GM and Clean Energy to open hydrogen station near LAX
General Motors is announcing a new partnership today with Clean Energy to install a hydrogen filling station near Los Angeles International Airport. Clean Energy is a California-based company that currently operates 170 compressed natural gas filling stations around the country and the new LAX hydrogen station will be on the same site with a CNG station. The new LAX station to be operated by Clean Energy will be available to participants in GM's Project Driveway fuel cell field test program. According to Dan O'Connel, GM's Director of Fuel Cell Commercialization, the primary user of the facility will likely be Virgin Atlantic. The airline is taking six of the fuel cell Equinoxes (up from three) that are being used for Project Driveway to use for shuttling first class passengers to and from the airport. Beyond this first station, Clean Energy is looking at adding additional stations at other locations as well as examining the feasibility of on-site reforming of natural gas to produce hydrogen.
General Motors has now built 85 of the planned 100+ Equinoxes for the program and will have delivered 40 of them to customers within the next two weeks. Customers are apparently very pleased with the performance and are regularly topping the 160mile range estimate which was based on the EPA test cycle. According to O'Connell the only real complaint they've had so far besides people not wanting to give up the vehicles after three months is they want to be more visible. Many of the first batch of vehicles had little in the way of signage to distinguish them from standard Equinoxes and people want to show off the fact that they are driving bleeding edge technology.
[Sources: General Motors, HydrogenForecast]
General Motors and Clean Energy Working to Expand Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure
Hydrogen Station to Open Near LAX
Using Clean Energy's Expertise in Natural Gas Fueling to Expand Hydrogen Infrastructure and Support Chevrolet's Project Driveway
Detroit, Mich. and Seal Beach, Calif. - General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) and Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (Nasdaq: CLNE) announced today Clean Energy will open a hydrogen fueling station in Los Angeles with support from GM. The two companies also announced that they are exploring further opportunities to expand the hydrogen infrastructure.
As the first step in this effort, a hydrogen fueling station will be developed and located at Clean Energy's compressed natural gas (CNG) facility near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).
The hydrogen station will be used by drivers taking part in Chevrolet's Project Driveway, the world's largest market test of fuel cell vehicles. It is expected to be operational by early fall.
GM and Clean Energy are discussing potential opportunities to expand this first station into a network of hydrogen fueling stations by leveraging Clean Energy's natural gas fueling expertise and the real-world customer experience gained by fueling more than 14,000 vehicles daily at over 170 CNG stations across North America.
"Developing and growing hydrogen infrastructure is vital to GM's efforts to bring larger volumes of fuel cell vehicles to the market," said Mary Beth Stanek, director of energy and environmental policy & commercialization at General Motors. "We're supporting this hydrogen station near LAX because we recognize a critical role for Clean Energy's existing CNG infrastructure in helping expand the hydrogen infrastructure. We expect to learn important lessons from Clean Energy's expertise in developing and operating a network of natural gas fueling stations."
The LAX station will help both companies better understand the synergies between hydrogen and natural gas fueling.
"Working with General Motors in this highly significant project makes great sense," said Andrew J. Littlefair, Clean Energy's president and CEO. "Developing a cost-effective hydrogen infrastructure is a challenge. By leveraging the growing network of natural gas stations, a variety of hydrogen station designs can be introduced to the public. Ultimately, reforming pipeline natural gas to produce hydrogen at our stations may be done inexpensively, thereby taking advantage of the ready infrastructure. This approach can help accelerate a larger-scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles."
Littlefair also noted that Clean Energy and GM can work to broaden the awareness of the societal and customer benefits of cleaner gaseous fuels as the world moves to diversify its sources of energy.
Chevrolet's Project Driveway is putting more than 100 Equinox fuel cell vehicles in the hands of real customers to help Chevy and GM understand what it will take to bring larger numbers of fuel cell vehicles to customers around the world. Currently, the program has launched in Los Angeles, New York City and Washington D.C. with further deployments later this year in Europe and Asia.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
pkuhl 4:21PM (6/11/2008)
Fuel cell scientist doesn't like hydrogen fuel cells because of thermodynamics:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Reply
meme 4:28PM (6/11/2008)
"85 of the planned 100+" -- whoa, don't make too many of them there!
Reply
Eletruk 4:51PM (6/11/2008)
Pffffffft!
Hydrogen....
What a scam.
How about spending the billions you are wasing on fool cell and put it into manufacturing batteries?
Better efficiency, lower cost, proven technology. Hydrogen will NEVER be as efficient as batteries.
Reply
Merritt Johnson 5:22PM (6/11/2008)
Hydrogen offers a greater power to weight ratio over batteries. Plus a fuel cell can be manufactured for half the cost of a comparable battery.
Reply
Chris M 5:24PM (6/11/2008)
Of course there are a lot more CNG filling stations than H2 stations - there are a lot more CNG cars on the road, compared to the handful of H2 prototypes.
Ironically, those CNG cars use less natural gas per mile driven, on average, than Project Driveway does.
