BMW Teams With Shell To Design Hydrogen Fueling Station

1 month ago by Jeff Perez 82

BMW Hydrogen Fueling Station

Goodbye clunky gas pumps, hello hydrogen.

BMW Group subsidiary Designworks together with Shell have a strategy in place to make the hydrogen fuel pump, dare I say, sexy. The two companies have partnered to create a fueling station that not only looks good, but improves the overall refueling experience.

Thanks to an innovative and holistic research and design process known as “Fixstern,” or “Fixed Star,” the team was able to create a futuristic design centered around the fueling stations.

Here’s how. Thanks to an innovative and holistic research and design process known as “Fixstern,” or “Fixed Star,” the team was able to create a futuristic design centered around the fueling stations. The final result is dubbed the Oasis concept.

Doing away with typical H- and L-shaped fuel dispensers, Oasis uses an I-shaped pillar instead that frees up space and acts as a focal point. The concept draws its inspiration from nature, rising upwards to create a beacon that can be seen from a distance.

All the mechanical parts have been made invisible to the user. A light guidance system and an information screen allow ease of usability, as does a streamlined nozzle. The new pick-up and mounting system is “highly intuitive,” says the company.

“Customers are at the heart of what we do,” said Oliver Bishop, Hydrogen General Manager at Shell. “We are pleased to have collaborated with Designworks in the development of a new hydrogen dispenser that will allow us to provide customers an improved hydrogen experience. It will not only make refuelling seamless, it will also help make hydrogen fuel an even more attractive option in the future.”

The new Oasis refueling system is all part of BMW’s push towards a more efficient future. Already the company has committed to installing more than 100 EV charging stations throughout a number of U.S. national parks. A low-volume hydrogen model is also expected by 2021.

So for now, the station and future models are more in the “for show” category.

Tags: , ,

82 responses to "BMW Teams With Shell To Design Hydrogen Fueling Station"

  1. Stimpy says:

    And I bet this fancy hydrogen station would only cost $3M per instead of the usual $2M per. LOL!

    How many tens (or hundreds?) of 150+ kW plugs could that pay for instead?

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Just check existing projects, like DC Fast Chargers for California’s Interregional Corridors:
      http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/transportation.html#GFO-15-603
      http://www.energy.ca.gov/altfuels/notices/2016-11-10_NOA_GFO-15-603.pdf
      Around 14 millions. First 3:
      #10: 5 sites on 118 miles, $868,749 from taxpayers + $500,680 from builder.
      #21: 6 sites on 175 miles, $1,001,072 + $477,639
      #35: 6 sites on 155 miles, $1,050,000 + $392,980
      Or $4,291,120 for 17 sites on 448 miles if I didn’t make errors.

      You can cover the same with 3 hydrogen stations every 149 miles. So you have a choice:
      1. E.g SARTA bus station was $1.9 million, can dispense some 300-1000 kg H2 daily and has 9,000-gallon (2,411 kg liquid H2) tank.
      http://www.dispatch.com/news/20161228/sartas-hydrogen-station-at-ready
      Fancy design is optional, but it is certainly not 1 million extra if you want it.

      2. Or you can cover the same distance with 50 kWh chargers, one charger every 21 miles, can serve just a single car in 1-2 hours, needs to charge even slower than that at 0-5% and at 70-100%, and is of no use for normal consumers for cross state travel. Or you can add more, for over 1 million per site like in VW Electrify America proposal, and have 5x 150-350 kW chargers per site, that would be more acceptable to consumers, but would be still no match by throughput and scalability to hydrogen stations, would have the same state of charge limitations, stress out electric grid and only few expensive cars would have super-batteries capable of surviving this charging power.

      Or you can have both and let buyers themselves to decide what they want instead of these silly fanboy trolling and flaming wars.

      1. Musicious says:

        You are forgetting the huge issue that hydrogen cannot be refueled at home like plugging in an electric car, so every 150 miles is NOT sufficient for people to adopt it unless they live within a few miles of one of those to fill up 1-2x every WEEK. A BEV takes seconds to plugin nightly with maybe 1 or 2 trips a year requiring a supercharger. Those who can’t install a 240v outlet at home likely won’t buy an EV anyway.

        1. SJC says:

          The Honda Clarity had a home FC station 10 years ago.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            You mean, Honda demonstrated a prototype home fuel cell energy system.

            They didn’t market it, because of course the infrastructure is far too expensive to make economic sense… just as it is for hydrogen fueling stations for “fool cell” cars.

        2. SparkEV says:

          Yup. zzzz forgets that home charging is HUGE (huuuuugge as Prez Dump might say). Not being able to charge at home means you need H stations as numerous as gas stations. You wouldn’t drive 140 miles round trip to fill up your H tank every week.

