California Has 9 More Retail Hydrogen Stations Than A Year Ago – 28 In Total

JUN 29 2017 BY MARK KANE 142

California has increased the number of retail hydrogen stations by 47% year-over-year…and while the percentages look impressive, that brings the running total up to just 28 since we last time checked the status of FCV’s infrastructure.

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Boasts EPA 366-Mile Range Rating, Best of Any Zero-Emission Vehicle

The progress behind the 9 new stations is pretty slow however, as new stations are now being installed slower than a rate of one a month.

The 28th is in the City of Lawndale, and is available for use 24 hours a day.

The unattained, and now several-years old, goal of having 100 stations in California will weigh more and more heavy, as just over 1,700 fuel cell vehicles have been added to the roads over the past 12 months.

“California is working toward a milestone of 100 retail hydrogen stations statewide to support the roll-out of fuel cell electric passenger vehicles. CaFCP and its members are also working on stations for fuel cell buses, and medium-and-heavy duty trucks. We’re also drafting a vision of the next phase of the passenger vehicle commercial launch in California and across the U.S.”

Map of the hydrogen fuel station is available here, while here is list of the individual stations.

Categories: General

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

142 Comments on "California Has 9 More Retail Hydrogen Stations Than A Year Ago – 28 In Total"

newest oldest most voted

That’s like one for every car. Personal hydrogen!

What a sorry waste of money when they could be building out a very complete fast-charging network.

I see that you flunked elementary school math 🙂 1700 cars sold last year. 28 H2 stations. Yes, one station per car.

But here is the real bummer.
One H2 station refuels in 5 minutes from 0 to 100%. One Tesla supercharger stall recharges a Tesla to 80% in 1-2 hours. We only need 1/20th of H2 pumps if H2 can be produced fast enough.

When I am on long drives, I prefer a 5 minute fill up over a 2 hours + wait fill up. Never mind that the size of the fuel cell tank will be same over the years, while the battery capacity of an EV keeps dropping and the charging rate keeps dropping as the car ages or has too many fast charges.

~2 millions dollar a piece? How many Super-Charger for the same price?

Three times the amount of energy required than filling up directly a battery?!?

Only Big Oil/Gas would profit for such a nonsense, keeping us captives of the price THEY decide, on the same network, using dirty poisonous fracked NG to produce the hydrogen.

No thank you. I prefer pluging in my car at night and having a full “tank” each morning 🙂 without never having to stop at a $ervice $tation anymore.

You mean : battery capacity improves at each new generation, and existing ones are expected to last 15-20 years as the statistics shows less wear than expected?

Do you have any idea what it costs to maintain a fool cell? They are not that reliable….

YO! You do realize that on this site, many people know that supercharging a Tesla doesn’t take 2 hours? Also many experienced Tesla travelers know not to charge to full?
They charge to a percentage, move to the next supercharger and time their long charges around their breaks. So they arrive much sooner than charging to full everytime.

Check this link.

From the first post itself, from a guy who sold many Model S.
“Lately, even when we’re the only car at the entire supercharger and the battery is below 10%, the car only charges at 120kW for under 50 miles of range and then continues to reduce the charge speed, basically making a full charge take 2 hours. “

This dishonest debate tactic where you cite what is very obviously a single abnormal, outlier anecdote, and pretend that’s the average or the norm: not working for you, troll.

He’s not wrong about the 50 miles. It does ramp down from 120kW quite quickly. It ramps down after that. It’s still very rapid for quite some time.

As to the two hours, with the paired chargers and various current limits charges can go slower than expected. In fact, until they rebuilt Harris Ranch (Coalinga) recently that station (one of the most popular) was very very unreliable. Any any given time only a small percentage of the chargers would be capable of full speed.

My understanding is that after the rebuild (about a month ago) this situation has improved greatly there.

So anyone who ends up with disappointingly slow charging isn’t necessarily a liar. But that kind of thing is not what Tesla is shooting for and they presumably will work to improve any problems like that that exist.

The rule of thumb for or road trips in the Tesla S85 is, or was, a 30 minute stop very 150 miles. Now, if you have to share a Supercharger, that may extend the charging time somewhat. Between that and wanting more than an 80% charge, some Tesla drivers do spend up to 45 minutes in some cases.

But you, Unlucky, are not exactly unbiased when it comes to bashing Tesla and promoting GM, either. Defending such an obvious troll isn’t exactly your finest hour.


I know where all the liars gather – it is TMC site! Just look how many of them are trying to libel holy Tesla, crowds and crows of them. How evil, they all must be bought by BiG OiL!

You are condemning the message because of the messenger. And then lecturing others for not doing so and saying how they can do better.

Are you proud of this?


I see a Mirai about every other day where I am. I’ve also filled up (on gasoline) at a station that offers hydrogen.

I still don’t know why anyone would get a Mirai. Why would I want to return to going to the gas station on a regular basis?

Advantages over long range BEVs:
– Longest range zero tailpipe sedan (366 EPA miles for clarity)
– Fast refueling
– Much cheaper than comparable range BEVs (Tesla 100D comes close)
– No issue for apartment dwellers to refuel
– Good for larger vehicles, buses and trucks
– Less stress on body frame from excessive battery weight
– H2 tank size doesn’t decrease over time like battery capacity
– Refueling doesn’t slow down with age as in BEVs

– Doesn’t perform as well on quarter mile drag races and starts at traffic stops. How many people do care for that?

So why don’t you drive one, you troll?

There’s no way in hell, that a Mirai is cheaper to fuel than a BEV. What’s the cost of a hundred kW of electricity vs 5 kilograms of cheaper, fracked hydrogen? It’s like $13 vs $70 for hydrogen(again the cheap stuff). You certainly don’t want to start in on the maintenance front! A control BMS, a battery and one or more electric motors vs a control BMS, a battery, a fuel cell stack, high pressure valves and lines, one or more high pressure storage tanks and one or more electric motors.

