Why is California wasting millions on hydrogen fuel pumps?

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/why-is-california-wasting-millions-on-hydrogen-fuel-pumps

by orangebanana1 • 4 years ago

60 134 4 years ago

The California Energy Commission (CEC) has invested nearly $166 million and plans to invest a total of $279 million through its Clean Transportation Program to build a network of more than 100 hydrogen filling stations to support the increasingly unlikely surge of zero-emissions fuel-cell electric cars.

For comparison, it has cost Tesla ~$600 million to build out its global supercharger network.

https://supercharge.info/map

deadmutex• 4 years ago

One hypothesis: While Battery Electric Cars seem to have won out in California, it is still unclear what the longer term trend for Trucks will be. Some postulate that Hydrogen might be useful for quick refueling of trucks, and to lower the mass needed to carry (as the trip goes on, increasing mileage), etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNgZ6xL_An4

jeffbee2• 4 years ago

That's a decent attempt at a back-justification, but to my knowledge the hydrogen program is running purely on momentum from many years ago when the economic superiority of battery-electric cars was not yet perfectly clear.

russdill4• 4 years ago

The pumps being installed are sized for passenger vehicles

devman0• 4 years ago

I think what they are trying in Europe with overhead wires for charging on the move allowing trucks to carry lighter batteries will be more successful.

dsl5• 4 years ago

Electric is a complete non-starter for emergency vehicles. They need to be able to refuel in a grid-down situation, and fill up in minutes instead of hours. Hydrogen isn't as portable as gasoline, but it can be trucked to disaster areas easier than electricity.

If EVs really take off and we start to see gas stations shutting down, it would be nice to have the infrastructure already in place to keep fire trucks and ambulances rolling.

lowercase1• 4 years ago

Trucks have a higher duty cycle than cars so a battery pays for itself quicker.

Truckers have legally mandated breaks that largely mitigates charging time.

Charging infrastructure is cheaper than hydrogen infrastructure.

trainsarebetter2• 4 years ago

Or we could Just go back to trains.

jedberg6• 4 years ago

It makes some sense. The electric grid will not be able to support everyone going electric for many decades until the wires are upgraded, so there will need to be a good stopgap so the state can reach its emission goals. Hydrogen is one of those stopgaps.

My friend just bought a fuel cell car. Between the tax incentives, tax rebates, dealer incentives, and $15,000 fuel card, the car is almost free.

sxates3• 4 years ago

It's not free, it was just paid for by other people. If it has to be nearly free for someone to take it, not sure that really supports these being commercially viable.

jedberg6• 4 years ago

I never said it was commercially viable. All I said was that it makes sense for California to subsidize the technology to reach the state's emission goals until the electrical grid can be upgraded to support electrification of all vehicles.

hnov5• 4 years ago

EVs have been getting at different times up-to and beyond 10k in incentives paid for by others, which also points to not-yet being viable. Between renewables being chosen over nuclear and the onslaught of EVs, we're gonna need a couple orders of magnitude more battery capacity in the coming years. Maybe subsidies for alternative forms of energy storage a smart hedge.

toomuchtodo3• 4 years ago

It makes some sense. The electric grid will not be able to support everyone going electric, so there will need to be a good stopgap. Hydrogen is one of those stopgaps.

This is simply not true. The DOE produced a report several years ago demonstrating that 70% of light vehicles could be electrified immediately and existing electrical generation capacity would be sufficient. As that scenario is impossible, the growth of EVs in lockstep with the rapid uptake in renewables (and natural gas/batteries to a lesser degree) ensures that there will be no generation shortfall. A more recent citation is provided below.

https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-...

jedberg6• 4 years ago

Going to renewables doesn't change the fact that the physical wires running across the state cannot move enough electricity fast enough to meet everyone's charging needs. It will take decades to upgrade all the wires in the state.

Generation isn't the problem it's moving it from where it's generated to where it is needed.

ravenstine• 4 years ago

The electric grid will not be able to support everyone going electric, so there will need to be a good stopgap

More accurately, we in California decided that "flex alerts", planned blackouts, and closing plants are the right approaches to our energy infrastructure.

