With 9 Hydrogen Fuel Stations, Denmark Is 1st Country With Basic National Network


H2Station hydrogen fuel stations in Denmark

H2Station hydrogen fuel stations in Denmark

H2 Logic announced installation of its 9th hydrogen fuel station in Denmark, boasting first countrywide hydrogen station network.

Nine stations is of course just base backbone for the network in this early stage.

In total in Denmark there is:

  • 6 H2Stations with on-site electrolyser
  • 3 H2Stations to which hydrogen is delivered from central electrolyser plant operated by Strandmøllen
  • 1 H2Station under construction
  • 1 H2Station planned

According to H2 Logic, all the stations uses hydrogen produced from renewable electricity using electrolysers.

Pressure of each station is 70MPa, compatable with modern hydrogen fuel cell cars.

“Today a new hydrogen fuelling station, delivered by H2 Logic, was inaugurated in Kolding. This narrows the driving distance to the nearest station in Hamburg, Germany to only 245km (150 miles) making cross-border driving on hydrogen even more comfortable. The station in Kolding is the third to open in Denmark during the past six months, and in total the ninth public accessible hydrogen station in 24/7 operation throughout Denmark – underlining the status as the world’s first countrywide hydrogen station network.”

“The Kolding station is operated by Danish Hydrogen Fuel A/S (DHF), a joint-venture between the oil company OK, gas company Strandmøllen and H2 Logic. DHF targets to build up to five hydrogen fuelling stations in Denmark, where the Kolding station is the third in operation.”

H2 Logic's H2Station and Toyota Mirai

H2 Logic’s H2Station and Toyota Mirai

Whether the hydrogen fuel stations are ready for the mass market? Well, not really.

According to H2 Logic website, the base module H2Station CAR-100 is able to provide up to 200 kg of hydrogen per day (around 40 full Toyota Mirai refuels).

But it’s not easy to produce so much hydrogen on-site – only 400 refuels annually, which is little more than one per day.

“The CAR-100 can be configured to provide up to 200 kg of hydrogen per day depending of the hydrogen supply. CAR-100 is capable of providing hydrogen for almost 400 vehicles on an annual basis, which is sufficient for several years to come. As fuel sales in a network grows and reach a level feasible for larger stations the CAR-100 can easily be relocated to outskirts of the network.”

Around 10 more H2 Logic stations were installed in other countries:

H2Station hydrogen fuel stations in Europe

H2Station hydrogen fuel stations in Europe

Category: General

Tags: , , ,

55 responses to "With 9 Hydrogen Fuel Stations, Denmark Is 1st Country With Basic National Network"
  1. MikeG says:

    This shows that hydrogen refueling doesn’t scale well. How much was the CAR-100 station to build?

    And this can refuel 400 vehicles a year?

    1. True. The numbers are confusing. One line says 400 fills per year but another says 40 per day!

      “According to H2 Logic website, the base module H2Station CAR-100 is able to provide up to 200 kg of hydrogen per day (around 40 full Toyota Mirai refuels).”

      Either way, a single DCQC could recharge 48 Nissan LEAF’s a day … if they were lined up and each charged 30 min max! I would guess that for each H2 station, you could install about a dozen ABB multi-standard DCQC units, which could pesimisically charge up about 288 or more EV’s per site per day.

      1. Philip d says:

        I think what they are trying to say is that the compression system for the station is able to fill 40 tanks a day if it had no concern about hydrogen supply.

        But it is only able to produce enough hydrogen per day through on-site electrolysis for 400 full fill ups annually.

        So the 40 tanks a day point is moot with its current on-site electrolysis configuration.

        1. Alpha777 says:

          40 tanks around the clock really turns out to be 20 practically.

          There aren’t going to be a line of people waiting at 2am, 3am, 4am, etc.

          1. Philip d says:

            Yeah, who knows what they mean by 40 a day. That could mean a 15 minute fill up which would be 4 an hour for around 10 hours. Or it could mean around 2 an hour for 24 hours.

            Either way the bottleneck is the on-site electrolysers.