Lastly, comparing the driving experience of a pure BEV to an FCV is not working in your favor!

You forgot a few cons: -H2 made from natural gas offers no environmental advantage over gasoline -H2 made from electrolysis uses more than twice the electricity of simply charging a battery -FCEVs cannot be home charged -FCEVs cannot be refueled anywhere other than an H2 station (unlike BEVs, which can be charged from any outlet) -There is almost no existing H2 refueling infrastructure (total of 36 current H2 stations in the entire US). H2 refueling stations cost around twice what gasoline filling stations cost to build. Also, since all FCEVs can ONLY refuel at an H2 station, you’ll need to build many more of them than you need to build DC fast chargers for BEVs, as the latter only need to augment home and destination chargers -FCEV fuel cost per mile traveled much higher than either gasoline or electric charging -Compressed H2 tanks are a large, fixed shape and can’t be laid along the bottom of the chassis as batteries are. BEVs thus have more storage space and lower center of gravity -Fuel Cell stacks are far more mechanically complex than batteries – they need compression, decompression, heating and cooling devices in order to work -H2 stored in a compression… Read more »

“-FCEVs cannot be home charged”
That’s not really true. For the insignificant amount of $200K you can buy the H filling station and have your garage explode meth lab style.

Do you have experience in exploding meth labs in your garage? 😉

“H2 stored in a compression tank inevitably leaks over time. Come back from vacation and your full H2 tank isn’t anymore”

This is not true, at least not for current cars. You can leave it for months and nothing will happen. There is liner inside the tank to prevent permeation. The safety standard is some 6 Nml/h/l at full pressure, likely much less in practice.

Probably you got these from some last decade talking points adopted by Tesla evangelists.

zzzz, what is cost per gasoline gallon equivalent of hydrogen, at a dispensery, assuming the ‘free hydrogen for 3 years’ ended? I’m just trying to get info to make a realistic comparison – thank you in advance. You can factor in the reduced usage of a fuel celled car if you wish – in other words, the figure I’m trying to come up with is precisely what is the cost to drive a midsized gasoline car 100 miles vs a mid size Mirai or Clarity 100 miles?

Bill Howland:
Hydrogen fuel is free for full lease time, i.e. 3 years. 90%+ of the people lease it. Who cares what it will cost later for somebody else when you will return the car?
You can only guess how much dispensed price will drop. Part of the stations in CA recently dropped price from $15+ to $9.99 per gge. Further price drops are highly likely over 3 years. DOE has extensive studies published online on H2 fuel costs if you are really interested in learning something new, not just trolling:

Well, I never have and never intend to ‘troll’. Incidentally, I also defended your right to your point of view, against Pushi’s thermodynamic flag-waving nonsense down below. I’m merely trying to get some intelligent information to add to this article.

Obviously inside evs (Jay Cole, Sebastian, et al) considers it an important subject – and while I don’t personally consider fuel celled vehicles electric cars, the point is they do, and the comparison between different types of vehicles is ALWAYS useful.

It rather sounds that what your saying is that currently, it appears hydrogen is less than twice the expense of gasoline for, say 100 miles of travel, and the trajectory of the pricing could conceivably approach current gasoline pricing.

In that case, I could see your point that H2 vehicles make sense in certain places – especially those that are ‘electricity starved’.

Of course, its a moving goal post since energy generation costs, including wind and solar technologies, are also on a decreasing trend.

Cons: I can’t fill it up in my garage. I can’t fill it up at work. It’s not easier for apartment dwellers to refuel than an EV (unless one of the few stations is right next door). I’m not sure why you list hydrogen advantages for huge vehicles. I’m talking about a Mirai, not a bus. Nor the range of a Clarity, I’m talking about a Mirai (Marai range is 312 miles). Less stress on frame is a complete joke. Make the frame strong enough. Problem solved. You’re right the tank won’t shrink over time, but the fuel cell efficiency might drop and reduce range. We’ll see. And it isn’t zero tailpipe, water is a greenhouse gas. I have looked at the vehicles, you’re not telling me anything new. But I still don’t understand why anyone would get one. I’m not interested in going to the gas station regularly. With a BEV I don’t do that. My BEV is plugged in at home right now. And I didn’t have to drive anywhere special to do it. I’ll leave tomorrow morning with 235 miles range, more than enough to cover the entire day (and the next) so I won’t have to… Read more »

Apparently the Mirai condenses its water, so it isn’t emitted as gas/vapor. I don’t know if the Clarity does, the BMW 7 series hydrogen didn’t. The conversion process is also cool enough that no significant amounts of NOx are produced.

Elooney Muskey said:

“Advantages over long range BEVs:”

Wow, how many EV-hater lies lies was that in one post? I count at least five. If you’re gonna crib from “The EV-Hater’s Guide to Hating Electric Cars”, then you should cite your source:

But I don’t think this troll actually expects his lies to be believed; they’re too obvious.

BTW, troll, BEVs don’t have a “do not refuel after…” expiration date, like fool cell cars do. One of those “inconvenient facts” you “forgot” to mention.

Now, why don’t you go post on a Coal Rolling forum, where your EV bashing might actually be appreciated? Oh, that’s right… you’re just here to disrupt useful discussion and get people peed off at you.

“Doesn’t perform as well on quarter mile drag races and starts at traffic stops” or in anyway at all. Also, it looks like a practical joke.

Trolling aside, in addition to the ridiculousness of a hydrogen infrastructure, the longevity of the fuel cell itself is unproven. Their membranes have been a weak point in the past. Toyota claims to have made progress here, but the Maria hasn’t been in the wild long enough. By contrast, some Teslas have hit 200k and the battery durability is getting even better. We’re likely to see batteries last the lifetime of the car.

Can the fuel cell maintain its efficiency from the factory forever? If not, the fact that the fuel tank doesn’t get smaller over time really is irrelevant because the decline in performance has the same effect.