        3. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Musicious:
          “You are forgetting the huge issue that hydrogen cannot be refueled at home like plugging in an electric car, so every 150 miles is NOT sufficient for people to adopt it unless they live within a few miles of one of those to fill up 1-2x every WEEK. ”

          This is both “issue” and business case for hydrogen stations. You don’t have business case when your customers come few times a year during holiday travel only, and you need to maintain full maximum capacity and throughput over the whole year. On road charging doesn’t scale well and isn’t very flexible. At least until some super-cheap super-capacitors are invented, then it may change.

          You are also forgetting that around half of the world population doesn’t have electrified parking or access to unlimited cheap electricity. Many don’t even have reliable electric grid, and household electric consumption is just fraction of what battery cars would require, unlike in the US.

          1. SparkEV says:

            If you’re talking business case, H has no hope. Since FCEV will never provide any benefit over gas cars for the end user, it’s dead compared to gassers. If there aren’t enough FCEV due to poorer experience compared to gassers, there is no business case to build H stations.

            At least BEV provide home charging benefit, and business case for public charging can be made for the numerous BEV on the road. Unfortunately, only way to make decent money at this time seem to be if you’re the electric company.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              FCEV provides the same benefits as any electric car – smooth acceleration, no significant noise and vibration and not tailpipe emissions.
              In addition it doesn’t depend on availability of home charging and mercy of your electric utility monopoly. Typically you don’t have monopoly of refueling stations. Fuel cost will go down, but upfront cost is more important than fuel cost.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        zzzzzzzzzzzz promoted the “hydrogen economy” hoax yet again:

        “You can cover the same with 3 hydrogen stations every 149 miles.”

        Total B.S., and you know it, mister “fool cell” fanboy.

        Hydrogen fueling stations cost about $1 million for each dozen cars served per day. (About $2 million for servicing 24 cars, or $3 million for 3 dozen.)

        Those EV fast charging stations, most or all with multiple charging stalls, will service many, many more cars per day, at a far cheaper price — both for the infrastructure and for the energy.

      3. Martin Winlow says:

        What complete tripe. Just about every statement you make is completely wrong. Eg “(one rapid charger) can serve just a single car in 1-2 hours”. Typically, EVs use these for 30 minutes or less at a time. So you are out by a factor of 4. Much the same can be said for all your other points. Just plain rubbish.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          “Typically, EVs use these for 30 minutes or less at a time.”

          You can of course charge even for 3 minutes if you have nothing else to do. But you will need to stop sooner and total time to get range equivalent to 2-3 minute refueling would be the same.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            The fact that you feel the need to keep posting B.S. is sufficient proof that you don’t believe your own propaganda.

            Nobody can refuel a “fool cell” car in only 2-3 minutes. In the real world, it generally takes about 10 minutes, or at a minimum 5 minutes.

  2. jelloslug says:

    They should team up with VW and make dozens of futuristic renderings and talk about how they will be the leader in the market soon.

    1. Mister G says:

      LOL…That’s the plan LOL

    2. ffbj says:

      Here is story from 2008 on a station opening in MO. Now they have a grand total of 1, 9 years later. Hydrogen is just a joke.
      http://news.mst.edu/2008/08/ribboncutting_planned_for_miss/

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        It would be more accurate to say it’s a hoax, promoted to further the agenda of Big Oil.

        A very expensive (to taxpayers) hoax.

        1. mx says:

          True. So, I’ll just slip this here.

          Hydrogen stations make excellent explosive terrorist targets.
          Hydrogen stations are very expensive, cost per station: $1.5 Million, who is going to be forced to pay for this?
          Hydrogen stations not pumping at the 10,000 psi required, you’re only getting Half Charges!

          Difficult to make hydrogen and store it.  
          Hydrogen isn’t a source of energy, you can’t mine it, you can convert something else to hydrogen, like methane, but then you lose energy in the process.  
          Hydrogen from water( in a global drought? ), is extremely inefficient.  
          Hydrogen from methane gives you No Help with global warming, it actually makes things worse.  As methane wells typically leak like sieves
          Hydrogen must be supercooled and compressed to 10,000 psi to store sufficient energy, which requires lots of energy.
          Burning it as a fuel is less than 50% efficient.
          The energy to do all this could be used to directly run an EV from a battery, and get you Twice as far.
          Hydrogen likes to leak.
          Hydrogen has a general problem of metal embrittlement, so you need special tanks.
          – Hydrogen tanks only certified for 15 years???

          Hydrogen leaks as an invisible gas.
          Hydrogen is extremely flammable with an invisible flame.
          Right now hydrogen is a loser vs. current batteries, not to speak of the battery chemistry in the coming solid state batteries.
          Chevy Volt gets better MPG, at a Lower Price, and allows you to use cheap solar energy for your fuel, and hydrogen does not. We will not run out of gas during the EV conversion process.
          Platinum in the fuel cell = expensive.