      2. sault says:

        Let’s be generous to hydrogen and a little less generous for EVs just to make a worst-case comparison. The highest-cost DC quick charge station in the USA comes in at about $50k. There is no cost figure attached to this hydrogen station in the story, but California has spent around $2M apiece building hydrogen stations. Being generous, let’s cut this price tag in half to a nice, round $1M. So even being very generous, at least 20 DC quick chargers can be built for the price of 1 hydrogen station.

        At 48 cars / day, money spent on DC quick chargers is at least 24 TIMES more effective at fueling zero emissions transportation than hydrogen stations! And the DC quick charge station’s only limitation on recharging EVs is the time that each EV takes to charge, not some daily cap imposed by the capability of the hydrogen compressor or whatever on the hydrogen station.

        Talk about throwing good money after bad!

        1. It’s actually about $4 million for most retail-ready hydrogen stations according to Toyota. Those numbers are also backed up in several DOE studies. $5 million for a high volume station.

          The most astonishing number isn’t the capital expenditure though. To match the refueling volume of a typical gas station in an urban area (~1,000 cars per day) an H2 station would need 15 steel tube tanker trucks of hydrogen *per day* to deliver that much fuel.

          “Tube trailers are currently limited to pressures of 250 bar by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. Steel tube trailers are most commonly employed and the DOT weight limitations for on-road vehicles result in a limited carrying capacity of approximately 280 kg due to the heavy weight of the steel tubes.”


          “Recently, composite storage vessels have been developed that can deliver 560–720 kg of hydrogen per trailer and are within DOT’s height, width, and weight requirements.”

          So that would allow 1,000 cars to be filled (4kg per car) with only *7 tanker deliveries per day*.

          (by comparison, a typical gas station gets a delivery anywhere from once a week to once a day)

          When anyone tells you that hydrogen is going to be cheap, ask them to walk you through the numbers.

          1. Mint says:

            I don’t think volume per station is the biggest issue with H2, as that can be scaled.

            The real problem is that for people to consider H2 over gasoline, it has to be within a 10 min roundtrip detour from their commute. That means tens of thousand of refueling stations are needed for the US.

            EVs can always be charged overnight at home (for at least half of the population), so they need less than 1000 fast charging stations in the US.

            I think this is what makes the refueling issue so gargantuan for H2. It’s a loooot harder to pull off than Tesla’s supercharger network

    2. SJC says:

      With enough batteries for a 40 mile range a PHFCV might only have to refill once a month.

      1. Philip d says:

        And with even more batteries along with a Supercharger network that already exists you would never have to fill up with hydrogen or gasoline.

        1. Philip d says:

          I should add, along with any plug in your garage, driveway, parking space at home or work.

      2. Alpha777 says:

        Again PROVING the Chevy Volt makes Hydrogen obsolete. It will NEVER take off.

        Hydrogen: How to Lose Investor Money.

  2. “Not easy to produce so much hydrogen on-site – only 400 refuels annually, which is little more than one per day.”

    Though the station intervals are ok, that they can produce enough hydrogen to fuel just 1 Mirai per day suggests that much larger hydrolysers are needed, and that FCV’s realy should be H2EREV’s because with 9 current stations they would be limited to about 40 to 60 FCV’s before they start to feel the squeeze at the stations.

    “3 H2Stations to which hydrogen is delivered from central” – Luclily the off site hydrolysers are bigger, but then they have to tanker the fuel to the sites! Do they deliver with FCV Trucks, or with Diesels?

    By the way…is it 70 or 700 Mpa? “Pressure of each station is 70MPa, compatable with modern hydrogen fuel cell cars.” I presume they mean they can pump at 10,000 PSI?

    1. GeorgeS says:

      By the way…is it 70 or 700 Mpa?

      70 MPa= 10,000 psi so that’s full pressure and state of the art FCV.

    2. liberty says:

      70 mpa or 10,000 psi.

      No trouble interpretting. Those that produce hydrogen on site produce about enough for 1 car per day, which may be all they get. They can be supplied by trucks to deliver 40 cars per day. This is just a test infrastrucure. These are using wind electriity to make hydrogen.

    3. SparkEV says:

      Station intervals are NOT OK! Unlike BEV, you MUST go to H station to fuel your car. Even if the station is just 10 miles away, that’s 20 miles trip just to fuel. For daily driving that’s an immense hassle. Station interval has to be something like gas stations for it to be “ok”.