“One H2 station refuels in 5 minutes from 0 to 100%.”

if the station is actually open. Many are closed for days or weeks at at time.

if the station isn’t out of fuel, which happens a lot at stations which generate it on-site… very slowly.

if the station isn’t restricting customers to 1/2 a tank.

if the station has no waiting line.

I wonder what the real-world odds are of getting that lucky?

“One Tesla supercharger stall recharges a Tesla to 80% in 1-2 hours.”

But typical charging, at home, takes about 30 seconds to plug in at night, and another 30 seconds to unplug in the morning. Kinda hard to do that with a fool cell car.

And speaking of flunking elementary school math: you mean 1/2 hour to charge to 80% at a Supercharger stall.

30 minutes is optimistic. Tesla claims about 170 miles for a model S after a half hour on a stall.

That’s a lot of range for certain. But it isn’t 80%. Tesla claims 199 miles after 40 minutes. 80% of a 100D is 252 miles. Tesla says that’ll take 58 minutes.

(source: use calculator at bottom, set to roadtrip)

Elooney is closer to right than you are here. An hour, not 30 minutes. But not 2 hours, not coming in with an empty, relatively fresh battery.

If you are only feeding on Tesla marketing blogs and Elon’s tweets, you are living in a simulated world. Those are ideal and optimistic, like if you start from 0%. What is the chance you arrive at the charger with 0% charge?
Real world experiences are quite different.

Yes, the rates are different if you come in with more than 0% remaining. Especially if you come in with significantly more. I alluded to this in my post.

It’s not just one side giving the most optimistic charging/fueling times here. I don’t think you should get overly worried about others doing it when you do it yourself.

“Elooney is closer to right than you are here.”

That’s complete B.S.

If you want to get tarred with the same EV-hater brush as that troll, you’re certainly well on your way to accomplishing that goal.

If I wanted to get tarred by you all I have to do is tell the truth when in conflicts with your own lies. And it’s already happened a lot. So I’m clearly not worried about your tarbrush.

I find it insane that I showed Tesla doesn’t even agree with you but instead agrees more with the other poster and you then attack me.

You screwed up and gave a wrong figure. Tesla’s own site shows this. No harm in admitting your error. You could work on finding a way to admitting and correcting your own mistakes so you can make fewer in the future.

“I’m clearly not worried about your tarbrush..”

and precisely No One else is, either..

Anyone who has read the comments here for a week reads exactly None of ‘those’ posts (who in Hell has That Much Time?)and already knows the scroll-wheel damaging routine we must endure.

Since the site cannot allow us to Ignore the useless and his horde, how about an Avatar (we Know how Important Those are!!!) that shows we Have been ‘Tarred’ by useless and his horde? No? ah, hell, I thought the mods had some humor left.. kdawg, designs? LOL.

warning!! this post was written by an oil-shilling,H2-embracing,Tesla-questioning FUD-reading,EV-hating,FUD FUD FUDdy duddy M3 reservationist – these words are harmful!
ASK the HORDE (they’re Really EZ to find – every article, 10 posts)!
They’ll TELL you what is Safe to read, so you don’t need to be bothered with coming to your own conclusion!

Dr. Miguelito Loveless

1-2 hours?

Try 30 minutes.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Give me a call when you can drive an H2 car from California to New York with less planning required than than a climb of Everest’s north face.

Until then, my next car is going to be a BEV.

Years from now people can come back to see the recorded negativity, of course people are SO brave when they are anonymous.

Let the fool cell bashing begin!

No need, they are doing a good job of it on their own.

Is it bashing to point out the reality? I still don’t understand the benefit of FCEV over ICE cars for the end user.

The benefit is zero tailpipe emissions with a path towards 100% renewable energy, with five minute refuels, and without the compromises (mainly reduced freedom) of an BEV. The the real question to ask is what advantages a BEV has over an FCEV.

Right now I can drive from LA to Tahoe with one short stop in an FCEV: fueling takes minutes, not hours. Further, I don’t have to remember to plug in when I get home, assuming I have the ability to install a home charger at all. I can refuel to 366 miles of range multiple times in a single day, all without lugging around a thousand pounds of battery. On long trips, I don’t have to worry about the heater and A/C creating an extra half hour charging session. Finally, I can take advantage of distributed electrolysis and other hydrogen infrastructure that will emerge to cheaply store spilled solar and wind energy.

Except a supercharger doesn’t charge it for hours, iwe usually plug in, go to lunch and come back less than one hour later and drive off.

I agree it can be annoying to always have lunch next to a supercharger instead of a more random place when on a road trip, but at least I am not hanging around waiting for it to be refueled.

And in my day to day local driving I just plug in at night and it is full in the morning without babysitting the refueling process.

So I see the advantage if you are on a tour de force trying to get to your destination with minimum of time stopped along the way, but that’s not what my road trips look like, and road trips are also much less frequent than daily driving. Teslas clear advantage on the road trip is the autopilot. So once Toyota has that in its Mirai or Honda in its clarity it is not going to be attractive to me for the same reason as I would not drive SF to LA in a Honda Odyssey but rather fly until we replaced it with the Model X.

> Michael Will:
You need to get back in touch with reality and look at price sticker of Model S or X. These cars are irrelevant for mass market, they are just tech toys for few and it doesn’t look like they will lead anywhere despite all the high hopes and hot air about sub $30k Model 3 in 2014 as Musk promised in 2009.

Toyota or Honda produce for mass market and with this pilot deployment they show what can be done for mass market, not just whatever segment of luxury vehicles.

It’s a fricking prius that sells for $50K…talk about getting back in touch with reality.

Well technically you can’t even buy one – only lease.

Toyota’s website makes it seem like they’ll actually sell someone one if they’re that enamored with it, it’s Honda that is pathologically afraid of selling their ZEVs.

zzzzzzzzzzz made yet another fool cell fanboy post:

“Toyota or Honda produce for mass market and with this pilot deployment they show what can be done for mass market…”

Surely even as a science-denying fool cell fanboy, you cannot actually believe that demand will ever be high enough to justify putting fool cell cars into full mass production?