So why is GM wasting so much effort on the more expensive less efficient H2 cars? Because it is a great promotional for GM, like the other glamorous concept cars that never go into production, and because Uncle Sam is paying the bills.
Reply
jake 5:39PM (6/11/2008)
It really makes you wonder. If a company is willing to spend at least hundreds of thousands of dollars on a car you would think they would try some cheaper EVs. I would bet for less than the fuel cell prototypes here, you can make an EV SUV w/ 160 miles of range.
But I suppose it will take around 20 minutes to fully charge w/ rapid chargers and it's not as "cool" as fuel cell cars. Lots of people feel hydrogen is the ultimate fuel that we want to reach, when in fact it is worst than BEVs (again unless there is some extreme breakthrough in hydrogen production, it will stay this way). I notice people rarely ask where the hydrogen comes from, probably b/c they view hydrogen as a fuel like gasoline, just that it only emits water, when in fact it comes from other sources which has their own pollution. So hydrogen still remains as a great way for people to advertise their "greenness", though obviously there are other alternatives that are much greener.
It just makes me a little depressed because it could have been a BEV there that people are plugging in. It isn't just GM either, Toyota seems more serious about fuel cells than BEVs too. And the thing about natural gas (which "Clean Energy" primarily uses) is that if put in a combined cycle plant you can reach very high efficiencies of up to 60% and in combined heat and power generators it's up to 85%. You basically can't get much better than that in terms of energy efficiency from natural gas.
Luckily there are a few BEVs/PHEVs coming out in 2010.
Reply
Chris M 5:50PM (6/11/2008)
Merrit: Hydrogen does offer a better Energy to weight ratio than any other fuel - though it does loose some of that advantage when the weight of the special storage tanks is added in. No, it does not offer a better "power to weight ratio", unless you are using it as an explosive or rocket fuel. Please learn the difference between "Power" and "Energy", it is like the difference between "speed" and "distance".
Half the cost of a comparable battery? NO WAY!
Thanks to the rather expensive materials needed, such as special polymer membranes and platinum catalysts, the current cost of PEM fuel cells is around $5 per watt, which means one just barely powerful enough to run a car is about a quarter million dollars. And that doesn't include the costly H2 storage tanks needed.
The most expensive rumoured price for an EV battery pack was $75,000 for an Altairnano LiIon prototype battery pack - that is about 1/3 the cost of an automotive fuel cell. EV battery packs in actual production cost considerably less.
Now there have been claims that mass production would dramatically reduce prices, but since the fuel cell construction is a simple "stack and seal" and the materials needed are costly, mass production can't reduce costs all that much. Moreover, platinum prices would only go up with increased demand, so attempts at mass production could actually increase the price!
Reply
jake 6:00PM (6/11/2008)
@Merritt Johnson
"Hydrogen offers a greater power to weight ratio over batteries."
That is outright false, hydrogen fuel cells have horrible power to weight ratios, which is why they need a battery pack to act as a buffer. I think you are looking for "energy to weight ratio", and on that issue as BEVs remain at around the 100 mile range it's not going to be an issue even with older Nimh technology. But hydrogen also has horrible "energy to volume ratio" (unless you liquify it of course, but that has it's own problems).
"Plus a fuel cell can be manufactured for half the cost of a comparable battery."
Sorry, I haven't seen any proof that is true at all (please provide some if you can). Remember, fuel cells use precious metals like platinum. And you forgot the hydrogen storage tank and the (surprise!!) nimh battery pack in it to provide the power (fuel cells have horrible power output, I'm not BSing you, the Equinox fuel cell vehicle has a Nimh battery in it), parts that are absolutely necessary for a fuel cell vehicle.
If fuel cells are that much cheaper than a comparible battery then Honda shouldn't have to *lease* their Clarity. Remember, a RAV4 EV from ten years ago can regularly get over 100 miles. That sold for $42k. Tesla estimates their battery pack is ~$20k, that one can go 220 miles. Maybe the fuel cells will get cheaper in the future (similar to how it's expected batteries will get cheaper), but so far there's no indication that is true (oh and don't forget the hydrogen tank & battery costs too).
Reply
MattKelly 6:09PM (6/11/2008)
GM's partnership with Clean Energy is a synergistic one because of the potential to use natural gas to create hydrogen as a viable and proven short term method to develop the hydrogen infrastructure and spur mass-production of these clean-fuel vehicles. What's important to note is that over 50% of the currently-produced hydrogen already goes into the transportation sector to remove sulfur from petroleum--so it would be a net gain if that hydrogen went straight to the propelling of the automobile. And if the U.S. natural gas supply were increased by as little as two percent, it would translate to 10 million fuel cell electric vehicles, reducing overall CO2 emissions 50% on a wells to wheels analysis. To address some of the other posters on this story--GM is creating a plug-in vehicle using batteries--the Volt, due in 2010 (and was the first to announce it long before any other automaker got on the bandwagon.) It is developing the vehicle in conjuction with developing the Li-Ion battery technology at the same time. Batteries though are currently seeing their own issues-witness the recent recall off Cobysys nickel metal hydride batteries. One thing that sticks in my mind is that in 30 years, the global energy needs are going to triple to 45 terrawatts, thats 45 trillion watts, even with the most ardent of conservation methods. Batteries alone will not be enough to answer this demand, so hydrogen becomes the answer due to it's adundance--couple it with sunlight to produce it, again extremely abundant, and you have a solution to this complex issue. The company is diversifying it's portfolio so that it isn't left extremely vulnurable in the instance one technology wins against another--good economic planning for any business.