      1. Jay says:

        Sorry, that’s the same hollow ‘logic’ used against DCFC, as if one drives the full 20 miles for the sole purpose of refueling/recharging. EV/FCEV/PHEV/ICE drivers choose ‘energy stations’ that are along their normal travel routes, and refill before absolutely empty. Of course home-based recharges with electrons are preferable to a 10,000 psi tank of protons.

  3. GeorgeS says:

    I was curious what powers the electrolyser and whether it is 100% renewable.

    per their website:

    100% renewable hydrogen supply from electrolysis – world’s highest
    Hydrogen production for the Danish network is based on electrolysis and electricity procured with CO2 certificates. This ensures a 100% sustainable and zero emission hydrogen supply –

    I’m not sure what the deal is with CO2 certificates

    1. Djoni says:

      Not sure either.
      And this sustainable energy and zero emission could be much better if the hydrogen was split from methane coming of waste site.
      That would gain much more credential, you subtract the adverse effect of some methane in the atmosphere and do it with less energy than electrolyzing it.
      Of course you do release some Co², but nothing is perfect and more over it isn’t the goal of those oil company funding.

    2. buu says:

      it means when not windy like current ~18 days, energy is bought form Norway and Sweden hydro and who cares the rest of country then uses coal

    3. Someone out there says:

      Denmark has a huge amount of wind power so I guess it makes some sense to use the surplus intermittent power to generate hydrogen.

      1. Bob says:

        When there is made more electricity than used, it is sold to Germany and Sweden etc. There is never a “surplus” as in free electricity.

        1. Someone out there says:

          That’s not always possible. Sweden usually have a surplus too, which is sold to the continent. Germany is well known for sometimes having a negative electricity price because they have so much intermittent power.
          If you can’t sell the power you have to stop the wind mills – or you can produce hydrogen.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Denmark can only sell a surplus if there is a market for it. If neighboring countries install overcapacity wind farms as Denmark has… or even far less than Denmark has… then on any windy day, there would be no market whatsoever, because everyone would be fully supplying their own demand… or more.

          It’s the same problem as “net metering” on an international scale. The economics are only advantageous when only a minority does it. When it becomes ubiquitous, the value of electricity drops below the cost of generating it. Cheap electricity is good for EV owners’ operating costs, but not so good for solar power installers looking to get a return on their investment.

          I’d say the same for wind power installers, but I’m not convinced that — aside from a relatively few places worldwide where the wind really does blow more-or-less steadily 24 hours a day, year-round — anybody would ever get an honest return on an investment in wind power. Home wind turbines typically only produce 1-2% of a home’s energy needs, and on a regional basis, wind power is much too erratic and undependable to do anything except provide auxiliary power. That’s why wind farms have to be supported by massive subsidies creating artificially high rates for selling their electricity.

          The times that wind farms generate power are a very poor match to demand, which is why Denmark winds up selling by far the majority of its electricity from wind farms to other countries, at fire-sale prices. If wind power could provide power when there was a demand for it, then Denmark would be using most of it domestically.

          Wind power isn’t as bad a scam as hydrogen power, but aside from building wind farms in those aforementioned places where it really is dependable year-round, I’m not sure it’s all that much better.

          1. vadik says:

            Wind power is cheap now on full cost per KWh basis, plus Denmark has nice interconnections to Norway’s hydro. If wind blows, Denmark sends power to Norway, if the wind does not, Norway sells to Denmark. Very efficient and with the potential to go 100% green. No Need to Panic. Soon, no Need for subsidies any more.

            1. Mint says:

              The hidden cost of wind is in the idling of other power plants.

              If a city needs 1GW of power peak, a FF solution would be 1GW of gas turbines plus ~2c of natural gas per kWh consumed. Total cost is maybe 5c/kwh.

              The renewable solution is 1GW of wind plus 1GW of turbines, because the wind can die down to a few percent output at any time (yes, even over a large area, and for days at a time), even if the wind averages a nice 0.4GW of avg power.

              Now the gas plant has to run at lower capacity factor to accomodate the wind power, so its cost goes up, but we can’t let gas plants go bankrupt because we need them to fill the gaps.