I agree that our grid wouldn't support everyone having electric cars, but why do I get the feeling that it could and should?

mistrial93• 4 years ago

this is partial information.. the internals for the electrical grid were so solid, for so long.. then came the crack in the dam -- de-regulation.. while Happy Episcopalians in San Francisco planned their PC Green Energy sourcing, aggressive Texans built ENRON. Once there is so much money on the table, every day, the crack in the dam is hard to patch. Today there are now many fingers in the pie, and terrible incentives all the way down.

I have heard wise-guy finance say with a knowing look, that the "electrical infrastructure will be redesigned, and redesigned again." I believe them because, there is money to be made at each step. Repair of the forests and streams are the poverty work, not new electrical grid configurations, in California.

It is not the right time to throw the solid parts of the grid under the bus, and downplay the functional parts of the past, while pining for the workable future. A plea here (including present writer) to investigate and use fact-based analysis.

jedberg6• 4 years ago

It's not generation that's the problem, it's the wires that move the electricity from generation to where it's needed. It will take decades to upgrade all the wires to support electrification of all light vehicles.

outworlder5• 4 years ago

"We in California"

I'm on Silicon Valley Power. None of those issues apply. PG&E needs more than a slap in the wrist.

jl64• 4 years ago

Not sure about cars, but I find the idea of hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas in home heating to be more plausible than heat pumps.

The efficiency of hydrogen electrolysis seems low, but potentially not an issue if the absolute cost of wind/solar continues to drop - and it's a storage solution for smoothing renewable production too.

m1sta_• 4 years ago

"storage solution for smoothing renewable production too"

This is underappreciated.

nradov5• 4 years ago

How would you propose to solve the leakage and embrittlement problems that make hydrogen unsuitable for home heating today?

jl64• 4 years ago

Replace the metal pipes with plastic pipes, which is already underway in the UK:

https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut...

outworlder5• 4 years ago

Why is it more plausible than heat pumps? We don't have infrastructure to ship hydrogen the way we do natural gas. It's not like one can use the same pipes.

Why are heat pumps not plausible? You can get them today.

jl64• 4 years ago

The UK is replacing its metal pipes with plastic pipes:

https://piperepair.co.uk/2020/08/04/pipe-replacements-to-cut...

Aside from the cost (which might come down), heat pumps have some inherent disadvantages - reliance on insulation, and slow ramp up time. So no more opening the windows at night for fresh air, then getting the house back up to temperature in the morning.

mistrial93• 4 years ago

why is diversity of fueling bad in a gilded age?

WalterBright• 4 years ago

Because of economies of scale, critical mass, etc.

mistrial93• 4 years ago

the Biggest Gorilla Theory might be part of this..

isaiahg• 4 years ago

Electric is clearly the future of consumer cars but there's definitely a future for hydrogen in industries like shipping. Whether it's container ships or 18 wheelers, hydrogen has many benefits including the ability to fuel up faster. We already have a dual system for two kinds of fuels, gasoline/diesel, I can see a future where the two main types become electric/hydrogen.

nradov5• 4 years ago

Hydrogen is unlikely to see widespread marine use due to engineering costs and safety risks. It's more likely that merchant ships will run on ammonia, biodiesel, methanol, or LNG.

KennyBlanken2• 4 years ago

All the people commenting in support of hydrogen here have no idea of the logistical challenges in handling a fuel that is so thin it leaks through metal.

0ldskool2• 4 years ago

What safety risks exist that do not exist for other forms of fuel and energy?? Wouldn't marine be the perfect use of hydrogen? The only output is water. Energy storage of hydrogen is cheaper by weight then battery. If there are some solar panels and/or wind generators on part of the vessel then couldn't it technically stay adrift from shore forever (temporarily forget food for humans or degradation of the boat without maintenance).

sxates3• 4 years ago

The only benefit Hydrogen had over BEV was refueling time. I think what we've learned in the last few years is that charging at home overnight makes up for the perceived disadvantage BEVs have, and we're seeing rapid improvement in DC fast charging times (18 minutes for the 800v Hyundai Ioniq5 and it's platform cousins, for example) for longer road trips. In fact I just drove 450 miles across california in an EV and the car was always done charging before I could get my kid out of the car for a bathroom break and a quick snack and then back in the car.