          Hydrogen time refueling vs. solar.
          Solar: You plug in at your home, Time 60 seconds.
          Hydrogen: You drive 20 minutes, or to California, to the station 10 minute refuel, 20 minutes back home: 50 minutes lost.

          Hydrogen Cars were built on the premise that we’d need a “Bridge Fuel” to EV’s, however battery tech has advanced so rapidly that there is no need for a bridge, especially one as wasteful and expensive as this.

          http://gas2.org/2015/03/10/vancouver-ends-hydrogen-bus-program-amid-high-costs/

          EV’s running on Solar helps pay off your Solar investment 20%-40% faster = More PROFITS to YOU.

          A single H2 fueling station can service 36 cars per day. (The highest volume ones service between 24-36 FCEVs.) Compare to ordinary gas stations, which service an average of ~1100 cars per day (some say 2500/day).

          1. John Doe says:

            In 2004, we used to manufacture hydrogen from solar energy, at the university I studied at in Norway.
            We had an underground tank for the hydrogen, and a fuel cell to make it back to electricity – if needed.
            We also made a super primitive hydrogen fuel cell car from an old tiny Peugeot ICE car. The only problem we had was the tank. We used lower pressure then on new modern cars. So we had to add a bigger tank, and remove the back seats.
            Still, it worked for 2 years witn a lot of use. Free transportation for students is popular. We took it apart before the government wanted to have the car in for the mandatory biennial check.
            I see no problem in having a solar cell system on the roof of a garage, a converter and a storage tank.
            Given volume production, the price would certainly come down.
            Weather it is a market for it, or not – that is another story. For most people an EV would do the job.
            But I feel there is no need to bash the technology. Hydrogen may have a market for large trucks, forklifts, as a back up storage solution for electricity made by solar or wind, and may work as fuel for some ships, and replace diesel in other applications.
            We even converted a lawnmover to hydrogen. A small spare air diving cylinder was enough to work for a good hour.
            Then again… a litium ion battery could do the same job.
            I just don’t think we should bash technology that need to be further developed and industrialized. It has a chance to reduce emissions in some applications.

    3. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      “They should team up with VW and make dozens of futuristic renderings”

      They have no chance to compete with Tesla in futuristic rendering and vaporware market. Tesla is da best, pump the stock!

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Tesla’s cars (or PowerWalls or PowerPacks) are “vaporware”?

        Dude, are you on drugs?

        Now, a method of making hydrogen fuel either easy to handle or affordable — that is vaporware, and you’re promoting it.

  3. SparkEV says:

    I have a feeling there will be over 100 comments. I predict 137.

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      In any hydrogen thread, Pu-Pu is good for 50+ comments all by himself.

      1. William says:

        Nice! Count on PU-PU to get us over the top of 136!

      2. Get Real says:

        LMFAO!

        Sven the fool cell shill is accusing PuPu in advance that he will overrun the posts here and meanwhile, as of now, sven and his alterations to his username has posted 8 TIMES out of 34 total posts!!

        So basically sven is channeling his fuhrer the Trumpster by accusing others of that which he is guilty of himself.

        How ironic and moronic all at the same time.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Sven is certainly very, very determined to promote the “hydrogen economy” hoax!

          Gee, isn’t it odd that all the “fool cell” fanboys posting to InsideEVs are also serial Tesla bashers? What a strange coincidence… 😉

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        sven said:

        “In any hydrogen thread, Pu-Pu is good for 50+ comments all by himself.”

        Hmmm, well this will be #19 for me, and likely the final one for this thread.

        Still, that’s a lot closer to the truth than most of sven’s assertions regarding the “hydrogen economy” hoax.

  4. F150 Brian says:

    I’m not sure hydrogen has a long future in transport, but I wish they’d develop more small fuel cells with portable tanks to replace batteries and propane for remote use (light, heat, etc)

    The feds use them for remote surveillance because they want to minimize the number of trips to hidden cameras, which I think is pretty strong evidence that it performs favourably compared to batteries.

    1. SparkEV says:

      For heat, it’d cost over 4X what propane cost as well as having to get electric version. H is not good for heat unless you burn it.

      But if FC stack cost the same as gas generator, it could be competitive. I find gas generators to be less than 10% efficient, so FC that’s 50% efficient would be bit cheaper even if it cost 4X more for fuel. Problem is, FC stack is very expensive as well as 50X pressure of propane tanks and resulting high cost hoses, fitting, etc.

      1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        SparkEV said:
        “Problem is, . . .[compressed hydrogen is] 50X pressure of propane tanks and resulting high cost hoses, fitting, etc.”