              So the wind saves that 2c/kWh of natural gas, but it doesn’t save on the gas plant construction/financing, staffing, etc because we still need it around. It can have a lower total cost per kWh than natural gas, yet still increase average cost of electricity.

              Having said all this, in many areas wind is getting down to 4c/kWh avg even without subsidy.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:


                “So the wind saves that 2c/kWh of natural gas, but it doesn’t save on the gas plant construction/financing, staffing, etc because we still need it around.”

                You explained that very well, Mint. Thanks!

                Yes, this is why I say that wind power will never be more than an auxiliary provider of electricity. Those “backup” natural gas power stations will need to be kept running and fully staffed, in case of need.

                There is a lot of public resistance to nuclear power, mainly due to media promoted hysteria over “RADIATION!!”, but unlike other forms of “clean” power, nuclear power is reliable 24/7 year-round, and works just as well when it’s dark and when the wind isn’t blowing.

                Solar power has great future potential, especially if it can be coupled with large-scale grid energy storage, enough for night-time power use. But in most areas, wind power is too unreliable to ever be more than a minority contributor to grid energy.

            2. buu says:

              yeah wind is so cheap that Denmark has highest retail electriciy prices

  4. mhpr262 says:

    Even for a country as small as Denmark, nine stations is nowhere enough to be called a “network”. 90 stations might be.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      90 or 900, what’s the difference? There’s no economically feasible way to scale this up, when each station can only fill up a bit over one car per day. In California, each H2 fueling station costs about $1.5-2 million dollars!* Can these be much cheaper?

      The average gas station services 1100 cars per day, at a cost of installation far less than $1 million for the station.

      Physics isn’t the only reason that the “hydrogen highway” cannot possibly succeed. Economics is another reason.

      When will this hydrogen madness stop? It’s beginning to resemble the Dutch tulip mania of 1637! At some point, everybody will realize that spending money on fool cell cars and H2 fueling stations is quite literally insane, and the bubble will collapse.

      *It’s claimed that California Fuel Cell Partnership fueling stations can fill up between 24 and 36 cars per day. Of course, in practice, that has turned out to be much too optimistic, with stations often closed or restricting customers to only a half-pressure fill.

      1. AlphaEdge says:

        There you go insulting people again, and yet, if anyone criticizes you, you get all upset, and call it a personal attack.

        Sure, hydrogen will stay expensive till the end of time, with no advances in the technology, but electric cars batteries will go to zero in cost, and give you thousands of miles! You can’t beat it. Huge improvements expected for EV’s, but none for hydrogen.

        Of course double standards are OK, because YOU have picked EV’s to succeed, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise.

        But let’s call everyone a ‘fool’ for even remotely supporting an alternative technology.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          AlphaEdge said:

          “There you go insulting people again, and yet, if anyone criticizes you, you get all upset, and call it a personal attack.”

          I’m sorry you are incapable of differentiating between arguing against the statements and ideas someone posts, and personally insulting them. I insulted absolutely no one in my previous posts to this thread. I’m capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable, and prefer to do that with people who are both reasonable and informed, but that requires two people so inclined. Clearly you are too immature for that.

          “Sure, hydrogen will stay expensive till the end of time, with no advances in the technology…”

          Please explain to me what technology is going to magically transform hydrogen into a practical fuel. To list the desired characteristics:

          1. Liquid at room temperature (and at below the freezing point of water) and standard air pressure, so that simple pumps can be used to move it and dispense it. No high pressure storage or dispensing required.

          2. The ability to be stored in perfectly normal, inexpensive metal tanks, with no degradation of the metal due to exposure to the fuel. No special seals required; no embrittlement of the metal; no significant leakage into the environment.

          3. The ability to be pumped long distances using existing pipelines, with no significant leakage.

          4. The ability to be generated with a high degree of efficiency, wasting little energy.

          It’s absolutely no coincidence that gasoline (and diesel) have the first three characteristics I list. Aside from the pollution and the growing scarcity of petroleum, certain petroleum distillates are very close to being ideal fuels.