It’s really sad when people start believing their own lies.

It is sad that people from last decade like Pu-pu who don’t even drive anymore just post and post and post the same exclamations over and over again without anything to back up their trolling and don’t bother to update their closed minds with up to date information.

“…people from last decade like Pu-pu who don’t even drive anymore just post and post and post the same exclamations over and over again…”

This coming from fool cell fanboy who does not own or drive a fool cell car.

You’re completely blind to your own hypocrisy, aren’t you?

Amazingly enough, having started driving at age 14, and having driven everything from a grain truck that had to be double-clutched to a propane powered farm tractor to a postwar Ford pickup to a first-generation Honda Insight, I think I have an informed opinion regarding driving and different types of vehicles.

How about you, Mr. science-denying Big Oil Shill? Wanna put up your bonafides about your extensive experience with driving different types of vehicles?

Or maybe you prefer to be like “Four Electrics”, and pretend to own a Tesla car only for the purpose of more Tesla bashing.

I think your tin foil hat is a bit too tight, you may consider to loosen it a bit 😉

“The benefit is zero tailpipe emissions with a path towards 100% renewable energy”

As an end user, I don’t give a crap about that. Very few people give a damn about “zero emissions” as can be seen from all the solo drivers in giant SUV/trucks in your commute. All I know is I have to go fill up the damn thing just like a gasser.

So again, what advantage does FCEV bring compared to gassers for the end user, which most don’t give a rats tail about emissions?

And don’t get into a tangent about long trip to Tahoe compared to BEV. It would’ve been far more expedient to fly than to deal with all the traffic and hours and hours of driving. And even for that, FCEV has zero advantage over ICE cars.

BEVs have a path to 5 minute fueling with solid state batteries too. Without the higher cost, lower efficiency, and higher complexity of fool cells.

Compromises? How’s standing in the cold freezing my arse off, while fueling my wife’s car with a slow pump? While my EV charges in the garage at home.

You still have to carry the hydrogen tank and fuel stack, empty, full or whatever and there not light.
The Mirai 4 places weight 4 150 pounds and the 7 places Tesla just under 5 000 pounds.
Per passenger.
Per passenger the Mirai weight 323 pounds more.

Easy to twist the number, don’t you think Muskey?

BTW, How is your Mirai driving?

Electric Hulk, BASH!

waste of money…

How much hydrogen can each station dispense? In the past, they were really crappy and can only do half tank at best and took a long time to build up pressure.

After then first car they are about the same speed as a Tesla Supercharger.

It shows all of them are H70 (10KPSI) capable now. One in Anaheim is only 10KSPI. But two stations are offline.

“It” being what? The website for the California Fuel Cell Partnership, the same source of info that keeps telling us that hundreds of H2 fueling stations are under construction and will soon be completed?

I’d prefer an independent source of info, one that might at least have a chance of not lying.

* * * * *

An article from July 2015:
“CA Fuel-Cell Car Drivers Say Hydrogen Fuel Unavailable, Stations Don’t Work (UPDATED)”

An article from April 2015:
“Japan Admits It Won’t Reach Hydrogen Fuel Cell Filling Station Goal For 2016”

Have things improved since? I dunno, my Google-fu has failed to find any recent reports from actual FCEV drivers, and not just more “fool cell fanboy” propaganda from the California Fuel Cell Partnership or Toyota.

See the link pointed out in the article. Something I noticed is that many of these stations are not open at night (eg. only from 7AM to 10PM). What’s the reason for this? I would think after 10PM would result in cheaper electricity.

Shhhh! We must not let reality intrude into the beliefs of fool cell fanboys. For some odd reason, their number seems to be rapidly dwindling over the past year or so. Gee, I wonder why?


They are probably dismayed by your fact-free bigoted bullying. I know I am. Stick to Twitter: abuse like yours is expected there. On this site, the goal is one of mutual respect tolerance, along with informative posts that enhance public discourse.

Four electrics – since you are a fuel cell enthusiast – I’m asking all you guys the same question. Have you made a comparison of the cost to drive a midsized BEV, gasoline car, and Fuel celled (like the Mirai or Clarity – I assume these are basically midsized cars). I’m not quite sure how to characterize my BOLT ev since it is so space efficient, but inside – it seems to be somewhere between a compact and a midsize. My ELR costs about $1.80 to charge – assuming 38 miles (drops to this with highway driving) and 12 cents/kwh. Whereas the 89 octane required (seems to run just fine on this ‘mid-grade’ gasoline) is around $2.50 which coincidentally will also push the car 38 miles. My BOLT ev seems a little more efficient than the ELR, assuming 238 miles per charge (typical with highway driving), the car will use 68 kwh to recharge, or $8.16. At this rate, the car will cost $1.30 to drive 38 miles as compared to $1.80 for the ELR so this proves the Bolt ev is the more efficient generally. Of course, this is only during moderate weather, and, be that as it may,… Read more »

I often ask them about the cost. The usual answers are that it’s free for now, and it’s coming down in price such that it will hit parity with gasoline eventually. And then they go off in tangent about how much quicker FCEV fuels compared to free charging EV like Tesla, i3, Leaf. You can see the tangent 4E took from my question regarding FCEV vs ICE cars.

But let’s be real. By the time H comes down in price, presumably from all the excess free electricity, there will be ways to utilize excess electricity for BEV. Since charging BEV is far more efficient than making compressed H, fueling BEV will always be cheaper (unless coming from Nat Gas in _huge_ quantities). Cheapskates (ie, most people) will flock to cheaper BEV than FCEV.

FCEV just doesn’t make sense for most end users as there’s literally zero benefit over ICE cars, and always more expensive compared to BEV.