        Actually, there is a pressure reduction valve in the tank so that the H2 leaving the tank and passing through the hoses and fittings into the fuel cell stack is at a very low pressure.

        A group of researchers from Japan recently discovered a new method of producing hydrogen from ammonia at room temperature that might allow the use of ammonia as a H2 storage medium (H2 carrier). These researchers have developed an efficient process for producing H2 and nitrogen by ammonia decomposition that can be initiated rapidly, and can produce H2 at a high rate at room temperature without the need for external heat.

        Their discovery utilizes a simple fundamental physicochemical process, namely adsorption, to operate a reaction with minimal energy input. A pre-treated RuO2/γ-Al2O3 catalyst was exposed to ammonia. The ammonia then adsorbed to the catalyst surface, an exothermic process leading to the production of heat. As a result, the temperature of the catalytic bed increased and eventually exceeded the autoignition temperature of ammonia, resulting in oxidative decomposition of ammonia and the production of hydrogen.

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170429095031.htm

        http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=656

        1. MikeM says:

          Remind me Sven. How do they make Ammonia?

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            I’m glad you asked. 😀 It will be made from excess renewable energy! Recent technological advances will allow countries with abundant/excess renewable solar and wind energy to export it at an industrial scale in the form of ammonia.

            A game-changing metal membrane has been developed in Australia, which allows high-purity hydrogen to be separated from ammonia at an industrial scale. This technology will allow Australia to export renewable hydrogen, created by wind and solar power, in the form of ammonia.

            From the article linked below:
            “[P]rincipal research scientist Michael Dolan said the technology, now being trialled on an industrial scale in Australia, was ‘the missing link‘ that allowed hydrogen to be transported and used as an energy source.”

            “‘One of the great problems with hydrogen is that it’s difficult to transport over long distances because it has such a low density,’ he told ABC News.”

            “‘Ammonia is a very nice way of transporting hydrogen from point A to point B — be it from Australia to Japan, for example — because it actually has a higher hydrogen density than liquid hydrogen.'”

            “The technology the CSIRO has developed can then be applied at the point of use, converting ammonia back into hydrogen for use in transport fleets.”

            “Dr Dolan said the technology had the potential to turn Australia into a renewable energy superpower.”

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916

            Norway is racing Australia to supply hydrogen to Japan for its envisioned hydrogen economy. The hydrogen from Norway and Australia will be created from renewable solar, wind, and hydro electricity, and exported to Japan in very large tanker ships in the form of ammonia.
            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-hydrogen-race-idUSKBN17U1QA

            1. Bill Howland says:

              I cut Sven some slack – he lives in an area when the electric utility is so greedy it is cheaper to refuel his VOLT with gasoline.

              It seems the reason there has been a dearth of information regarding the hydrogen dispensories is that they are in flux.

              I’m curious as to the power consumption to make/and then of course dispense 100,000 BTU (one therm) of hydrogen. But it seems to finally be getting somewhat cheaper than it historically has been.

              Methanol or Ammonia manufacture in locales with excess wind energy at times are another way to possibly reduce the expense of this fuel.

              Any current info you have, or ‘seat of the pants’ calculations to give a ROUGH approximation of costs (I won’t hold you to 5 decimal places, etc) would be appreciated SVEN.

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                Re the cost of hydrogen:

                The founder of the TrueZero (H2 fueling network with 19 stations) had this to say about the current and future cost of H2:
                “The biggest factor is actually scale. So today, to produce the raw hydrogen is actually very inexpensive. It’s probably half or less than half the cost of gasoline. Really where the cost is, is in the new methods of transporting it, the stations themselves. We’re investing a lot in new equipment, and we’re not at the volumes or at the, you know, the technology maturity where it can get cheap. But we’re actually expecting to see hydrogen competitive within gasoline in next 2 or 3 years. Within 5 to 10 years it will probably get lower if not half that of gasoline.”

                TrueZero founder @5:50 into the video:
                https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/videos/toyota-mirai-holy-grail-or-high-tech-mirage-cnet-on-cars-episode-98/

                An Ohio county with H2 buses is currently paying about $4.63 a kilogram for liquid H2, which is shipped 276 miles from Sarnia, Ontario to Canton, OH. It’s $1.9 million fueling station can dispense 400 kilograms of H2 per day, and has a capacity to expand (probably at a lower cost than building the original station). The higher the volume of H2 dispensed, the lower the cost of amortization per kg dispensed. Assuming that the $1.9 million, 400 kg/day H2 fueling station has a 15-year useful life, the amortized cost of the station would add $0.87 to the price of each kg of H2 dispensed, while a 10-year life would add just $1.30/kg to the cost of H2. (400 kg x 365 days x 15 years = 2,190,000 kg, $1,900,000 ÷ 2,190,000 = $0.86/kg)(400 kg x 365 days x 10 years = 1,460,000 kg, $1,900,000 ÷ 1,460,000 = $1.30/kg)
                http://www.cantonrep.com/news/20160825/sarta-readying-hydrogen-pumping-station