          * * * * *

          AlphaEdge, the problem with your argument is that it’s based on wishful thinking. (That’s a fact. If you choose to regard that fact as an insult, that’s not my problem.) There is no way to change the characteristics of an element. Batteries have been improving, and will continue to do so. Contrariwise, the characteristics of elements, including hydrogen, are fixed and can never change. I’m sorry you can’t grasp that fairly simple idea.

          “Of course double standards are OK, because YOU have picked EV’s to succeed…”

          The laws of physics don’t care about double standards or what’s “fair”, dude. Go argue with a physics textbook and see how far that gets you.

          The real world works as it does. Your wishful thinking isn’t going to change that.

          BTW — Does the screen name “AlphaEdge” indicate you’re a hardcore investor? “Alpha” in the same sense it’s used at “Seeking Alpha”? If so, then it appears you’re here to promote your stock picks. And if your picks are Big Oil based, that would certainly explain your hostile and unreasonable posts here. If so, then you are here only to promote your agenda, and truth is irrelevant to you. If so, then no meaningful dialogue can exist between you and me, because I’m here to seek Truth and to share that with others.

          Of course, I could be wrong on that. If I am, then please explain why you’re here and what “Alpha” in the screen name “AlphaEdge” means.

          1. AlphaEdge says:

            The name is a combination. Edge is the main character from the game Panzer Dragoon Saga on the SEGA Saturn (Yup, still own the game and system), which ranks as one of my most favorite games. I usually try to take Edge, when I join a forum or whatever, but it’s usually taken, so I’ve gotten used to adding ‘Alpha’ in front, which I’m sure you know is the first letter of the Greek alphabet. It like saying, I’m the first Edge, regardless of who has taken the name of Edge. It’s not that important. It’s just a name.

            I refuse to invest in anything to do with the stock market. It’s a huge bubble driven by TRILLIONS of dollars of federal reserve stimulus! I believe it all going to come crashing down one day. I’m amazed people can’t see it. Just look at the stock market graphs, and it’s obvious. Massive amounts of personal/corporate/gov’t debt is putting pressure against the whole system.

            I’m a huge EV fan, as my post history has shown, but I’m opened minded to other technologies. I think there is potential for hydrogen vehicles, and most likely commercial vehicles/ships of some kind. There has been huge advances in fuel cells over the years.

            Denmark’s hydrogen is driven by clean energy! Anything that gets us away from the buying/burning oil is a good thing. There is potential with massive amounts of hydrogen being produced via Fast Breeder Reactors.

            Sorry, but you just come across as an insecure individual with your posts. Anything that threatens Tesla, or EV’s in general, and you constantly just attacking it. You’re not being opened minded.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Thanks for explaining, AlphaEdge. Nice to know you’re not one of the investors that lately have started polluting InsideEVs comment threads with their hidden agenda bashing and shilling.

  5. chris says:

    What a waste. There is 5 mirais in Denmark. Right now. And a few Hyundai ix35s All is company cars. Would be very surprised if even 5 more hydrogen vehicles will be sold in Denmark in 2016. A tank of hydrogen is a little more here than gas here. And the mirai is almost Tesla money. Really makes no sense to buy one of these h2 burners.

    Also H2 is a poor battery . When you use 100kw to generate h2 . How many kw do you get from the fuel cell to propel your car? Maybe 20 kw. ? This calculation alone should stop everyone trying to implement h2 infrastructure in its current form.

    1. sault says:

      Starting with electricity, the energy flow is:

      electricity -> Electrolyzer (70% efficient) -> compressor (90% efficient, a.k.a uses 10% of the energy contained in the hydrogen it compresses to compress it) -> storage (95% efficient, a.k.a. leaks 5% of the hydrogen pumped into it) -> vehicle fuel cell (50% efficient on average) -> electricity to vehicle motor / torque to wheels.

      In total, it’s 0.7 * 0.9 * 0.95 * 0.50 = 30% efficiency.

      For an electric car, it’s much simpler:

      Electricity -> 80% battery charge / discharge efficiency -> electricity to vehicle motor / torque to wheels

      EVs come out to about 2.667x as efficient as FCVs in this calculation. While a Mirai gets 62MPGe and a LEAF gets around 120MPGe, a lot of the losses for FCVs happen before the fuel even enters the vehicle.