Most of the people are not even adding few thousand dollar premium to buy regular hybrid over ICE, because it may never pay off unless you add miles like taxi driver.
And now you are talking about some future fantasy cost savings when dream price for cells at factory is $100/kWh, or ~$20,000 retail for whole 100 kWh over 1000 lb pack? Seriously? How about some basic TCO calculations? Try to compare cost savings of 52 mpg 2018 Camry LE Hybrid having some 100 cu.feet passenger space and ~700 mile range with similar BEV. Don’t forget cost of money/interest, and do not overextend with 30 year 0% interest pay-off periods like Tesla roof, batteries have calendar life, use them within 10 years or loose them.

You’re proving my point on several levels.

“Most of the people are not even adding few thousand dollar premium to buy regular hybrid over ICE,”

If people don’t bother to spend couple of thousand extra for hybrid, why would they bother spending tens of thousands extra for FCEV? They won’t. FCEV is dead if that’s your argument.

“some future fantasy cost savings”

Again, you dodge the question of FCEV by bringing up BEV. As I mentioned, that’s always the technique used to argue FCEV: “hey look over there at BEV, but ignore how FCEV offer no benefit over ICE cars”

Let’s face it; FCEV offer nothing for the end user, so there is no argument that you can make FCEV seem better. Without any compelling reason for FCEV, it’s dead.

> stimpacker

About 33 kg per hour, or by order of magnitude more power than Tesla plug.

Only 28? But… but… but… how can this be? The fool cell fanboys here constantly assure us that hundreds of these horrendously expensive fool cell fueling stations were under construction and would be completed before the end of last year! (Not to mention the end of the previous year… and the one before that…)

That promise is right there on the California Fuel Cell Partnership website! How can anyone possibly doubt a source of info funded by Big Oil?


Permitting is a slow process in California. That’s the reality of the state.

But were this not true, there is still a reason to proceed slow and steady. At this point early adopters have access to multiple stations. It’s a waste of money to build more stations in advance of demand when stations are rapidly dropping in cost. Better to use those funds to build more stations as needed.

That said, smaller stations continue to expand in number. At this point, it’s better to have multiple smaller capacity stations than a single large one.

Furthermore, the CA goal has always been 100 stations. Nobody promised them in a single year. The closest to that would be Germany, which expects to build a 400 hundred stations by 2023. I believe that are at 30 now.

Dr. Miguelito Loveless

Interesting. Superchargers don’t seem to have this problem, as they are set to double in number by year’s end.

Bear in mind that if you live 10 miles from your nearest hydrogen station, you’ll be doing a 20 mile round-trip… every time you refuel. Nor can you fill up a cheap plastic container with fuel; you’ll need to go to the station every time, because of the high-compression tech that’s needed to put fuel in a FCEV tank.

Dunno what percentage of CA’s population lives within 10 miles of an h2 station. Doubt it’s anything close to a majority.

Just eyeballing the map, it looks like probably about a third of the population is within 10 miles of an existing H2 station.

I think 1/3 is on the high side. 10 miles coverage isn’t even that good on the East side of the LA.

Same with SF Bay Area.

10 miles is a pretty far distance just to go and get fill ups.

If you are traveling in the different direction, you would have to drive 20 miles out of the way just to fill up before you leave.

More importantly, that is the demographic likely buy these cars. A few are needed to connect these major metro areas. How many EVs are sold in the hinterlands of California?

On the other hand, how many people living in apartments will buy an EV? What percent of total population is living in apartments in these densely populated metros? They will have zero issues refueling a fuelk cell car.

How many people living in an apartment will buy a $50K car?….none! Just stop!

This “$50k” car is $369 or $350 month including fuel and options. You can lease whole three of them for the price of one unpractical tech toy from Tesla that is over $1000/month and has shorter and less predictable range with no way to recharge to 100% in 5 minutes.

I know people in apartments with $100K Teslas.

When houses are $1M you get you where you can afford a $50K car long before you can afford a house.

I do think he’s overselling this though. Refuelling an FCEV is quicker than fast charging a BEV but both are an imposition, especially if the hydrogen station isn’t nearby.

unlucky> Yes, it isn’t a good choice if H2 station is too far. But stations can be built with today’s technology. Improving battery costs, density and charging speed all at the same time would be major breakthrough that may or may not come who knows how many years or decades later. Reducing mining & manufacturing pollution for it to make sense would take another major breakthrough. Tesla Model S 85 had 81.5 kWh total capacity, ~77.5 kWh usable in 2012. Now in 2017 Model S 90 has 85.8 kWh total capacity, 81.8 kWh usable. P100D just got more the the same cells crammed into the pack as we were told. I don’t see much progress in density improvement. Costs improved a lot, but not NCA density. NMC density improved, but it wasn’t top of the line chemistry before and is barely close to NCA now. As it is now, mass car market is beyond horizon, regardless of what people with $1,000,000 houses are buying. p.s. And it is not very accurate to compare price of a house that may last many decades and may be resold just because of value of land, with price of a car, that may… Read more »
Not accurate? What are you talking about? If you have deduced that people in apartments won’t buy $50K cars you have deduced wrong. Period. In the area where EVs sell well (California) it happens constantly. You can go on with logic about what a person should do but you’re wrong. A person in this area (who is also a potential EV buyer) will buy a $50K car long before they get a house. Many will buy 2 or 3 before getting into a house. The reason is because a house is so expensive. You may say a house is more valuable, but it doesn’t matter. If a person uses what you see as faulty judgement when spending their money it doesn’t make a difference, their money is still good. It still counts on the bottom line. So companies, if you are looking at selling $50K EVs to people in Northern California in the near term, then you probably should take a look at charging arrangements for those who cannot charge at their apartment. Or else push to get EVSE into apartments. Tesla is doing this. Their most popular (busies) supercharging station in the world is right next to Google in… Read more »

> James P Heartney

Did you every really owned a gas car? You don’t go from home to station and back home after refueling. You do it on your way driving somewhere.

Z is right.
You drive 10 miles out of your way to the H station because you need to buy a six pack and in the process you refill. You got to be smart about this, people!


I love people trying to convince us that having to fuel at gas stations is fun and convenient.