                1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                  Re the power consumption to make then dispense hydrogen a therm of hydrogen:

                  Not exactly what you’re looking for, but the GREET WTW analysis for Total Energy gives the BTU/mile figures for different Hydrogen pathways (including electrolysis) as well as other fuels like electricity, ethanol, and gasoline.

                  https://greet.es.anl.gov/public/images/greet_sample_total_energy.png

                  https://greet.es.anl.gov/results

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              “The technology the CSIRO has developed can then be applied at the point of use, converting ammonia back into hydrogen for use in transport fleets.”

              Tsk. Why waste even more energy to convert it back to hydrogen — and then you’d have to add yet more energy-wasting steps to compress it and dispense it — after you’ve spent the resources and energy to convert hydrogen into a form which is both practical and useful?

              Reminds me of this snark:

              Perhaps they could add a few extra steps:

              1) Use the hydrogen in a fool cell to generate electricity

              2) Use the electricity to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen

              Steps one and two can be repeated as many times as necessary to get to the desired level of inefficiency.

              -– John Hollenberg, comment at InsideEVs.com, September 24, 2015

        2. jelloslug says:

          Great, so now you have to worry about flammable gas leaks AND poisonous gas leaks.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ svengali says:

            Do you also worry about electric current leaks and stray voltage?

            1. jelloslug says:

              Nope

        3. SparkEV says:

          Sven, I’m going by propane tank model where it’s used by Joe Blow for general purpose. To do that, it has to be idiot proof, and high pressure H will cost lot more. Even with propane, there’s pressure reduction near the tank, but that has to be order of magnitude more robust and “Bubba proof” with compressed H.

          Ammonia as H carrier is actually a decent idea if it works out. However, there’s still the problem of cost with FC stack itself. But if they can make it last lot longer than gas engines do on portable generators (eg. > 2000 hours), that could be a solution. That is, if battery tech doesn’t get there first.

          Not sure if anyone’s working on portable generator replacement using FC; there was FC for portable devices, and that was pretty awful compared to batteries.

          https://www.amazon.com/Brunton-Hydrogen-Reactor-Portable-Fuel/dp/B00HJUL93Q

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Fuel cell systems do have their niche, which is where size and weight are at a premium, and cost is unimportant. That makes it attractive for certain military and aerospace applications.

      You wouldn’t want to try to replace propane burners with hydrogen-powered fuel cells for civilian use, because both the equipment and the fuel (compressed hydrogen vs. propane) is much more expensive, not to mention it’s far easier to find a place selling propane than it is one selling compressed hydrogen fuel.

      There’s also the fact that you can leave a propane tank alone for months, and expect it to hold pressure. Not so with hydrogen, which slowly leaks past even the best seals.

  5. philip d says:

    Such a novel idea.

    ” alt=”” />

  6. Seth says:

    Nice render, does it also come to market in 2025 by any chance? Oh, no, it’s 2021. Ok then, that’s totally legit then.

    Fastned in NL is still stuck on some building and planning permits processing for DC fast chargers some 4 years later. So yeah, before we ever see one it’ll be 2025.

    I got another news story today that 85% of all car manufacturer executives still believe hydrogen is going to fix everything and become dominant.

    Meanwhile plain BEVs are cresting 1-2% in the developed world with outliers such as Norway with 25-50%. I just don’t see what hydrogen cars in 5 years would bring to the table of significance.

    Anyhow, the hydrogen development quoted was a cheaper install that would cost just 350.000 euro. (But they never built one yet) at the expense of fueling speed, which would increase to 10 minutes. (Wasn’t that the single most important argument?)

    To be fair though, I see articles proclaiming the breakthrough since 2010. And for electric the argument is pretty similar storywise.

    But it’s now 7 years later and we have 31 hydrogen cars in NL and 15.000 BEVs. Not even counting the 100k plugins. I think it’s pretty clear where we’re going.

    Also, electric with battery is just cheaper to run, period. Hydrogen could never do that.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Seth:
      > Also, electric with battery is just cheaper to run, period. Hydrogen could never do that.

      Nope, once you account for lease payments or auto-loan payments. 102 cu. feet passenger volume Clarity leases for $366 including fuel and options in California. Closest by range 94 cu. feet passenger volume Model S 100D would be some $1400/month plus fuel and maintenance and would still be impossible to refuel in 3 minutes, despite being much more mature technology and several times more expensive to own.
      Battery is cheaper only if you keep it small and light, and use it for commuting or city-roundabout only. This application is not enough for many car buyers.

