As expected, the governor of California, Jerry Brown, has signed Assembly Bill 8 – the pro-electric-vehicle, pro-hydrogen-refueling-station bill – into law. That means the state of California will now spend over $2 billion to extend plug-in vehicle credits and on building a network of up to 100 H2 stations over the next decade, according to The Detroit News.

The governor signed the bill (and other pro-EV items) as part of the Third Annual National Plug In Day celebrations, which took place this weekend in almost 100 cities around the world. AB 8 not only provides the extra money for zero-emission transportation - funded through new or increased vehicle fees - but also extends the program's time frame to 2024. The state has long added a $2,500 EV rebate ($1,500 for plug-in hybrids) on top of the US federal government's tax credit that is worth up to $7,500. The Imperial Valley News reports that the suite of six green transportation bills that Gov. Brown signed includes bills that extend HOV lane access to low-emission vehicles, define charging station rules for multi-family housing units and non-residential buildings and fund the state's Clean Vehicle Rebate Project and other green vehicle incentive programs. The CVRP has had fluctuating funds and gotten influxes of money in the past.

On the hydrogen refueling front, the 100 stations that the new legislation funds should be more than enough. The California Fuel Cell Partnership calculated last year that the state needs 68 stations to power the initial H2 vehicle fleet. There are currently 10 publicly accessible hydrogen stations in California, according to the US Department of Energy.


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
  • 99 Comments
      Marcopolo
      • 1 Year Ago
      Not wanting to buy into the CA v/s the rest debate, my only observation is that the State of California is spending very little money to kick start hydrogen refueling infrastructure. If, (although FCV progress is promising) , several major auto-makers finally manage to build affordable FCV models, rolling out refueling infrastructure will occur very rapidly. All major oil companies already produce Hydrogen for industrial purposes, and have the necessary capital and resources to quickly satisfy demand. Approximately 120,000 gas stations exist in the US, however, only 5% need to be fitted with H2 refueling for FCV technology to be financially viable. A small capital investment of $3-6 billion, ( or even 10 times that amount) would not create a problem for the oil industry to capture a highly profitable new market.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        @ Joeviocoe In the end, what does it matter ? If Governor Brown's administration has got it right, the State of California will have helped to develop an environmentally beneficial alternate fuel technology, with valuable benefit not only for his State, but the entire planet. If it fails, well then the taxpayers of California will be out $ 20 million, from a State with a nearly $ 2 trillion economy ! That's a matter for the voters of California. Your argument that the infrastructure to manufacture and distribute Hydrogen is beyond the resources of the oil industry, is absurd ! A sparsely populated nation like Australia, has a network of over 4000 LPG refueling stations spread across it's vast size. There may be some technical differences between LPG and H2, but the economic and logistics of the infrastructure challenges are very similar. Infrastructure for H2 distribution would be a very easy project to capitalistic since the project would quickly generate sufficient cash-flow to service the capital costs at no cost to the taxpayer. Joe, I support and prefer, EV technology, but not at the expense of other viable technologies. The object is to find a more environmental fuel, not become ideologically committed to any individual technology.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          --" what does it matter ?" --" taxpayers of California will be out $ 20 million" Yeah... IF they learn their lesson within the first year... and stop the program right there. But NO, that is NOT the way they do it. They dangle and dangle Hydrogen year after year, kicking the can down the road with promises, studies showing how they plan to do it, optimistic estimations on how cheaply it can and will be done. They will likely use up all $220 million... and keep asking for more. At some point you have to say STOP, the line has been drawn Here... this far, no further. -Capt Picard. Let them COMPLETELY fund this dream themselves. They've had their shot. I am all for public funding of projects that reduce dependence on oil, decrease emissions, etc... but Hydrogen has been a pet project for decades now..... and their promises mean nothing at this point.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Let's go thrugh this paragraph at a time. 1) $220 million is spread out over 11 years... but still this is still a significant amount of money to gamble on prospects that the public will start buying FCVs... especially since potential buyers will likely be paying a significant premium over comparable hybrids, an uncertain fueling cost, and a VERY high level of "Range Anxiety" initially when they look at a map to see that only their immediate area has H2 stations... they CANNOT go on any road trips (the very accusation they had against EVs). 2) Big IF.... and the first few years won't be "affordable" at all. 3) a) --"All major oil companies already produce Hydrogen for industrial purposes" But no where near the volume they need to stock these stations even for the first slow years. And the biggest hurdles were never the production... but the infrastructure to distribute, store, compress... and do so safely. b) --" need to be fitted with H2 refueling" ... it is no where near as simplistic as you make it seem. Other than reusing the property (which still might need rezoning for safety precautions) and reusing the convenient stores... H2 fueling requires a brand new everything. Tanks, compressors, pumps. Nothing like gasoline. It's NOT like modifying fueling equipment from gasoline to E85, or Diesel#2 to Biodiesel 4) If it stood a snowball's chance in hell at being profitable for Oil companies with a small capital investment.... they would have jumped on this over a decade ago. They KNOW it is too risky... the demand is too low and/or unpredictable... to warrant even a small investment as you say. THAT is why they've been Lobbying government to pay the bill with public money.... and THIS ARTICLE is exactly what they've been working for..... When this fails to drive people to buy FCVs.... the companies that are hoping to make profit... would not have lost their investment... the tax-payers do.