Get an EV, then you’ll understand. 🙂

They need to get on the ball! Without a viable separate battery backup to travel with, these things are tethered to a hydrogen fuel pump, essentially halving their travel distance.

I hear these stations are expensive. Are the oil companies going to pitch in a few bucks to help out the taxpayers?
Also is anyone adhering to the one-third renewables rule?

At that rate in 4 years they’ll be up to 130 stations! I’m guessing those stations are mostly 1 or 2 pump stations as well. To replace the number of gas stations at that rate it will take until 2040. Longer if each stations only has a couple of pumps.

Currently counting only Tesla Superchargers and not CCS or CHAdeMO there are 2,636 Supercharger points at 373 stations in the US. This will almost be double by the end of this year. And of course about 60% of people can charge at home as well.

I don’t think any of the stations have multiple pumps a given vehicle can use.

That is, most of the stations are one pump. Some have two pumps but the pumps are of two different kinds (pressures). Any given vehicle that shows up has to use the kind of pump that matches their vehicle. If the kind they need to use is busy or out of order they can’t use the other. It’s sort of like a gas station that had one gasoline pump and one diesel pump. While two cars could fill at once it doesn’t mean you as a user have a choice of which pump to use.

“To replace the number of gas stations at that rate it will take until 2040.”

It’s much, much worse than that. The average California gas station services ~1100 cars per day. The average H2 fueling station has a maximum capacity of 2 or 3 dozen cars per day, and probably actually services less. Plus, the average gas station costs far less to build, operate, and maintain.

Pu-pu: Your numbers are from last decade as usual. But whatever, we got that you love gas and oil so much, thank you!

Stop whining and face reality.

The newer California H2 fueling stations cost about $3 million and service up to a maximum of about 36 cars per day. Slightly older ones cost about $2 million and service up to a maximum of about 24 cars per day.

Notice the ratio of cost to cars per day hasn’t improved at all.

You should write 30 millions each and 3 cars per day maximum. The bigger the lie, the more chances people will believe it – rule of thumb for the true propaganda warrior like you!

philip d:

One 33 kg per hour H2 dispenser is in ballpark of 1000 kW throughput, or 20 * 50 kW chargers with average power maybe half of nameplate power because of battery charging rate limitations.
And these “pumps” can be scaled to higher capacity, significantly reducing cost per kg dispensed, while scaling of chargers is more complicated.

Do you really think by 2025 even DC fast chargers are going to be stuck at a 50 kW charge rate?

Porsche will be using an 800v setup for the Mission E which has a 350 kW rate. Some CCS chargers in Europe have already been installed to handle this future rate.

I just don’t see 100,000 $20,000,000 10 pump H2 stations being built to replace gas stations in less than 50 years.

I have no doubt that we will see 1000V x 350A chargers in wild within a year or two, and $50k-$500k cars will be able to use them. But making batteries that can take this power and still have maximum specific energy and longevity will require major breakthrough that may or may not happen.

Making such chargers cheap enough to operate by adding some not yet invented cheap backup batteries would require another breakthrough. Actually you can do it with some nice generator set or with fuel cells (gasp) – but the first has emissions that you are supposed to avoid with electric cars, and the second is forbidden blasphemy in Elon church, as it undermines one and the only one true savior story.

“One 33 kg per hour H2 dispenser is in ballpark of 1000 kW throughput, or 20 * 50 kW chargers with average power maybe half of nameplate power because of battery charging rate limitations.”

How does an H2 station exhausting its fuel supply even faster, help in any way at all? Logic isn’t your forte, nor science either.

“And these ‘pumps’ can be scaled to higher capacity, significantly reducing cost per kg dispensed…”

Wow, we can add basic economics to the growing list of things at which you FAIL. Running higher capacity pumps doesn’t reduce the price of generating or compressing the fuel, nor does it increase the amount of H2 that a station can generate in an hour or a day; it just drives up the price of dispensing it because you’ve replaced very expensive high-pressure pumps with even more expensive ones!

Strangely, DOE scientists think otherwise. You should call them and let know your revelations 😉

I tried to explain to a family member the bottom line about fool cells in my opinion – and I will reiterate it here:

While zero emissions are the end and admirable goal, the fuel cell movement is an attempt to trick the masses in to continuing to be beholden to big energy. The goal is to replace the gas stations with fuel cell stations. It scares big energy to death that in the future we wont be needing them at all and will be producing all of the energy we all need on individual roof tops, with battery backup and off the grid. See ya later big oil – good riddance!

Electric cars are worse. Consumers will be beholden to the monopolistic utility companies. The process of large battery production neutralized the co2 emissions benefit for the first 8 years.

Can you please stop spreading lies. Monopolistic energy companies? Buy some solar panels, go away troll.

What a moronic suggestion, but typical of Musk cult members. “Buy PV panels”, and what next? Charge from moonlight in the evening and overnight? Or just sell electricity back to other California ratepayers at mandated exorbitant price, so that they would have to gift it to Arizona and even pay extra to accept this surplus? And then pretend you are offsetting something when burning nat. gas and coal at night to charge your car?

Have you not hear about the power storage capacity being planted all over CA at lower and lower prices? Of course you did but looking at the entire picture is not your thing, like a good troll you just pick what fits for your twisted agenda.

Entire picture is too obvious when you look at numbers, not fanboy emotions – storage is still way too expensive to make sense.

Did you even bothered to read the article? How the hell is 4.5 cents/kWh for solar and storage expensive? Stop with the alternative facts!!! Expensive compared to what? And let’s not forget this is a source of energy which unlike natural gas (currently considered cheapest) doesn’t have a fluctuating price…which is at the bottom of the range now btw.

4.5 cnt is hell expensive when you need to pay another 4.5 cnt in subsidies to get that hypothetical price.

Just look at original news sources. Taking random advocacy or sensationalist post as gospel just because it suits your agenda and not verifying numbers and sources is exactly how alternative news are born.
[link self-censored]
100 MW solar array and a 30 MW, 120 MWh battery is not exactly fully dispatchable power anyway, and has nothing to do with residential rooftop PV. Rather the opposite, it out-competes residential PV.