So if refueling time isn't as big a deal as it was 5-10 years ago, and will be even less of an issue in another 5-10, Hydrogen starts to look pretty lousy actually. For those who own BEV's, having to stop at some point in your day to go to a fuel station feels archaic. Home charging is a game changer.

Naac• 4 years ago

What about people living in apartment buildings that can't charge at home?

smileysteve2• 4 years ago

It's cheaper to give apartment buildings and nearby properties tax incentives to install chargers that are used 30 minutes at a time than to install hydrogen stations for apartment dwellers...

In the SE united states, our Power Companies are actively partnering with our Gas Stations to add chargers.

(this is in addition to Tesla's massive Super Charger network that gets people from coast to coast, generic charges installed at state parks, and local and federal tax benefits to install chargers)

rr8083• 4 years ago

Buses, taxis, delivery vans - there are loads of vehicles that need to be running all day and can't stop for a charge.

daniel-cussen• 4 years ago

Taxis and delivery vans do fill up during the day.

outworlder5• 4 years ago

I suspect all those applications are, in fact, stopping at some point. There are taxi drivers on EVs today. They have to stop to eat sometime.

coding123• 4 years ago

If buses ever go Lithium they may figure out a way to do large battery swap-n-charge systems at the main station.

Taxis are already solved via Uber and so it's likely that people are already interested in buying EVs and that's no different for Uber drivers.

Delivery vehicles are often carrying only so much cargo and so it's likely the single night charge can handle everything. Mountain deliveries may see problems if we don't have a liquid fuel however.

ftlio• 4 years ago

BEVs are also a better way of economizing wide scale distribution of storage throughout the grid. With one battery per car, you do run into load shifting issues (everyone generally charging at home during the same night time interval, even if that interval is half a day), but as it's not that hard to take the same tech in the car and strap it to the wall, as opposed to hydrogen, you get what is probably a way bigger ROI per cell.

Of course that requires some coordination from the same kind of entity that is apparently wasting money already on energy transportation and storage.

foobarbecue• 4 years ago

Flying cars are going to need H2!

unnamed76ri• 4 years ago

Because government, whether federal or state, never misses an opportunity for wasteful spending.

readthenotes1• 4 years ago

The author apparently doesn't know that there's a high speed train that's going to refuel at that station.

munk-a• 4 years ago

That's a really great argument for never subsidizing renewable energy or investing in electric cars or, you know, the wheel.

Research is never the optimal strategy in the short term but it pays off in the long term. Every once in a while we get a lemon, but it's the cost of doing science.

jupp0r7• 4 years ago

The physics of hydrogen powered vehicles just don't make sense. Insane tank sizes at extremely high pressures are needed to get into practical range territory [1]. This is fundamental physics and won't improve over time, as opposed to battery energy density and charging speeds.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c

freeone3000• 4 years ago

Large size, yes, but low weight. Americans seem absolutely thrilled to drive around giant cars, so why not give them what they want?

jupp0r7• 4 years ago

Aerodynamics, usable cargo space, road width, existing parking infrastructure, safety in case of an accident, terrorism, ...

smileysteve2• 4 years ago

Compressed Hydrogen in even composite tanks is not particularly low weight.

semi-extrinsic2• 4 years ago

What do you mean? You can just go and buy a Toyota Mirai today, and you could in 2016. The hydrogen tank is 27 gallons in volume and weighs 193 lbs, for a range of 312 miles.

How big is a Model 3 battery pack again?

CarVac• 4 years ago

And yet the Model 3 weighs less than the Mirai.

jupp0r7• 4 years ago

I mean that your back seat passengers are sitting[1] on a giant tank of highly explosive (when combined with oxygen) gas at 10000(!!!) psi when full.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#/media/File:Toyot...

hnburnsy• 4 years ago

Did you see 9000 pound Hummer EV with 3000 pounds of battery? Wonder what would be the weight of a hydrogen powered equivalent would be.

jupp0r7• 4 years ago

What's the problem with that weight? Road damage?

ialyos• 4 years ago

Did you watch the video you linked?

jupp0r7• 4 years ago

Sorry I actually wanted to link to this one from the same channel, thanks for noticing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA

paulmd• 4 years ago

you can't keep increasing battery capacity indefinitely either, batteries become more reactive as the electrode potential increases, so there's physical limits to what batteries can (safely) deliver too.