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Here's an example of the type of article I'm talking about, that shows support for FCVs and hydrogen infrastructure: "Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 8 into law, extending the programs that accelerate the turnover of older vehicles and equipment and invest in the development and deployment of advanced technologies that are necessary to achieve the California’s air quality, climate, and energy goals until January 1, 2024. The bill includes a provision to fund at least 100 hydrogen stations with a commitment of up to $20 million a year from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-Cell refueling with hydrogen “The technology is here and automakers are ready,” said Catherine Dunwoody, executive director of the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP). “Before they can sell or lease fuel cell electric vehicles, a much larger fueling infrastructure must be in place.” “One of the biggest obstacles to introducing fuel cell electric vehicles was the lack of fueling certainty,” said Professor Dan Sperling, CaFCP Chair and CARB Board member. Dr. Sperling is also the founder and director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. “No more. The passage of AB 8 sends a clear signal to automakers, consumers and others that California will launch a market for FCEVs.” “Automakers have made and are making significant investments in fuel cell electric vehicles,,” said Robert Bienenfeld, assistant vice president, environment and energy strategy for the Honda Motor Company and CaFCP vice chair. “California’s planned investments in hydrogen refueling will be a key enabler to create this market.” Assembly Bill 8 was supported by a broad range of 80-plus stakeholders, led by the American Lung Association, CALSTART and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)." Further down, I've provided other quotes from hydrogen stakeholders also expressing their interest. "I already see it... I admit to my specific claims..." Yes, your specific claims being: 1. The hydrogen providers are incapable of providing adequate hydrogen for FCVs: "But no where near the volume they need to stock these stations even for the first slow years." 2. The oil companies know that hydrogen is too risky, with very little chance of being profitable, and that they are unwilling to make investments. " If it stood a snowball's chance in hell at being profitable for Oil companies with a small capital investment.... they would have jumped on this over a decade ago. They KNOW it is too risky... the demand is too low and/or unpredictable... to warrant even a small investment as you say." 3. FCVs won't be affordable. "the first few years won't be "affordable" at all." All DaveMart and I have really done is refute your claims. You seem to be rather upset that I won't make any specific predictions other than the general prediction that ICEs, BEVs, and FCVs will coexist.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "seed money" is certainly the plan. But these are not going to be loans.... that MUST be paid back. This is going to be seeding infertile ground over and over again. Wasting lots of money in the mean time.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Fine, I will back off the hydrogen production argument. But in 2015, we will see if the big ABG 3 (DaveMart, Lets Take a Walk, and Dave) will be right or wrong. I still predict that you will begin a serious backpedal yourselves. And start to make more and more excuses as to why 2015 wasn't the year FCVs began. This money will not change the outcome. And in one year, we'll see.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"Joeviocoe continues to insist that the hydrogen providers aren't interested, even when they make public announcements to the contrary. " -LTAW Yes,... welcome to the worlds of economics and politics. Talk is cheap. It is all about talking one way, and behaving another way. I insist because I am not naive enough to simply believe 'public announcements'.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @Joe: Your original statement was: '"All major oil companies already produce Hydrogen for industrial purposes" But no where near the volume they need to stock these stations even for the first slow years.' Having been clearly shown to be utterly wrong, and out by at least an order of magnitude, instead of showing contrition for talking absolute nonsense and not having done proper research before sharing your opinions and conclusions, you have the gall to simply try to switch the subject. From the link I gave hydrogen production is expected to increase by ~2 million tons by 2016, enough for around 8 million FCEVs according to their figures. That should be enough to provide power for 'those first slow years' unless you are a great deal more optimistic about FCEV sales by 2016 than I am. It might be a plan if you stopped spouting uniformed garbage as facts, then trying to cover up. Your ignorance, which arises from a preconceived ideological position which you are rationalising instead of looking at the facts objectively, is showing.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"The United States currently produces about 9 million metric tons of hydrogen per year". And what are they currently doing with that hydrogen? Is it free hydrogen that they just let go to waste? Or is all that hydrogen part of some larger industrial process that cannot simply be siphoned off for the use in FCVs? Do you really think that 9 million metric tons is not earmarked for other processes? And that hydrogen production would not need to be started and increased on the same scale as consumption increases from FCV use? Hydrogen is the MOST abundant element in the universe... almost every industrial chemical process will produce hydrogen at some point in the cycle... but will still require use of that hydrogen in another point in the process.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I've already backed off 1) 2 and 3 haven't been refuted by this article, nor DaveMart's comments. This article is further evidence that the bulk of H2 infrastructure will be paid with public money... which reinforces my point.... that as much as they TALK TALK TALK about it... they don't put significant money on the table... but would rather government absorb the risk. You can quote all the "expressing their interest" stories you would like... Talk is cheap... and has been going on for a while. Do you think flooding the comments with quotes and links which do NOT address the argument, is going to help?