    2. sven says:

      chris said:
      “Would be very surprised if even 5 more hydrogen vehicles will be sold in Denmark in 2016. A tank of hydrogen is a little more here than gas here. And the mirai is almost Tesla money.”

      You obviously ain’t from Denmark, since you don’t know squat about the Denmark’s current car tax exemptions/incentives.

      In Denmark up to 180% registration tax and 25% VAT is normally applied on the base vehicle price. Denmark recently started phasing out the tax exemption on high-end, long range BEVs, namely Tesla, but it extended the tax exemption for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for three years. So after taxes, the Mirai is NOT almost Tesla money.


      1. Chris says:

        Hi Sven. Today 15 th march 2016. Toyota retails the mirai in Denmark at aprox 600 000 kr. (USD 89 419). Today we can still find teslas registered by dealers, leasing and rental companies in December 2015. Just before the registration tax was changed. And these are sold at just a small premium. So today there is atleast 60 used tesla model s for sale – within 10% of the mirais pricepoint. And some of them are 70D’s with only delivery miles on them.

        The hydrogen cars will not stay exempt from taxes when the current three years trial period ends. In Denmark there is no freebies and even hydrogen will not be given any special treatment if the sales against all odds should start to get some traction.

  6. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    Wind provides 40% for electric energy in Denmark and the goal is to make it 100% renewable, and replace whole energy consumption with renewable sources (and the whole is much more than just electricity). You can’t make use of this intermittent wind energy source if you don’t have a way to store it. No, you can’t store electricity in buckets and refill you beloved battery car next month. Whatever advertising you watched about connecting wind turbine directly to your charger is idiocy.

    1. Bob says:

      Well, Tesla has a shed full of electricity buckets at some of the superchargers – I think they call it batteries or something 😉

    2. Lindsay Patten says:

      If you have a 200 mile range car and a 40 mile commute then you have a lot of flexibility about when you charge, you can probably keep it charged even if only charging when the wind is blowing.

    3. buu says:

      but producing h2 form leectricity doesnt solve storage question espescially whose small on site

  7. Someone out there says:

    Well, I suppose they have solved the egg problem, now they just need some chickens.

  8. Will says:

    The station in the photo doesn’t have a high enough roof to accommodate large trucks, which I predict will be one of the main applications of fuel cells

  9. Roy LeMeur says:

    What a ridiculous waste of energy.

    Also… “Let’s compress this highly explosive gas to 10,000psi and use it to power vehicles for public use.”

    Some real intellectual giants at work here.

    1. Anon says:

      Someone needs to make a large scale example of exactly why Hydrogen Sucks as a Passenger Vehicle Energy Carrier.

      This could well be the very example Europeans point to (other than in California), as to why highly compressed (10,000 psi) hydrogen is a poor choice for a car.

  10. Bob says:

    This report from 2011 says each of these small Hydrogen stations cost 1 mill dollars (6 mill DKKR). http://www.hydrogenlink.net/download/brint2050/Baggrundsrapport-brint-til-transport-2050-DK-Dec2011.pdf So 1 mill US dollar to service either 2 or 40 Hydrogen cars per day (above press release is not quite clear). What does a Tesla Supercharger station cost? Something around 50.000 US dollars per stall, which can service 30 cars per day. All-in-all for 1 mill you can service 40 Hydrogen cars or 600 Teslas!

  11. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “…little more than one per day”

    And thus we see that hydrogen fuel is no more practical in Denmark than it is in California. In fact, less so.

    The California Fuel Cell Partnership proudly proclaims that the H2 fueling stations in California will be able to provide fuel for as many as *gasp* 24 to 36 cars per day! Of course, in reality that has proven to be overly optimistic, with many stations being closed much of the time, and restricting customers to only a half-pressure fill, rather than an actual fill up…

    Reality check: One single combo convenience store and gas station in the USA typically services about 1100 cars per day. That would, apparently, be the equivalent of a thousand of these Denmark H2 fueling stations!

    Who in their right mind would call only nine stations capable of, on average, refueling only about 10 or so cars per day a “Basic National Network”?

    And a better question: When, oh when, are governments around the world going to realize that spending tax money on the “hydrogen highway” is just throwing money down a rathole?