Unfortunately a lot of the battery capacity gains of the last 15 years have resulted from loosening these tolerances for fire/explosion, I'm thinking about lithium-ion and lithium-polymer chemistry here. Lithium-iron-phosphate is an example of a safer chemistry, but it also has significantly lower energy density, it's probably still better than NiMH but not anywhere near as much as lithium-ion or polymer types.

That means that if you are looking at an iso-safety sense, the gains have been much slower than "maximum potential even if you are ok with batteries exploding when overcharged/overloaded/punctured". We have just been ramping up our tolerance for batteries of the latter type.

jupp0r7• 4 years ago

There is lots of potential in terms of safety and density in solid state batteries [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_battery

Manuel_D2• 4 years ago

Hydrogen might still represent a superior source of carbon-free fuel. It's more energy dense than batteries, by a long shot. Containment for hydrogen fuel is a challenge, but they scale better at larger volumes.

Definitely, lithium ion batteries make the most sense for sedans. But for cross-country trucks, trains, and maritime shipping hydrogen has greater potential. You're not crossing the pacific on a battery powered cargo-ship.

teaearlgraycold• 4 years ago

Not related to the article - but it's my understanding that liquid or compressed hydrogen are the only viable alternatives to jet fuel for commercial flights. So I'm definitely on board with big H. But not so interested in the few hydrogren fuel cell cars I've seen.

nradov5• 4 years ago

Carbon neutral synthetic kerosene is a more viable alternative to current jet fuel. Unlike hydrogen, it has no additional safety risks and won't require any changes to aircraft design or infrastructure.

throwawayboise• 4 years ago

Synthetic kerosene is probably the real answer. Compatible with existing infrastructure, aircraft, and engines.

DoingIsLearning2• 4 years ago

cross-country trucks, trains, and maritime shipping hydrogen has greater potential.

On your list of things where hydrogen has potential, "trains" has got to surely be typo?

retrac2• 4 years ago

The total number of individual plants to replace is small (usually one or two per train, some tens of thousands across North America), and some existing propane/natural gas fired turbine-electric trains are probably suitable to retrofit. The US rail grid is almost entirely unelectrified, and electrification of long rural routes is both a large project and has high upfront costs, especially relative to the low utilization of some routes. Basically, hydrogen would be attractive for trains in North America for the same reason why most trains in North America are diesel, not electric.

I suspect the answer for this niche is probably synthetic diesel though, as with synthetic jet fuel. If you already have the hydrogen, fixing it to some carbon is a relatively simple additional step.

Manuel_D2• 4 years ago

Batteries don't have the energy density to support hauling large masses of cargo over long distances [1]. Trains could be electrified, eliminating the requirement to carry fuel at all, but that requires building new infrastructure which may not be as economic in low-density regions in North America.

Hydrogen gas has the best energy density per unit of mass of any chemical fuel source (nuclear blows it out of the water, mind you), and could prove to be the best option for decarbonizing freight trains.

1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Ene...

QuikAccount• 4 years ago

The study also finds that battery and charging advances will obviate the advantage that fuel-cell vehicles are presumed to have in long-haul logistic operations and the road transport of very heavy goods.

Despite this blurb, I still believe the primary use for hydrogen will be in trucking not in cars. Further more, there are times when some turbines in a wind farm are turned off because consumption has met demand. We could keep those going full time and just convert excess to hydrogen.

warmwaffles• 4 years ago

The biggest drawback of hydrogen as well as gasoline is the fire / explosion risk. I'm curious how the hydrogen will be stored for transport as the fuel source.

Ekaros2• 4 years ago

Batteries at least types used in vehicles have similar risks. Actually gasoline and diesel are relatively safe and easy to handle fires comparatively.

timbit42• 4 years ago

Will this really produce enough hydrogen to power all the long-haul trucks in the US?

hexo• 4 years ago

Thats not wasted money, unlike for example solar roads.

stretchwithme2• 4 years ago

One could also say "Subsidies for electric vehicles are clearly beating subsidies for hydrogen vehicles."