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "FCV advocates are still out there... but their are getting quiet and/or going away. Read the signs man, you're on the losing side of this argument... " Um, the article, and many others like it, would disagree. We read continually about progress *towards* the commercialization of FCVs. Joeviocoe chooses to disbelieve and discount this, and he's welcome to maintain his opinion that for some reason the hydrogen infrastructure won't be built, at least until he sees concrete evidence to the contrary. I, like DaveMart, am ambivalent about what powers my future auto. I don't have any particular opinion on what format will "win", because I think that liquid fuels, battery power, and hydrogen FCVs will all coexist in the market. Neither do I think there is a "losing side" as Joeviocoe puts it.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Here are some comments from the hydrogen providers that were made at the recent announcement of the German infrastructure initiative: "Professor Dr Wolfgang Reitzle, Chief Executive Officer of Linde AG: ‘Linde has been a pioneer in the further development of hydrogen technology for many years. Especially with respect to the series production of hydrogen refuelling stations, we have achieved major advances over the last few years. The time is now right to roll out this environmentally friendly technology on a nationwide basis.’ Thomas Pfützenreuter, Managing Director of AIR LIQUIDE Deutschland GmbH: ‘The signature of this agreement is a decisive step towards the construction of a network of hydrogen stations in Germany. Air Liquide is proud to take an active part in the German ‘H2 Mobility’ initiative which aims to substantially contribute to the national ambitious objectives for electro-mobility. As an expert of the entire hydrogen energy chain including production and hydrogen filling stations, Air Liquide is actively involved in allowing the widespread use of hydrogen as a clean energy source. Hydrogen energy is an innovative solution that offers a response in the short-term to the challenges of sustainable mobility thus contributing to the preservation of the environment.’ Dr Gerhard Roiss, Chairman of the Executive Board and CEO of OMV AG: ‘Achieving the EU’s Energy Roadmap goals will only be possible with innovative new technologies. Hydrogen is set to also play a key role in the way we get around in the future. Setting up the infrastructure for hydrogen filling stations is our contribution to a future of emission-free motoring.’ Peter Blauwhoff, Chief Executive Officer, German Shell Holding: ‘Shell already operates a network of hydrogen filling stations based on the very latest technology in Germany and California – including the world’s largest H2 filling station in Berlin. Following the foundation of the joint venture, Shell will play a significant role in the development of the future H2 retail station network in Germany. Hydrogen is an important component for the mobility of the future.’ Hans-Christian Gützkow, Chairman of TOTAL Germany: ‘Out of the 15 hydrogen refuelling stations existing in Germany today, we already run five – another TOTAL multi-energy-station will start running nearby Berlin’s future airport until the end of the year. We will continue contributing to the infrastructure’s expansion! TOTAL reinforces its pioneering role whilst building up the hydrogen network in Germany and in terms of research when it comes to produce green hydrogen from renewable sources!’ Joeviocoe continues to insist that the hydrogen providers aren't interested, even when they make public announcements to the contrary. Either he thinks they are lying and being insincere, or else he is simply unwilling to accept statements contrary to his personal belief.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          'Back off the hydrogen production argument' Retracting what was clearly a completely uninformed claim would be more to the point. Perhaps you would also provide the references for your notion that I am 'equally ideologically committed' to FCEVs. Presumably if that were the case I would have vast numbers of comments on every thread about BEVs, claiming that the infrastructure costs were unaffordable, for which there are references and studies showing up to 8 times the cost compared to hydrogen, when I actually clearly stated that this was wrong, and that costs are actually similar. I would also be claiming that the infrastructure would not support battery charging, when time after time I have refuted those who suggested that. In fact, I would be doing everything possible to dig out every factoid against battery cars, or inventing data, if I were to be 'equally ideologically committed'. In the real world it is perfectly clear that I support battery cars, and if I had my preference since they fit in rather better with using a lot of nuclear in the grid would prefer that. I do not though try to predict how technology will evolve, or dismiss other approaches on specious and inadequate grounds. Making predictions and backing off them is of course an utterly different matter to making claims as to facts that you can't back up, Joe. Actually neither LTAW or I have ever made any predictions on FCEV production and take up, merely reporting what is the position of the companies concerned, and bodies like the DOE's forecasts.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Link: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/12014_current_us_hydrogen_production.pdf