    1. sven says:

      Pushmi-Pullyu said:
      “The California Fuel Cell Partnership proudly proclaims that the H2 fueling stations in California will be able to provide fuel for as many as *gasp* 24 to 36 cars per day! Of course, in reality that has proven to be overly optimistic, with many stations being closed much of the time, and restricting customers to only a half-pressure fill, rather than an actual fill up…”

      Your information is out of date. The hydrogen fueling situation in California has greatly improved as new, more reliable, stations have come online and old research stations have been upgraded and improved. Today, out of 13 H2 stations, 12 are fully open and working. The 13th station is a soft opening and is expected to be back online shortly. It will have a 240 kg/day supply capacity, which works out to a capacity to refuel 48 cars per day. You may want to update your “24 to 36 cars per day” figure.

      Look for yourself. Click on the “Filter By” button and choose “Retail: Open.” Only the southernmost station in San Juan Capistrano is offline.


      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        sven said:

        “The 13th station… will have a 240 kg/day supply capacity, which works out to a capacity to refuel 48 cars per day. You may want to update your ’24 to 36 cars per day’ figure.”

        Well, I rather suspect that if I had detailed figures, that “24 to 36 cars per day” number would be revised, alright… downward. Probably quite a bit, if my estimation is correct, based on all the reports about stations limiting “fool cell” car drivers to only a half-pressure tank.

        And it’s sadly typical of “hydrogen economy” supporters to cite outlier figures, rather than averages. Outliers like the “48 per day” figure you’ve claimed.

        If the situation was as rosy as you claim, sven, then Toyota wouldn’t have needed to start providing H2 fuel for Mirai drivers, using what it calls “mobile hydrogen fueling stations”… nevermind the oxymoron of a “mobile station”!

        An article from five months ago:

        “Toyota Provides Mobile Half-Fill Hydrogen Refuel Stations For Mirai In US While Waiting On Infrastructure”


        1. sven says:

          Pushmi-Pullyu said:
          “And it’s sadly typical of “hydrogen economy” supporters to cite outlier figures, rather than averages. Outliers like the “48 per day” figure you’ve claimed.”

          You said “as many as *gasp* 24 to 36 cars per day!” That’s a range, not an average, and the outlier “48 per day” figure would be the new upper end of that range.

          Pushme-Pullyu said:
          “An article from five months ago:”

          Like I said, your information is out of date. Five months ago, all the newspapers and political pundits were saying that Trump has no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Forward to today, the situation has changed for both the Republican party and for public H2 fueling stations in California.

          The 5-month-old article you linked stated that “Currently two public stations are Mirai-friendly.” Today there are now 13 public stations that are Mirai-friendly.

          The article showed a document listing the planned public hydrogen refueling stations. which stated that 9 fueling stations would open by 12/31/15, another 15 fueling stations would open in the first half of 2016, and another 16 fueling stations would open in the second half of 2016, for a total of 42 fueling stations open by 12/31/16. As of today the all of 9 fueling scheduled to be opened by 2015 have opened, and 2 of the 15 scheduled for the first half of 2016 have opened.

          1. sven says:

            Link to planned public California H2 fueling stations from the 5-month-old article that you posted:


  12. Bob says:

    We have to remind ourselves that Denmark was the country which gave Better Place mandate to deploy EV charging infrastructure… not sure their judgement is best in class.


    1. Chris says:

      Hi Bob.

      Betterplace that is just a difficult subject all together. Betterplace could have worked I am sure.

      However the execution was horrible and the burn rate was even worse. That the Danish government owned energy company DONG that backed Betterplace. Midway in the Betterplace infancy suddenly faced to be partly privatised did not help much either.

      If betterplace had waited for the Renault Zoe, and been committed to get more automakers onboard then… Who knows.

      But any fiasco has its part of broken promises, poor execution and change in politics.

      The battery switch stations have now been either removed or converted to car wash places.
      There is only a couple of the original Betterplace battery switch stations left to my best knowledge, that just stand there decaying waiting for nature to take over.

  13. Ahldor says:

    Honestly, if plugin hybrid ever would make sense it would be in a hydrogen (/electric) powered car.