      1. jelloslug says:

        So you really think that every car manufacturer is going lease $100k+ cars for $366 a month AND give you free fuel?

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ svengali says:

          Do you have a link for your $100K claim? or are your just making it up as you go along/

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        zzzzzzzzzzz said:

        “…Clarity leases for $366 including fuel and options in California.”

        Yeah, Honda will pay for the fuel if you’ll buy one of their fool cell cars.

        Now, why is that? It’s because if car owners actually had to pay the outrageous price for the fuel, Honda wouldn’t be able to sell most of even the pitiful few fool cell cars that it does.

        But hey, zzzzzzzzz will happily “explain” how the future price will drop drastically, because he’s eager to promote the “hydrogen economy” hoax.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Pu-pu:
          Large scale hydrogen production is under $1/kg now. It would be stupid to assume fueling stations can’t reach some $4/kg at pump at large scale when feedstock cost is less than quarter of it.
          Just read some serious studies if you can read, instead of repeating your dogmas.
          E.g.:
          http://newbusfuel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NewBusFuel_D4.2_High-level-techno-economic-summary-report_final.pdf

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            zzzzzzzzzzz continued to promote the “hydrogen economy” hoax:

            “Large scale hydrogen production is under $1/kg now. It would be stupid to assume fueling stations can’t reach some $4/kg at pump at large scale when feedstock cost is less than quarter of it.”

            I’m sure you’ll continue to look at only the front-end cost of generating hydrogen from feedstock. I’m sure you’ll continue to ignore all the other steps in the supply chain, because there’s no practical way to reduce the expense, or the energy wasted in, the multiple energy-losing and expensive steps required to compress, transport, store, re-compress, and dispense the fuel at hydrogen fueling stations.

            Or, they can generate the hydrogen on site, wasting even more energy, raising the price even further, and limiting the number of cars served per day to only 1 dozen per million spent on the fueling station.

            It’s a hoax, plain and simple, to claim this could ever be made practical or affordable.

  7. Roy LeMeur says:

    My question, as usual, is why are these even being reported on here? A Volt or plug-in Prius? OK. If these fool cell vehicles were plug-in hybrids? OK. InsideEVs doesn’t report on non plug-in Prius. Why these?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Jay Cole has explained that the staff here have gotten many, many requests for coverage of “fool cell” cars, even though they aren’t plug-in EVs.

      Sadly, it seems likely the great majority of those requests came from those promoting the “hydrogen economy” hoax for the benefit of Big Oil and/or as an indirect form of Tesla bashing.

      1. Ambulator says:

        Come on, bashing hydrogen is fun! Don’t take that away from me.

        Ok, mostly I just read the comments, but still.

  8. HVACman says:

    LOL! I don’t even know where to start with this press release….it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

    OK – one shot.

    “Futuristic design centered around the fueling stations” says it all.

    “futuristic” (as in – will always be in the future) and

    “centered around the fueling station” – as in – (you’ll always be buying from us and never be able to do this at home).

    OK, I’m outta here. Don’t want to run up Spark EV’s comment-count too much.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      > never be able to do this at home

      You can do it at home if you are some kind of prepper nut or want to have expensive hobby. People did it, google for examples and you can even buy some ready to use solutions if you must. It is in the same ballpark of complexity and expense as going off-grid without fossil fuel backup and charging your Tesla from your personal PowerPack in the evening. I would say hydrogen would be simpler, you can survive on it for the whole winter without scratching ice from your solar PV.

  9. That hydrogen nonsense again? I thought even Toyota and the other hardcore fuel cell proponents already came to the conclusion that hydrogen is not the future, but I guess it’s because German car makers are that far behind (again).

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      You must have read some Fake News. Recently there was some Fake News that the Daimler/Mercedes CEO said that they were abandoning hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles; even InsideEVs carried that Fake News story. Daimler/Mercedes has since denied that their CEO said it will turn away from hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.

      Daimler/Mercedes denial:
      http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109713_did-mercedes-turn-its-back-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles

      InsideEVs incorrect news story claiming Dailmer/Mercedes is abandoning hydrogen FCV:
      http://insideevs.com/daimler-to-says-goodbye-to-fuel-cells-will-focus-on-plug-in-electric-vehicles/

      1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        For the record, in the comments to the InsideEVs story linked above, I said outright that Daimler/Mercedes abandoning HFCVs was “FAKE NEWS.” I was mocked by Poo-Poo, Get Real, and others.
        http://insideevs.com/daimler-to-says-goodbye-to-fuel-cells-will-focus-on-plug-in-electric-vehicles/#comment-1173015

        Poo-Poo said the following:
        “sven said, rather desperately:

        “’Apparently, this is fake news.’”

        “No, but your fool cell fanboy posts certainly qualify!”