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "And what are they currently doing with that hydrogen? Is it free hydrogen that they just let go to waste? Or is all that hydrogen part of some larger industrial process that cannot simply be siphoned off for the use in FCVs?" You should really read the links. You'd be better informed.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "I do not though try to predict how technology will evolve" We both do... that is the whole point of this ABG thread. You ARE predicting a future with mass FCV adoption. I am predicting a different outcome. Neither of us are claiming exact numbers... but you are kidding yourself if you think you haven't taken a side in this debate. FCV advocates are still out there... but their are getting quiet and/or going away. Read the signs man, you're on the losing side of this argument... regardless of any uninformed statements from myself... or any ridiculous FUD from others. There are a million crap arguments against FCVs that are utter nonsense... but that doesn't protect you from the truth of the economics. My arguments still stand on their own (regardless of a few mistakes). Enjoy this moment now if you would like... but I will be here in 18 months. And I don't think I will be the bigger man and refuse to gloat... since you aren't now.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          We both have ideological positions. And once again, you are also, " spouting uniformed garbage as facts". Except you are spouting the propaganda of the Oil industry as facts. You believe their predictions without any shred common sense that they may be exaggerating the numbers to get exactly the funding we are seeing here today. And now, YOU are the one trying to change the subject to focus in on a single sentence that I maybe should have clarified that I meant 'surplus' hydrogen that is available to use in FCVs. I thought it was obvious, but I guess not to someone so hypnotized and brainwashed by the industry with their talking points. It is the equivalent of me saying that we don't have enough gasoline production for 100 million additional new cars to be built next year. But you remarking with all the arrogance in the world that we produce gasoline for 1 billion cars already.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "Perhaps you would also provide the references for your notion that I am 'equally ideologically committed' to FCEVs." I never said you were every Anti-BEV. They are not mutually exclusive. You're just hammering away at a person now... your argument advocating FCV adoption is NOT enhanced in anyway by focusing rage against me... even for my mistakes.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          'The United States currently produces about 9 million metric tons of hydrogen per year, enough to power approximately ~36-41 million FCEVs.' So you have even the basic data wrong, as this is very different from your claim: 'no where near the volume they need to stock these stations even for the first slow years.' Somehow I don't think that this will change your opinion, as none of the other increasingly favourable data about hydrogen and fuel cells has. That is the definition of a position not arrived at by logic.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          LTAW... no the article does NOT agree with you. The article says that "government" money is being put towards H2 infrastructure. That is NOT an indicator of market success. The indicator would be private companies building it for themselves. Also... -"hydrogen FCVs will all coexist in the market. " That is a very vague statement that could mean anything. Technically FC buses qualify. We are specifically talking about the personal passenger vehicle market. And of course, I understand that you are NOT arguing the extremes that FCVs will dominate the market. But neither am I arguing the opposite of absolute zero FCVs. You and DaveMart believe that the market of FCVs will significant... along the lines of the predictions given in the multitudes of links to hydrogen.energy.gov you both post. You cannot deny that you hold similar views and predictions to the documents you post. All of which predict more or less the same rosy picture of FCVs and H2 stations, all starting in 2015. You both DO share this prediction with the Hydrogen Lobby. I do NOT. I still believe that these predictions are grossly over-exaggerated, not mistakenly so... but intentionally exaggerated to procure funding... which they are getting some. I still think Hydrogen will be a pipe dream for a long while, even when there are some H2 stations and FCV models available. Just like CNG cars in the U.S. took a LONG while to be adopted and still have insignificant numbers. The will be some niches that thrive... such as central fueling fleets. In 18 months or so... one of us will be proven right. If I am wrong... I will admit so. (just as I have before). If you and DaveMart are proved wrong... I expect more back pedaling, and claims about how you two never took a side in the argument. I already see it... I admit to my specific claims... but you two are starting to obfuscate your positions into some "I like everything" claim... completely ignoring the fact that you truly believe in the pro-hydrogen documents you've been posting for years.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @Joe: No acknowledgement that you were out by an order of magnitude, I see. If I were you, I would be embarrassed. Instead, ludicrously, you try to claim that what you meant was not what you wrote, and we should have read into you clear claim that the production was not adequate to support initial numbers of hydrogen vehicles that you meant 'surplus' production. Are you really that ignorant of economics? Clearly in a market there is never 'surplus' production, as demand and production are synonymous. Even if some of the resource is thrown away, or given away, or nearly given away, they will still balance. What 'facts from the oil industry' do you wish to argue? The ones I quoted were actually from the US Government, but no matter. Are you trying to claim that figures I gave for hydrogen production are incorrect? If so, where are your figures? As for my position being ideological, since I have no preference for batteries or hydrogen then perhaps you would show in what way that is the case? I used to find you a rational interlocutor. Your arguments and self-justifications for the most appalling ignorance coupled with absurd attempts to re-write what you have clearly stated now sadly make that something of the past.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "This article is further evidence that the bulk of H2 infrastructure will be paid with public money." So, you're saying that these initial 100 stations will be the "bulk of H2 infrastructure"? Most of us see this government program as seed money, to get the infrastructure going, and that they bulk of the infrastructure will come later as the FCV segment grows.