Sure, lets look…
Same numbers! So what the hell are you talking about? What 9 cents? What subsidies? If you want to talk subsidies lets talk H, they are sucking the most money for the least reasults.

At long last! Someone with great insight and character! I sensed it as soon as I saw your moniker!

” The process of large battery production neutralized the co2 emissions benefit for the first 8 years.”

You mean the lie that has debunked already by Popular Mechanics?

The number is more like 3 years if you use the original number (which is questionable to start with) from the Swedish study.

More science deniers from Musk cult. How about reading original report and pier reviewed studies it references?

Oh I wouldn’t worry about that too much zzzzz, not much generation comes from oil in the first place, and I for one have no problem with CO2 and CH4.

After all, Even Unlucky has stated water is a green-house-gas, and there is a bit more water than current levels of CO2, but we need both so its nothing to worry about.

There is a bit of an issue with the ‘duck curve’ in California since the solar panels are coming on-line a bit faster than expected, but this problem is taken care of just by smart time-of-use pricing, and also possible implementation of demand charges on residential customers, to the end that this somewhat problematic issue is conveniently nipped in the bud.

Users will just be incentivized to use more aircondtioning a bit earlier in the day, or else do their chores a bit earlier in the day, and for shift workers to charge their ev’s during this time; to utilize some of the problematic excessive solar energy generation.

This is the one time when work car charging, and even fast charger/supercharger usage could be a benefit – if utilized between 9am and 12 pm generally speaking.

Bill, you are dead on with your smart TOU remark.
SCE has a program now that offers $125 rebate and then up to $60/year in bill credits if you install a smart thermostat and let them control it between 2pn and 6pm for up to 12 times a year. They anticipate when peak demand will occur and cool the house in advance so they can cut the AC during the bad demand hours…they give you the option to opt out of any of the events. I will join this this month since i don’t use AC during that time frame anyway. EV’s are next as there are programs in the works which will give the utility the ability to turn on charging or stop depending on general power demand.

“More science deniers from Musk cult. How about reading original report and pier reviewed studies it references?”

It would help if you knew enough about real science to be able to spot the difference between that and the fake “science” promoted by Big Oil.

BTW — it’s “peer review”. Nobody here is reviewing piers or docks!

It would also help if you understood how the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows the way the real world works, contrary to your wishful thinking. It would help a great deal if you could understand that there is no way to avoid all those energy-wasting steps that H2 fuel has to go thru before it gets into the tank of a fool cell car.

Obviously when it comes to real science, not fake “science”, you FAIL.

Pushi: “…It would also help if you understood how the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows the way the real world works, contrary to your wishful thinking.”

The most commonly accepted statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is:

“It is impossible to construct a device which produces no other effect than transfer of heat from lower temperature body to higher temperature body”.

Since you claim to know ALL ABOUT THIS, as you constantly regurgitate this, please explain how this proves zzzzzz wrong.

Also, to give you a hint, the increasing entropy phenomenon is a bit of a red-herring for the uninitiated since mechanical refrigeration processes are reversible. For the moment, lets skip what THAT means.

But now really Pushi – you just say this all the time to make yourself seem really more intelligent than you are, since you never can say how what is a rather esoteric heat transfer phenomenon (to most people) and you never can delineate how this ‘natural law’ applies to what zzzzzz said.

“More science deniers from Musk cult. How about reading original report and pier reviewed studies it references?”

I guess Popular Mechanics are considered as cult too?

Yes, the so called peer review compared it against a ecobox that is fueled with 50% carbon neutral fuels.

Popular Mechanic used that peer study emission level compared against an Audi A6 emission using EPA data, it shows less than 3 years rather than 8 years.

Quoting partial statistics is a way to deceive its audience.

The build-out in Northern California has been stagnant for more than 6 months. Basically, we have one station near each commercial airport (SFO-SJC-OAK) and then one each in the adjacent towns of Campbell and Saratoga. That’s it.

There are huge gaps on the Peninsula, the East Bay, and the South Bay. They are on their third proposed site in the Los Altos / Cupertino / Sunnyvale area and the site they came up with is across the street from a high school. I sure hope they have a good emergency preparedness plan…

As far as I can tell, the next station to open will be near Alice’s Restaurant on Skyline Blvd. Who is going to use that? It would have been much more useful in the part of Woodside near the 280 freeway. At least then the Sand Hill VC guys could use it… 😉

Ok, there’s one more in Mill Valley, but that’s it for the public stations in the 9 Bay Area Counties. The next closest ones are Sacramento and Harris Ranch.

I’m actually surprised at how regularly I’m seeing Mirais on the road. I see one every couple days. I would never drive that far out of my way for fuel.

You are mistakenly assuming that someone with a 300+ mile range h2 car will not venture outside a 2-3 mile radius during the whole week. As the fill up is only 5 minutes, can be 2-3 mile detour if the fill up is combined with other trips that take you closer to the refueling stations.

For example, I have one within 2 miles of my work. Another is 1 mile detour from my route to work. But from my home, nearest one is 8 miles away.
It is not as convenient as the gas stations, but not too bad either.

There are 28 stations – what if you go on a roadtrip where there are no stations? Would you need to get towed to the nearest station?

No, both Honda and Toyota include a week of car rental into lease price for out of state road trips. They are reasonable people and don’t expect their customers to suffer for hours at super slow “quick” chargers or 110 V outlets, drive on interstates at 55 mph without A/C to save juice, or search for RV parks to spend night charging.

Mike I:
has all 16 stations from GFO-15-605 mapped as “proposed”, but they are going to be funded soon and will open this year or next latest.
5 are in South, 11 in North. This is 2 year funding from Assembly Bill 8, about 8 stations per year, so you can have only as much for it until it is increased or costs reduced. Higher density areas are priority so far.

