to be developed batteries. Any efficiency penalty on the fuel would seem to be adequately compensated. I don't know quite what you mean by industrial level examples of hydrogen production, since we don't have the cars on the road to use it at the moment, but here is a massive series of reports on all things transport, including hydrogen production: http://www.npc.org/FTF-80112.html And the bit which deals with hydrogen: http://www.npc.org/FTF-report-080112/H2_Analysis-080112.pdf One waste stream often flared is from the chlor-akali process, which is being used in the UK to produce hydrogen: http://www.afcenergy.com/regulatory-announcements/afc-energy-
        jeffwishart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ad van der Meer
        I would add to DaveMart's points about why EVs won't be the comprehensive solution to our zero-emissions transportation needs by noting the obvious issue of getting sufficient power to charge batteries to where it needs to be. Electricity is ubiquitous, but if that 130 kWh pack was to be charged in even 15 minutes (far too long for most people, but let's go with it), you would need 520 kW! FCVs will never compete on pure efficiency, it's true. But batteries can't take the high current rates that would be required to compete with FCVs for refueling time (imagine the degradation rates!), even if the obscene power that would be required could be found.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @jeffwishart
          "Why would you possibly need to charge a 130 kWh pack in 15 minutes?" You're a highway bus/truck driver.
          Grendal
          • 2 Years Ago
          @jeffwishart
          Why would you possibly need to charge a 130 kWh pack in 15 minutes? You'd get over 400 miles on that size pack - possibly more. That would be 5 hours of driving at 80 MPH. You could get 300 miles of that back with Tesla's supercharger in one hour. I think people would be willing to adjust to that since it isn't terribly different than what they do now. That's just my opinion though.
      Ad van der Meer
      • 2 Years Ago
      [QUOTE]Price of Hydrogen - Currently, there is no retail price of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. For the purposes of this analysis, hydrogen has been estimated to be sold between $8.00-$11.00/kg, including sales tax. This price includes a $6.00/kg wholesale cost, sales tax of 9% ($0.72 to $0.90/kg) and a retail margin of $2.00-$4.00/kg[/QUOTE] Ok, so $8 per kg for about 60 mi of driving, so basicly not cheaper than ICE cars, less infrastructure so more waste driving to and from fueling stations. Can somebody tell me how many solar panels you need to produce the 6000kWh needed to produce 100 kg hydrogen per day? 500kg/24h fueling stations are planned for 2015-2017, so 30'000 kWh per day.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ad van der Meer
        Hydrogen, in conjunction with batteries where suitable, would however solve the following problems: 1. they could eliminate oil imports, and dependency. 2.they could end point of use air pollution, saving in the US alone many thousands of lives a year. Even should the cost running a fuel cell car be no cheaper than an ICE, those are worthwhile objectives in themselves. In fact they are talking only of near term costs of hydrogen, and there is every prospect of them decreasing over time, unlike oil which on past price trends is going to get more and more expensive. Fuel cells cars like battery cars should also need very little maintenance, and completely solve the problem of range in electric vehicles, as they combine superbly with a large battery pack so that 12kwh or so can carry out your running around, whilst your fuel cell stack ensures that range is no problem.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          It is interesting that you should choose the old FCX Clarity for your purposes, when the field has moved on. You sound rather like those arguing against battery electric cars, by focussing on worst case. Here is the modern Toyota, tested for range and fuel consumption under real world road conditions: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf That is 68 mpge under real world conditions, for something far bigger and heavier than most battery cars. You then focus on electrolysis, and choose to ignore the countless other pathways to produce hydrogen, often using otherwise wasted resources such as sewage, flared hydrogen, wood chips and stranded wind. If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Real engineering combines different technologies with different characteristics and capabilities to produce a working syste, You battery powered hobby-horse has limitations, which you choose not to recognise.
          Ad van der Meer
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          If you want to end oil dependency and improve air quality, than you would ditch hydrogen cars all together and go electric. A Honda FCX Clarity uses 1kg per 60mi using 60 kWh to produce that kg of hydrogen. A Nissan Leaf uses 20kWh to cover that same distance.
        Levine Levine
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ad van der Meer
        Hydrogen fueled cars will reduce the need for or even abolish California's AQMD -- the domestic terrorist to ICE car owners. Just imagine the money saved by not having AQMD or CARB. Hydrogen fuel not only scare the dickens out of Big Oil but also of Big Government.
      Ford Future
      • 2 Years Ago
      You've got to be joking. Hydrogen, converted from natural gas. What a way to blow taxpayer money.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ford Future
        But they got the stations at a discount! just a little bit more than a million dollars each. How could they have turned that kinda deal down?
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          @Spec: I believe they are talking about the subsidy element needed to get the ball rolling, not total costs. This contrasts with the trillions thrown glibly around by opponents of fuel cell cars.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          DaveMart is jesting at those who suggest that a hydrogen refueling infrastructure is unattainable due to exorbitant costs. Here's some recent analysis of the numbers: "For hydrogen, recent studies by the National Academies and others suggest that the capital investment for mature infrastructure would be $1,400–2,000 per light-duty vehicle served, depending on the pathway. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that building a fully developed hydrogen infrastructure serving 220 million vehicles in the United States in 2050 would cost about $400 billion over a period of about 40 years.2 (The NAS scenario is based mostly on fossil-fueled hydrogen with CCS and biomass hydrogen. Electrolysis-based pathways could cost more to build.) Early infrastructure investment costs per car (to serve the fi rst million vehicles) would be higher ($5,000–10,000 per car)." http://steps.ucdavis.edu/steps-book/Chapter%205%20-%20Comparing%20Infrastructure%20Requirements.pdf
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          I'd guess that is low-balling the number too. The land alone in useful commercial areas costs more than that.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          "This contrasts with the trillions thrown glibly around by opponents of fuel cell cars." What? Who are these opponents? Where do they get such money? What are they spending it on?
      krona2k
      • 2 Years Ago
      The hydrogen argument seems to be fizzling out on here these days. We'll have to wait and see what has happened by 2015, I don't expect much. As for vetning 'waste' hydrogen in industrial processes that could be used for cars, why they hell don't they use some cheap hydrogen ICE generator or something, anything, to convert the hydrogen into electricity. They *must* have already expended energy to create the hydrogen so it seems mad not to feed that energy back into the system on site.
        Dave
        • 2 Years Ago
        @krona2k
        "The hydrogen argument seems to be fizzling out on here these days" Theres no argument. Its when, not if.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          As Dave points out, the argument about hydrogen FCVs isn't about "if" they will happen, but "when". Except for Joeviocoe. He vigorously insists ( "...is going down swinging..." ) to the bitter end that FCVs won't happen at all, because he claims that the manufacturers won't build them, even though he acknowledges that FCV technology is a viable alternative to ICE.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          Joeviocoe is going down swinging for the "IF" camp. He knows that FCVs work, he just doubts that the automakers will ever make them.
          Sean
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          The question is 'IF'. With ongoing fuel cell improvements, I think that costs will come down enough and durability up enough to enter the high-to-middle end of the person transportation market. There might be a 50k hydrogen fuel cell vehicle by 2015. The predictions of availability by 2012 were wrong; 2015 is not a certainty. How much will batteries cost by the time fuel cell vehicles are actually for sale?
          krona2k
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          Joeviocoe what? That's a confusing statement.
    • Load More Comments