If hydrogen fuel cell cars sales ever catch up, they’ll refuel faster than BEV’s

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEV) are slowly making their way to market, after many many years of “they’re 5-10 years away”.  For informational purposes, today the Dept of Energy and the SAE teamed up on a Webinar going over the status of fuel cell vehicle fueling standards (SAE J2601 – the physical plug format, SAE J2799 – data communication protocols to control fueling).  These standards are accepted around the world, being adopted in Europe under the ISO fuel cell vehicle standards, and the automakers behind the standards have over a decade worth of mathematical modeling, laboratory testing, and real world testing to validate the system.

Electric vehicle charging station guide

For the most part automakers have not gone-it-alone in fuel cell development, but have instead partnered in these alliances:

  • BMW, Toyota
  • Daimler, Ford, Nissan
  • Honda, GM
  • Hyundai
Next year, 2015, should see an increase in FCEV availability however I haven’t heard anything suggesting they’ll be sold in real mass market quantities.  Instead, these are beyond what we normally call compliance cars, and in some cases the manufacturers are openly and literally building fuel cell vehicles to manipulate California ZEV regulations.  What I mean is the ZEV regulations dictate each manufacturer must earn enough ZEV Credits to continue selling fossil fuel powered vehicles in California (and a few other states).  Fuel Cell Vehicles enjoy a high multiplier on the ZEV credits earned, meaning that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has tilted the playing field towards FCEV’s by awarding FCEV sales far more credits than are awarded for BEV sales.
There is fuel cell refueling infrastructure being built in Europe, California, Japan, and possibly the “East Coast”.  For California the target is a whopping (remove tongue from cheek) 100 stations by 2016.  Each of the stations costs $2 million apiece.
In other words, the industry and governments are spending a lot of money developing FCEV’s and the refueling infrastructure.  I am on record asking what’s the incentive to develop FCEV’s, and why not just put the money into BEV development?

The primary advantage cited during the webinar is refueling time.  The goal mandated by the U.S. Dept of Transportation is 300+ miles of range in 3-5 minutes.  That combination replicates the user experience of gasoline refueling – letting people keep on with their road trips without having to change any habit other than pulling up to the hydrogen pump rather than the gasoline pump.

Obviously, current electric cars have a 3-8 hour Level 2 recharge time for 80ish miles of range, or faster recharging at a DC Fast Charge station.  The rate at a CHADEMO or CCS station is 30 minutes for 80%, or about 60ish miles of range, while at a Tesla Supercharger station the rate is about 300 miles per hour of charging.I imagine that Joe Sixpack or Aunt Nellie will see hydrogen refueling is like gasoline refueling and immediately feel comfortable.    The automakers even made sure the fueling nozzle looks like a gasoline nozzle.A lot depends on whether the automakers and infrastructure providers can get the costs down to make all this affordable.  And, a big question is whether switching to FCEV’s will cause any benefit.  Some recent writing suggests FCEV refueling is worse, in greenhouse gas impact, than equivalent gasoline cars – because typically hydrogen is sourced from natural gas.  Natural gas being a fossil fuel that is increasingly dependent on fracking to continue natural gas supply, well, it’s extremely problematic that hydrogen supplies are dependent on that source.

But let’s get back to the fueling standard, because this is kind of interesting.

As I said, the nozzle looks like a gasoline nozzle but it borrows technology from natural gas refueling.  Of course a hydrogen nozzle has to have a secure air-tight connection to the car because otherwise the hydrogen gas will just escape into the atmosphere rather than flow into the tank.

The protocol accommodates a several tank sizes, and two maximum tank pressures.

The J2799 protocol exchanges data commands between fueling station and vehicle meant to control the fueling process.  It accommodates refueling at a range of ambient temperatures, and targets end-of-fueling at a given tank temperature and tank pressure.  The standards don’t allow for tank temperature to go above 85 degrees centigrade, and of course the tank pressure is what determines the total range on the vehicle.

Because of the physics, the station gets cold during refueling, while the on-board tank gets hot.  The stations have a precooling system, to cool the hydrogen gas prior to refueling so the heating in the on-board tank is minimized.

This is less flexible than battery electric vehicles.  Hydrogen refueling stations only exist today as laboratory prototypes, and there’s no infrastructure for hydrogen delivery other than companies like Air Products who drive trucks around with pressurized gas tanks.  Electric vehicles, on the other hand, can plug into any electrical outlet, and electricity is ubiquitously everywhere.  That’s a big advantage towards the BEV camp.

The faster refueling time is the big issue that makes FCEV’s attractive.  This is especially true for big trucks running on hydrogen, for which the SAE has a related set of refueling protocols.  Truck fleet owners want their trucks on the road for more hours, and can’t afford the longer recharging time of a BEV Big Truck.

But is fast refueling attractive if you can’t find a station?  The hydrogen stations are very expensive, which will limit their rollout – California is planning 100 total stations by 2016, which simply isn’t many stations.  California might have more Tesla Supercharger stations installed by then, not to mention the CHADEMO and CCS stations for DC Fast Charging of regular electric cars.

DC Fast Charging stations cost a lot less than $2 million apiece, meaning the BEV recharging infrastructure will be built more quickly.  Therefore, BEV infrastructure is already way ahead of FCEV infrastructure, and that lead will keep building over time.

Another example is sales volume – California just passed the point of having 100,000 plug-in vehicles, 3 1/2 years into the project.  Tesla Motors claims they’ll be selling a half million electric cars per year by 2020.  By comparison, FCEV sales volume is barely an asterisk at the bottom of the page, and we don’t see any indication that’ll appreciably change.

About David Herron

David Herron is a writer and software engineer living in Silicon Valley. He primarily writes about electric vehicles, clean energy systems, climate change, peak oil and related issues. When not writing he indulges in software projects and is sometimes employed as a software engineer. David has written for sites like PlugInCars and TorqueNews, and worked for companies like Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.

About David Herron

David Herron is a writer and software engineer living in Silicon Valley. He primarily writes about electric vehicles, clean energy systems, climate change, peak oil and related issues. When not writing he indulges in software projects and is sometimes employed as a software engineer. David has written for sites like PlugInCars and TorqueNews, and worked for companies like Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.

Leave a Reply