        EZEE
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Subsidies to BIG OIL when they are making record windfall profits on the backs of the working poor, while Wall Street fat cat hedge fund banking managers and their buddies at haliburton and big pharma steel from..wait what were we talking about again?
      Dave
      • 1 Year Ago
      "FRANKFURT, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Daimler and five oil and industrial gas companies will invest about 350 million euros ($500 million) on a network of hydrogen filling stations for fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in Germany over the next 10 years, they said on Monday... Daimler is a leader in FCEVs and said this year that it, Ford and Nissan would within five years launch FCEVs costing not much more than a diesel-hybrid. Mercedes E 300 BlueTEC diesel-hybrids sell in Germany from 52,450 euros... Daimler has about 200 Mercedes B-Class F-Cells on the road." http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/germany-daimler-fuelcells-fillingstation-idINL6N0HQ27X20130930
      DaveMart
      • 1 Year Ago
      For context Germany is putting 350 million Euros, around $474m into hydrogen refuelling infrastructure over the next few years: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130930-h2mob.html They reckon that will get them to about 400 stations and pretty complete coverage of the country.
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      Does someone in CA have a screw loose? - Solar will be cheaper then ALL Other Energy sources in 6 years and 2 months. - EV's will have Double the range in 7 years. Put the two together and you get EV's and ONLY EV's. Only a fool would invest in a Dead End Technology.
        EZEE
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CoolWaters
        HEY COOL! Where does that time figure come from? I noticed we are down a month....
        Ziv
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CoolWaters
        If it is precise, it must be correct!
        Dave
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CoolWaters
        "- Solar will be cheaper then ALL Other Energy sources in 6 years and 2 months." Awesome! Wholesale coal / nuclear electricity costs about 3.5 cents per kwh. It takes about 50 kwh to make a kg of hydrogen by electrolysis. So that's $1.75 worth of solar energy to make a kg of hydrogen. And a hydrogen fuel cell car would only use about 1/2 a kg per day. (I, along with all other commenters here wish that your solar predictions weren't a deluded pipe dream)
          archos
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Dave
          Solar hydrogen stations? That would make them only 10x as expensive as Tesla super charging solar stations. Waste of everything.
      JJ
      • 1 Year Ago
      Where will the money to pay for this come from?
        Chris M
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JJ
        Funded through increases in vehicle licensing fees, according to the article. Since it is spread out over 10 years, they have time to collect that money from millions of vehicle owners
        Spec
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JJ
        Much of this costs nothing . . . such as letting people use the HOV lane or having building codes that require EV pre-wiring. And some of it is paid for by polluters . . . some smog fees help pay for the green energy programs. BTW, California currently has a budget surplus.
          paulwesterberg
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Would it be better if they spent 2 million and accomplished nothing?
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          --"The government squanders money because they didn't earn it" Ashton.... Get off our roads, stay out of our hospitals, and get off our Internet... you didn't earn it.
          Spec
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Yes, cutting some services and raising some taxes does close a budget gap. The Federal government should try it some time.
          Vlad
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Funny thing, The Economist published articles on economic success of California and Utah. One about Utah said how much proximity to California helps it. One about California didn't mention Utah. .
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          You can have our failing businesses 2WM... you know, the ones that blame taxes as the reason nobody wants their products. California will keep the Tech firms and the future of the Automotive industry. :)
          JJ
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          somehow all this nothing adds to $2bln
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Amazing how you can have a budget surplus after you make big tax hikes and cut services. They still have 400 billion dollars of debt to pay off. Keep sending your businesses our way, California.
          Ashton
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Spec - You actually WANT higher taxes!?! The government already takes 25% of what I make...which is too damn high. The government squanders money because they didn't earn it. Much like a lottery winner.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JJ
        Future generations.