All the more reason to tax what you don't want and not subsidize specific solutions. The government should focus on the problem, not on specific solutions to the problem.

Because politically deciding what should succeed is not science. Politicians may not even be aware of a better solution. Or it may not be lobbied as hard as poorer solutions.

outworlder5• 4 years ago

Hydrogen vehicles ARE electric vehicles. Complete with electric motors and batteries. It's just that one gets most of its power in a more roundabout way.

panick21_5• 4 years ago

Hydrogen had more government support for longer. And EV started to establish themselves with very little support and continued growing once they were over.

In the consumers got tax benefits only for the first 250k cars. Tesla blew past that many,many years ago and it didnt stop their growth in the least.

And clean air credits would count for Hydrogen vehicles too.

BEV won because its quite simply far better almost any way you look at it. Fiancial, infrastruce , conviniance, mass production and so on. And its not even close.

hnov5• 4 years ago

If you're of limited means, you could get around 13k off your Model 3 in California as of last year, courtesy of the tax payer. Then don't discount the hype, cool millenials and Gen Z in particular are not about driving, but when they do they prefer a Tesla. I think a BEV was a lot easier to bootstrap because with 0 infrastructure you could at least make trips around town, but that doesn't mean that it's going to work at planet scale (at least not with current battery tech).

w3ll_w3ll_w3ll• 4 years ago

Also, the market deciding what should succeed is not science. I believe we have many examples.

stretchwithme2• 4 years ago

The market doesn't pretend that it is science. But it doesn't keep alive things that clearly don't work when there are alternatives that do.

The market values many dimensions, not just a few considerations or what someone decides is "science". Like switching costs. Or failure to get the product into people's hands, even if it is better.

Even setting the price too high matters. Or setting it too low to pay the bills.

And many other things. Including the preferences of millions of people.

A scientist couldn't design an experiment that replicates what the market already is.

rr8083• 4 years ago

Same reason as it encouraged electric cars in the early days. To encourage competition to oil.

dktalks• 4 years ago

Every other electric car enthusiastic never questions, why did we invest 100s of millions in hydro power plants. It's all about this exists, we can use it and it's less combustion but never about, how much does it cost me personally to charge my car vs how much does it take you to fuel a car in a gas station, how long do I have to take to make my car go forward etc.

It's always about, this is the newest invention, this is an electric car, this is the good things that is said about it, but nothing about the hell you are in when it comes to charge your car or what you pay for it.

This is why I never get into a, oh you are better off getting an electric car because it is good for the environment discussion without them understanding that you are generating electricity the best way using fuels, it's so stupid, it's bad.

wglb• 4 years ago

Hydrogen as a fuel is a pollution amplifier. See https://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.shtml

tempnow987• 4 years ago

The roundtrip efficiency in hydrogen production, starting from electricity, is pretty bad.

Quick chart here:

https://www.volkswagenag.com/content/dam/online-kommunikatio...

So with a hydrogen car you waste half your input electricity. For a gain in faster refueling?

exabrial• 4 years ago

I stopped reading at "Battery EVs have won the clean car race".

No they have not. There's a couple billion ICE cars on the road. They'll have "won" when EVs far outstrip ICE engines.

stubish3• 4 years ago

You missed reading the word 'clean' in your quote. ICE means petrol and diesel, and clean replacement fuels for ICE engines have not yet entered the race being discussed.

MrMan• 4 years ago

they should use ammonia it makes much more sense than hydrogen

Shadonototra• 4 years ago

electric makes more sense for a dying planet with hungry capitals, they can sell expensive batteries and you can rent them, what's non recyclable will end up polluting some 3rd world country, who cares

hydrogen makes no sense, it's basically free and abundant, the lazy people can't profit from it easily, therefore it'll die

fmajid2• 4 years ago

Hydrogen may have a role to play in aviation, but it has clearly failed for passenger cars and likely trucks as well. The Shell station next to my old office in San Francisco closed for maybe 9 months to be retrofitted for hydrogen. Those lost revenues will probably outweigh the entire revenue from hydrogen over the remaining life of the station. Essentially the only hydrogen cars in California are a small fleet owned by the state itself, and unlikely to be replaced when they reach end of life.

Why is California wasting millions on hydrogen fuel pumps?

Related Stories