How does that saying go? One in the hand is worth three in the bush? I look at the CAFCP map periodically, which is how I knew that the LA/CU/SV proposed site has been moved around. Sure, when the proposed sites are finished, there would be one within a mile of my office. Today, not so much. I don’t routinely go anywhere near the existing stations.

I tell people how great the DC Fast Charging infrastructure will be when the CEC Grant funded stations are open. Then they say, sure, but they don’t do me any good today. Same deal. The map looks great, but it’s a look a year or two into the future.


“…they are going to be funded soon and will open this year or next latest.”

And how many years have you fool cell fanboys been making that claim?

This little boy has cried “Wolf!” way, way more than three times.


Do you have a basic reading comprehension or common sense? What is funded is almost always built, including all the H2 stations. You can check all the schedules and progress since historic times on California government websites. Recent CA funding even has strings attached, the grand money gets reduced when opening time is postponed.
When something is not funded, obviously it is not built.

Sounds like Perrier on tap! I’m in.

I have actually changed my mind about hydrogen cars. Not so much because of the cars themselves but because of hydrogen. If we are going for a 100% renewable energy system we will need to overbuild a lot of renewable energy to be able to handle the more extreme cases. Batteries alone is not able to cover 100% of demand, or at least it will be extremely cost-ineffective to do so. Because we will have a lot of extra RE generation, it makes sense to do something with it when it is not needed to cover the electricity needs. This is where hydrogen comes in. Hydrogen generation acts as a dispatchable load. This is good because hydrogen can be used for other things as well, primarily to create ammonia which is used in agriculture (fertilizer). This way we also lower the need of fossil fuels in agriculture, another win for hydrogen. So we will have a lot of hydrogen generation in the energy system whether we power cars with it or not. For this reason it makes sense that we actually do use it for transportation as well, at least to some degree. Maybe it will be limited to heavy… Read more »

“So we will have a lot of hydrogen generation in the energy system whether we power cars with it or not. For this reason it makes sense that we actually do use it for transportation as well, at least to some degree.”

It is never going to make sense to throw away between 67% and 80% of the energy. And it is never going to make sense to use a gas as an everyday fuel when it’s so hard to handle and store, or one that requires such ridiculously expensive fueling stations with such incredibly tiny dispensing capacity.

It will always be better, cheaper, and almost infinitely more practical to use some other fuel as an energy carrier. For example, using excess electricity to generate synthetic methane (essentially the same as natural gas) would be light-years more practical than H2 can ever possibly be.

I don’t know why this simple concept is so hard for some people to grasp. The science and the economics are pretty basic. It’s not like this is nuclear physics.

The article you are linking to assumes hydrogen generated from RE…

“It is never going to make sense to throw away between 67% and 80% of the energy.”

Yes it does when the alternative is throwing away 100% of the energy, which is what you do when you have to curtail RE because of lack of demand.

Expensive fueling stations will go down in price, and considering the amount of energy they can dispense they are probably cheaper than the equivalent charger. The “tiny dispensing capacity” is not a technical limitation, you can increase that with bigger tanks as needed.

If there is a surplus of energy the best use of it may be to make hydrogen. I hope not, but it’s possible. It still makes no sense to use it to fuel vehicles directly. It would be more efficient and usually more convenient to use the hydrogen to make electricity when there is otherwise not enough.

Running hydrogen through a fuel cell is always inefficient while you only need to be inefficient sometimes using electricity.

“It still makes no sense to use it to fuel vehicles directly. It would be more efficient and usually more convenient to use the hydrogen to make electricity”

So how do you intend to make electricity from it without a fuel cell? Making electricity is what fuel cell cars do.

My original point is that we are going to have a huge amount of hydrogen outside of using it for cars. Because of that, it may make sense to use it for cars _as_well_. Not because it’s the most optimal use of energy but because of the scale of the hydrogen economy.

Well, you could just burn it like natural gas, but that’s not the point. Any way you choose to make electricity from hydrogen it only needs to be done when there’s a lack from your primary sources. If you use the hydrogen in a vehicle you have to do that all the time.

“It is never going to make sense to throw away between 67% and 80% of the energy. ”
How about when you have to trow away 100% of the energy in some spring day in order to keep the grid stable? Never say never….

except there is no really point to go 100% or close to it. Overbuilding would cause more pollution than using fossils for some of time, smart demand, better efficiency for new buildings and reuse of old EV packs for storage IMHO would be enough

Hydrogen Folly – inefficient form of fuel energy transfer ever invented from source to use.

Nothing like Hydrogen keeping the status quo happy.

Driving a car powered by lighting I’d rather fill up at home, which I do. 🙂

Man there is a lot of puffed up hyperbole flying here. The idea and current reality of cars powered by the sun is so simple, so attainable, and presently in our midst. HFC are complex, expensive, not widely available, and beholden to big power companies. The release of the 3 and millions of BEV hitting the roads will quiet this conversation very quickly. Its amazing how fervent these fool cell guys are – they probably held on to there betamaxes with cold fists for years. Give it up…

28 stations at a cost of >$2mil for possibly 1,700 vehicles = $33k per vehicle, plus the cost of the vehicle plus the cost of the fuel. Obviously $ goes down as you get more vehicles, but if they build 100 stations as aimed and the vehicle count did not go up significantly, then actually really expensive infrastructure. Super Charger would have been the same situation at the start, but I think I read about 70k Tesla in US, if the cost of SC is $50k then it looks like about $2,000 per vehicle. Easily recouped in the current high priced Tesla. Soon to be really a lot more Tesla! I drive a Leaf and charge at home (yes one of the lucky home owners). Regardless of anything else, I think it would be very hard to go back to filling at a service station again. Now how long does it take to drive 8mi? If you have to go out of your way to fill, then you have to add that time to the refill time, so it is like 5mins at the pump and maybe 10mins to travel there, so at least 15mins. Can you look on the… Read more »

98 % of hydrogen is made from natural gas, oil and coal. Welcome to clean energy ?