      Dave
      • 1 Year Ago
      "Hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. using Linde North America fueling technology have reached over half million fills -- and still climbing -- powering a variety of vehicles, including forklifts, cars and buses... While Linde hydrogen fueling systems involve very sophisticated technology, the filling operation is designed to be relatively quick and simple - much like putting gasoline into your car. “The speed and simplicity is a critical aspect to the success of hydrogen as a fuel,” Beckman said. http://www.lindeus.com/en/news_and_media/press_releases/2013-10-01rnanews.html
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Dave
        Great for forklifts and localized private fleets. Congrats.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      It's worth noting that only $20 million per year is set aside for hydrogen refueling stations, and that funding is cut off once 100 publicly-accessible stations have been built. The $20 million is to be allocated as "...grants, loan incentive programs, revolving loan programs, and other forms of financial assistance..." so that while some of the funds will be given away, others will be returned as loans to be repaid. 2014 will be a very interesting year, as all the fuel cell stake holders begin to lay their cards on the table.
        Spec
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        Of course the fuel cell people will probably just push it back another couple years.
          JakeY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          @Letstakeawalk Building codes/safety codes are not enough to stop hydrogen stations. After all, we have 10 where the building codes did not get in the way. Sales regulations can be also be worked around (like charging service fees based on time like how EV chargers do). If they wanted to build these stations themselves there's nothing stopping them. The biggest hurdle for infrastructure owners is that there's no cars to use them. The biggest hurdle for automakers is there's no infrastructure. What these grants will do is establish the initial infrastructure so that automakers have no excuse not to make HFCVs for sale. We'll see what happens when the time comes.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          The "Infrastructure" is not a hurdle... it is a mountain. It must be blown to bits with massive quantities of public money. Every other challenge, is indeed a hurdle that can be overcome. But lack of infrastructure will make the effort to jump hurdles, all the more futile.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          No, I insist that the legal framework IS the very thing that would have been created decades ago. Who exactly do you think writes law? Congressmen? Their Aides? Staffers? No. Industry writes the laws, and lobbies congress to get them passed. If industry were seriously wanting build the infrastructure themselves... they would have done the legal requirements already.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          "Who exactly do you think writes law? Congressmen? Their Aides? Staffers? No. Industry writes the laws, and lobbies congress to get them passed. If industry were seriously wanting build the infrastructure themselves... they would have done the legal requirements already." So, now you're claiming that the hydrogen industry should have already paid to have laws passed, for equipment that didn't exist at the time. Brilliant. Your argument is getting more vapid with each successive post.
          JakeY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          @Letstakeawalk " It's not like they were just built without any consultation with local and higher regulatory agencies..." That's not what I'm saying. I certainly know you need permits to build anything. What I'm saying is if they wanted to build all 100 of these stations with their own funding (rather than grants providing a bulk of the funding), there is nothing stopping them, and the CA government would happily agree for that to happen and remove any regulatory barriers along the way. Building codes/safety codes are just an excuse. Same thing with the sales regulations. The real issue is the uncertainty that they'll get their investments back, esp. given there are zero HFCVs for sale right now. That's why they will absolutely not build any stations without public funding providing for a bulk of the costs. This is doubly true seeing as how there are plenty of build/safety/sales codes/regulations/uncertainties (some big ones: ADA requirements, NEC 625, demand charges, and being treated as a utility if you charge by kWh) in the way of EV chargers and yet companies are still willing to build them (including the automakers themselves).
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          "No matter what profit might be involved, the hydrogen providers *cannot* just rush out and build refueling stations" Who said, "rush"? They've had DECADES to do this. Now who's, "unwilling to accept the reality"?
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          They've had H2 fueling equipment for a long while now. Are you being that obtuse? Or are you so brainwashed by their constant barrage of lobbying efforts, that you are making their excuses for them?