        “I’m bookmarking Sven’s post. It will be fun to point and laugh at every time he makes another fool cell fanboy post.”

        Poo-Poo was wrong again, as usual. It sure is fun pointing and laughing at Poo-Poo’s Tesla-shill fanboi post. LOL! What a putz!

        1. ffbj says:

          There have been a lot of stories about companies abandoning Hydrogen, or cutting back on projects. Admissions that Hydrogen is just a dry hole. As far as PUPM goes his anti Hydrogen stance is legendary, but likely correct.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ svengali says:

            ffbj said:
            “As far as PUPM goes his anti Hydrogen stance is legendary. . .”

            But why does Pu-Pu hate Hydrogen so much. Did he lose loved ones in the Hindenburg disaster?

            Too bad Pu-Pu’s anti-oil stance is anything but legendary. He continues to drive around Kansas in a gas-guzzling ICE minivan and refuses to buy an EV, even an inexpensive used EV. At least Rexx-See drove/drives an efficient Prius. (BTW, whatever happened to him?) Pu-Pu is leading the EV revolution from behind . . . from behind the wheel of a gas-guzzling ICE minivan. Double facepalm.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              sven said:

              “But why does Pu-Pu hate Hydrogen so much. Did he lose loved ones in the Hindenburg disaster?”

              Pushy (that’s me) hates it when a forum he spends a lot of time on is used to promote a hoax. In this case, the “hydrogen economy” hoax. Back in the day, Pushy spent a lot of time pointing out Truths back on the old TheEEStory forum, when he posted as “Lensman”, arguing with those promoting perpetual motion or “free energy” scams, such as Andrea Rossi’s fake “E-Cat” reactor.

              Sven also said:

              “Too bad Pu-Pu’s anti-oil stance is anything but legendary. He continues to drive around Kansas in a gas-guzzling ICE minivan…”

              Hmmm, you can remember from my previous posts that our family used to own a minivan, but somehow you can’t remember that I stopped driving some years ago.

              Gosh, it’s almost like you have a habit of ignoring inconvenient facts…

              Sorta like how you’re trying rather hard to deny Daimler (or is it Daimler-Mercedes?) has chosen to end its development of fool cell tech! And other auto makers inevitably to follow.

              See: “Daimler Says Goodbye To Fuel Cells, Will Focus On PHEVs”

              https://ca.motor1.com/news/141285/daimler-abandons-hydrogen-fuel-cells/

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                Too bad the energy density of lithium-ion batteries are nowhere near as dense as your thick head. Stop spreading Fake News. Daimler/Chrysler came out and said that their CEO was misquoted. Green Car Reports updated its story and changed its headline to read as follows:
                Mercedes denies CEO said it will turn away from hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (updated)

                The GCR news story contained the following updates in the body of the article:

                UPDATE: A later article in German on the HZwei blog (zwei is the number 2 in German, and the blog covers hydrogen, or H2) indicates that the Daimler press office later asked that site to correct its reporting.

                A rough translation of the Daimler statement would be: “With the previous orientation, nothing changed. […] We need the hydrogen. […] Daimler sees a future in the fuel cell.

                EDITOR’S NOTE: We have updated this article, first published on April 4, to reflect later coverage alleging that the original source reporting on the blog Smart2Zero reflected a misunderstanding of Zetsche’s actual statement. Our original article left the statement in question, but we have added the later claims by Daimler that its CEO’s statements were misinterpreted.

                http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109713_did-mercedes-turn-its-back-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Repeating a Big Lie doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times it is repeated.

                  “…at the length truth will out.” — William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

      2. jelloslug says:

        MB did say they are not abandoning FC cars, they just are not going to sell them to people though.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Or, reading between the lines: Mercedes-Benz public relations hastily rushes to put spin on its CEO unfortunately blurting out the truth! 😀

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        sven posted more fake news:

        “Daimler/Mercedes has since denied that their CEO said it will turn away from hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.”

        Ah, just repeat the Big Lie often enough, and people will believe it, right Sven?

        Your desperate attempt to label this “fake news” is just “alternative facts”.

        Personally, I prefer real facts and actual Truth. Too bad about you.

        See: “Daimler Steps Back From Fuel-Cell Car Development”

        http://fortune.com/2017/04/02/daimler-fuel-cell-car-development/

        See: “Daimler’s interest in hydrogen fuel cells is waning”

        http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/daimlers-interest-in-hydrogen-fuel-cells-is-waning/8531630/

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          You’re a putz. As I said above, after those Fake News stories came out the Daimler/Mercedes press office said that those news stories were false and that the original source story misquoted its CEO.