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          "Who said, "rush"? They've had DECADES to do this." The absurdity continues. The legal frameworks doesn't exist now, and it certainly didn't exist prior to now. For you to continue to insist that they should have built an infrastructure in the absence of legal and safety regulations to govern them is asinine.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          --" The real issue is the uncertainty that they'll get their investments back, esp. given there are zero HFCVs for sale right now. " Spot on... Automakers and Oil/Gas companies can make all the excuses they like about why they haven't done what they said was right around the corner so many times... but THAT is what it boils down to. They do NOT want to accept such high risks... they want to privatize profits, and socialize the risks. But we have a great example of how a single startup automaker decided that if a standard does not exist, or is insufficient... to hell with 'em... they'll do it themselves, and even face the incoming litigation if need be. Tesla doesn't have a fast charging standard it likes, it creates an infrastructure anyway... doesn't much care for franchise networks either... screw 'em, Honey Badger doesn't give a frack. Bottom line... if it were truly a good profitable venture with reasonable risk... companies would have found ways. Instead, what we see is a lot of talk... and clamoring for the state to take on the bulk of the risk.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          The infrastructure, along with the building/safety codes and sales regulations, are the last hurdle. The automakers couldn't do anything about it, and the hydrogen suppliers couldn't do anything until they got the go-ahead from the state and Feds. No doubt there will be delays - there generally are in any large scale undertaking - but all the technical issues are sorted, so now it's a matter of getting the legal framework set up so the market can begin to operate.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          "Building codes/safety codes are not enough to stop hydrogen stations. After all, we have 10 where the building codes did not get in the way." You are aware that those were experimental/prototype stations that were built with special approval in order to help develop the building codes? It's not like they were just built without any consultation with local and higher regulatory agencies... If you think anyone builds anything without getting permission from the local building/permitting department, you are sadly mistaken. Even more so if you think that several large multi-national energy providers are willing to risk the liability of moving even a shovelful of earth without knowing exactly what the code requirements will be. Even getting permission to build a normal gas station can take years in order to get approval. Fortunately, the stakeholders are all very willing to work together. The automakers have demonstrated their FCVs, the energy providers have demonstrated their capability to provide refueling, and now (appropriately well scheduled) the government agencies are introducing legislation to cover funding and regulation of the infrastructure. Do note, that a very important aspect of the overall legislation is codes and standards regulating EVSEs... Even EVSEs have been held back by a lack of appropriate legislative attention.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          "They've had H2 fueling equipment for a long while now." Do you think the equipment they use now is the same as what they used a decade ago? You seem to have an extremely simplistic view of the refueling process, the equipment specs, the safety precautions, the measurement procedures, the construction requirements... It's a very complicated system, and the hydrogen providers have cooperated diligently with the automakers and the government agencies - and they've made remarkable progress. Still, there are issues to be finalized before mass commercialization begins. Do yourself a favor, and get informed. Start with this website: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress12_safety.html "The Safety, Codes and Standards sub-program supports research and development (R&D) to provide an experimentally validated fundamental understanding of the relevant physics, critical data, and safety information needed to define the requirements for technically sound and defensible codes and standards. This information is used to help facilitate and enable the widespread deployment and commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the sub-program continued to identify and evaluate safety and risk management measures that can be used to define the requirements and close the gaps in codes and standards in a timely manner. The sub-program promotes collaboration among government, industry, codes and standards development organizations, universities, and national laboratories in an effort to harmonize regulations, codes, and standards (RCS), both internationally and domestically. Communication and collaboration among codes and standards stakeholders is emphasized in order to maximize the impact of the sub-program’s efforts and activities in international RCS. The sub-program is leading a round-robin testing effort by the Regulations, Codes and Standards Working Group of the International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy, which aims to harmonize high-pressure tank-testing measurement protocols required for tank certification. In addition, in December 2011, a Global Technical Regulation on hydrogen-fueled vehicles was submitted to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Party 29 (UN ECE WP.29). This regulation will serve as the technical underpinning for the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The sub-program utilizes the expertise of the Hydrogen Safety Panel to disseminate relevant information and implement safe practices pertaining to the operation, handling, and use of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in Program-funded projects. The Safety Panel provides recommendations on the safe conduct of project work as well as lessons-learned and best practices that can be of broad benefit to the Program. The subprogram continues to share current safety information and knowledge with the community. "
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          " What I'm saying is if they wanted to build all 100 of these stations with their own funding (rather than grants providing a bulk of the funding), there is nothing stopping them, and the CA government would happily agree for that to happen and remove any regulatory barriers along the way. Building codes/safety codes are just an excuse." I can see now that you are unwilling to accept the reality of how business works. No matter what profit might be involved, the hydrogen providers *cannot* just rush out and build refueling stations, and no, the government will *not* just give them free reign to build however they want. Your opinion that any business would operate that way is absurd.
      Actionable Mango
      • 1 Year Ago
      What a strange location for the fillup.. the hatch door? So the Hydrogen then goes up the hatch door, through a hinge to the roof, then down a pillar to the tank?
        Letstakeawalk
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        The refueling access is above the rear wheel on the passenger side. The outlet behind the license plate is indeed a data port. http://assets.slate.wvu.edu/resources/1117/1373636960.jpg This attached image shows the Equinox being refueled on the side, with the data acquisition plugged into the rear. This was a part of "Project Driveway" - in order to capture real everyday driving data. Commercial production FCVs will not need to have a separate data cable.
          Aaron
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          That's a much better picture for the article. I was wondering the same thing about the location of the filler. I wonder what the logic is to have the data cable in a location not even close to the filler. Seems strange to me.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        Here's a report that was published yesterday, on the 30th of Sept., that speaks to those codes that I have often mentioned. The creation of codes and standards regarding hydrogen refueling is an ongoing process: http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/Hydrogen%20Matrix.pdf Having a data connection between an FCV and the refueling pump is optional. In prototype testing, it is of course very useful, but in a commercial market, not required. Here are the standards being developed for hydrogen refueling : http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/2.1.7.2.htm "SAE TIR J2601 establishes safety limits and performance requirements for gaseous hydrogen fuel dispensers. The criteria include maximum fuel temperature at the dispenser nozzle, the maximum fuel flow rate, the maximum rate of pressure increase and other performance criteria based on the cooling capability of the station’s dispenser. This document establishes fueling guidelines for “non-communication fueling” in the absence of vehicle communication and guidelines for “communication fueling” when specified information is transmitted from the vehicle and verified at the dispenser. The process by which fueling is optimized using vehicle-transmitted information is specified. This document provides details of the communication data transmission protocol. The mechanical connector geometry is not covered in this document. SAE J2600 defines the connector requirements for fueling vehicles operating with a nominal working pressure of 35 MPa. SAE TIR J2799 defines the mechanical connector geometry for fueling vehicles to 70 MPa and also provides specifications for the hardware for vehicle-to-station dispenser communication. It is expected that SAE J2600 will be revised to include the receptacle content of SAE TIR J2799, in which case the resulting SAE J2600 will provide connector hardware requirements for gaseous hydrogen fueling at all working pressures. The vehicle-to-station communication portion of SAE TIR J2799 is to be integrated into SAE TIR J2601 in the next revision, and it is planned that the 70 MPa nozzle in SAE TIR J2799 will be replaced by SAE J2600. This document applies to light duty vehicle fueling for vehicles with storage capacity from 1 to 10 kg for 70 MPa and 1 to 7.5 kg for 35 MPa. It is intended to be revised in the next two years to include separate requirements for fueling heavy duty vehicles and motorcycles, forklifts and also for residential hydrogen fueling appliances. Since there is a significant difference between the onboard storage capacity of heavy-duty and light-duty vehicles, the performance specifications could be different."
        Dave
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        That's a data cable, I believe. That is not the filler hose - it is much thicker.
          Chris M
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Dave
          Correct. The photo is of an early prototype, it had to have a data cable plugged in to the H2 pump as well as a separate H2 refueling connector, so the car could signal the pump to start dispensing. Not sure how later models handled it, whether they integrated the data cable into the refueling connector, or maybe using a wireless near-field communication link.
        Actionable Mango
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        Thanks for the answers everyone. I thought it looked a little skinny for a filler hose, but what do I know?
      Koenigsegg
      • 1 Year Ago
      hydrogen isnt exactly clean so i dont know why it is even a consideration another large sum of money being wasted
      Dave
      • 1 Year Ago
      "Taiyo Nippon Sanso Corporation (TNSC) of Japan has just introduced its own low-cost, compact, portable hydrogen fueling station called Hydro Shuttle... TNSC has stated, “TNSC has integrated the dispenser, pre-cooling device, compressor, and storage vessel — the four major devices that comprise hydrogen stations — into a single unit, thereby significantly reducing fabrication and installation costs." http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/uncategorized/tnsc-of-japan-introduces-hydro-shuttle-fueling-station/
      John Bailo
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is fantastic. California will be ready to accept the production model FCVs that Hyundai and Toyota and others will deliver!
        paulwesterberg
        • 1 Year Ago
        @John Bailo
        $20 million will not pay for very many hydrogen fuel stations. Building those stations still requires a business investment that will need to be paid back despite low utilization during the initial years of operation. This investment may be difficult to justify even with grants and tax credits.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @paulwesterberg
          That might be 20 stations per year... we'll have to see how the funding gets allocated.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @paulwesterberg
          Thanks for the added detail JakeY. 20 would be the maximum that I would expect to be funded with $20 million, assuming $1 million per station with an equal match. I agree that a lesser number is more likely, and considering the goal is 100 stations over 10 years, 10 stations per year is a very likely number.
          JakeY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @paulwesterberg
          @Letstakeawalk A recent allocation of $18.7 million in July 2013 will only result in 7 stations (and that doesn't include matching funds yet). If you leave out the $6.7 million used for testing/upgrading existing stations, that's still $12 million for 7 stations, or about $1.7 million per station. http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2013_releases/2013-06-12_award_expand_CA_hydrogen_fueling_stations_nr.html
      Dave
      • 1 Year Ago
      "Technology company The Linde Group has developed a new storage technology that will enable a much more efficient transport of larger amounts of hydrogen. The new solution works at a higher pressure of 500 bar (7,250 psi) and uses new, lighter storage materials to more than double the amount of compressed gaseous hydrogen (CGH2) that can be transported in a single truck load. Successful field tests with the first reference customer have confirmed the clear benefits of the 500-bar technology over conventional 200-bar systems..... A single trailer can transport over 1,100 kilograms, or 13,000 normal cubic metres, of hydrogen gas. In addition, the trailers can now be filled and emptied in less than 60 minutes." http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130925-902574.html
    • Load More Comments