          Green Car Reports updated its news story and changed its headline to read as follows:
          Mercedes denies CEO said it will turn away from hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (updated)

          The GCR news story contained the following updates in the body of the article:

          UPDATE: A later article in German on the HZwei blog (zwei is the number 2 in German, and the blog covers hydrogen, or H2) indicates that the Daimler press office later asked that site to correct its reporting.

          A rough translation of the Daimler statement would be: “With the previous orientation, nothing changed. […] We need the hydrogen. […] Daimler sees a future in the fuel cell.”

          EDITOR’S NOTE: We have updated this article, first published on April 4, to reflect later coverage alleging that the original source reporting on the blog Smart2Zero reflected a misunderstanding of Zetsche’s actual statement. Our original article left the statement in question, but we have added the later claims by Daimler that its CEO’s statements were misinterpreted.

          http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109713_did-mercedes-turn-its-back-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles

          InsideEVs should update and correct its Mercedes article that contains the same Fake News.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Pu-pu can’t drive and can’t read, only write 🙁 It is so hopeless to attempt to discuss with him anything.

  10. Ambulator says:

    Hmm, except for the color scheme these really look like Superchargers.

  11. Mister G says:

    FOOL CELLS…LOL

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ svengali says:

      First they ignore you.
      Then they laugh at you.
      Then they fight you.
      Then you win.

      —Mahatma Gandhi

  12. Vexar says:

    Well, this looks like an art project, and BMW can say things like “hey, we’re still making automotive future happen with the i3 and the i8 and the i-don’t-know-when that is coming eventually.” I see the BMW side of things as not a credible direction of their intent to change direction away from EVs.

    What stands out for me in this article is:
    “Shell is making plans for their future” because they are trying to retain their control over the energy market. They see the petrol pump as a dying thing. This is the “next pump.” Shell can’t see beyond the pump.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Shell is unquestionably one of the biggest promoters of the “hydrogen economy” hoax.

      Shell Hydrogen is a full member of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, which is the source of much or most of the propaganda promoting the “hydrogen economy” hoax (which of course is nothing but pro-Big Oil propaganda) posted by “fool cell” fanboy Sven.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Fuel_Cell_Partnership#Full_members

  13. Bacardi says:

    If they’re trying to bring sexy back to refueling stations, perhaps they should start in the restrooms…

  14. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Put all the lipstick on this pig you like, and compressed hydrogen gas is still very nearly the worst possible choice for an everyday transportation fuel. (Dried cow dung may be worse… maybe.)

    Hydrogen fuel is great for large booster rockets. As a fuel for your car, it’s not merely bad, it’s execrable.

    Because, you know… physics.

    The tech looks “sexy”? Well, Jessica Rabbit is sexy, too. Doesn’t mean I want to date a cartoon!

    “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way.” — Jessica Rabbit

  15. Martin Winlow says:

    Hydrogen – here we go again.

    Between this… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_highway … and this … https://www.netinform.de/H2/H2Stations/H2Stations.aspx?Continent=EU&StationID=-1 … it should be clear to even the most dim observer that H2 as an alternative to petrol/diesel is a dead duck.

    If it is too much to ask you to read it all, basically the H2 infrastructure promised by the German government – probably the biggest proponent of H2 for transport globally – has spectacularly failed to materialise. If it isn’t going to work for Germany, it isn’t going to work anywhere else, either.

  16. randomhuman says:

    Oh no…not gain. The fool cell is back promoted by Big Oil. Of course i’ll trust them. I mean who wouldn’t trust Shell. What a joke. I’ll never buy a fool cell car. They’ll never ever force me again to go to a gas/H2 station in the future. BEVs are the future in my point of view. Maybe there is a niche for those fool cell cars but nothing more. Almost all car makers develop and publish BEVs in the next few years. Toyota and Honda should get it slowly by now…

  17. Four Electrics says:

    BMW is a leader in cryo-compressed hydrogen, which offers higher energy densities at lower pressure.

    1. SparkEV says:

      cryo-compressed means you need to keep it cold, which means more wasted energy. It might be fine with good enough “thermos bottle” for use in filling stations that sell out in predictable time (ie, fleet usage), but not good for general purpose vehicle.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        You are thinking in last decade categories.
        There is no deficit of renewable energy and it doesn’t cost $0.50/kWh anymore. New large scale solar PV power purchase agreements are signed at $0.025/kWh in Abu Dhabi or under $0.03/kWh in Mexico without subsidies. Now you can buy a container of PV panels for around $0.30/W. Expect prices to drop even lower with couple of years.
        You are attempting to waste a dollar to save a penny.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Cryo-compression absolutely means more wasted energy. That’s very basic physics, clear-cut thermodynamics.

          Arguing otherwise is being a science denier, pure and simple. You can’t get around the limitations of thermodynamics, regardless of how much wishful thinking “fool cell” fanboys indulge in.

Leave a Reply