Reply
meme 7:15PM (6/11/2008)
"And if the U.S. natural gas supply were increased by as little as two percent, it would translate to 10 million fuel cell electric vehicles, reducing overall CO2 emissions 50% on a wells to wheels analysis."
What? 10 million vehicles is only 1/25th of the US vehicle fleet, so mentioning an increase of "only" 2% translates to an actual increase of 50% were all cars to switch. Furthermore, converting 1/25th of US vehicles to anything is never going to eliminate 50% of overall CO2 emissions.
"What's important to note is that over 50% of the currently-produced hydrogen already goes into the transportation sector to remove sulfur from petroleum--so it would be a net gain if that hydrogen went straight to the propelling of the automobile."
No, it wouldn't. First off, not all hydrogen use in refining is "to remove sulphur" (hydrotreating) -- it's also for hydrocracking. Hydrocracking uses a very small amount of hydrogen to convert heavy, long-chain hydrocarbons into ones suitable for fuel. The energy in the hydrogen is a small fraction of the energy contained within the fuel. It also makes the fuel slightly more energetic. Some hydrogen is used to remove sulphur, too, of course -- one molecule of H2 removes one atom of sulphur. "Sour" (high sulphur) crude is any crude oil with more than a mere 0.5% sulphur in it. The sourest grade of crude in the middle east, Souedieh, is only 3.9% sulphur. Again, that's not much hydrogen. The world consumed 52 million tons of hydrogen in 2006. 31% of this was consumed to consumed by refiners (16 million tons) in processing ~4 billion tons of oil.
"Batteries though are currently seeing their own issues-witness the recent recall off Cobysys nickel metal hydride batteries"
Yeah, when you have a *mass market*, you have to deal with part recalls. Where's your mass production of fuel cells? Oh, wait...
"Batteries alone will not be enough to answer this demand"
Lithium phosphate batteries are made from the following ingredients: lithium salts (which, absolute worst case, can be produced from seawater for $22-32 per kilogram), phosphoric acid (one of the world's most common industrial chemicals), iron, sugar, graphite, a fairly simple bulk electrolyte, a thin polymer membrane much simpler than that used in a PEM, and a metal casing. Describe how you come to the conclusions that A) this is somehow impossible to "keep up", and B) fuel cells are more capable of keeping up.
"so hydrogen becomes the answer due to it's adundance"
Yeah, I was driving past a hydrogen mine the other day...
Reply
MattKelly 7:45PM (6/11/2008)
"And if the U.S. natural gas supply were increased by as little as two percent, it would translate to 10 million fuel cell electric vehicles, reducing overall CO2 emissions 50% on a wells to wheels analysis."
Sorry--phrased it wrong--should read: "A 2% increase in US natural gas supply would support 10 million FCEVs annually and reduce overall CO2 emissions by 50% on a “well-to-wheel” basis for every gasoline vehicle replaced." My bad.
"What's important to note is that over 50% of the currently-produced hydrogen already goes into the transportation sector to remove sulfur from petroleum--so it would be a net gain if that hydrogen went straight to the propelling of the automobile."
No, it wouldn't. First off, not all hydrogen use in refining is "to remove sulphur" Correct--53% of the currently produced hydrogen for use in the transportation sector is used for sulfur removal. The net gain I am referring to is a reduction in CO2 emissions--when you take that 53% of currently produced hydrogen and transfer it from the production of co-spewing gasoline, to powering FCHV's.
"Batteries though are currently seeing their own issues-witness the recent recall off Cobysys nickel metal hydride batteries"
Yeah, when you have a *mass market*, you have to deal with part recalls. Where's your mass production of fuel cells? Oh, wait... Exactly my point--GM is in the process of trying to develop this mass market. As of yet, there isn't a mass market for hydrogen, nor for battery-powered vehicles-that too is being developed and is seeing it's delays due to the technology as yet being unreliable.
"Lithium phosphate batteries are made from the following ingredients: lithium salts (which, absolute worst case, can be produced from seawater for $22-32 per kilogram), phosphoric acid (one of the world's most common industrial chemicals), iron, sugar, graphite..." All of which are unssutainable practices--how much greenhouse gases are created in the production of the machinery to extract salt and the extraction process itself, the environmental impact of phosphoric acid, the mining of iron, the growing, watering, harvesting and shipping of sugar and mining of graphite, let alone the plastics needed to house the chemicals to create the chemical reation housed in the battery as well as the disposal of the batteries themselves.
But I digress-my point is this is a good move for GM as it tries to diversify its energy platform and protect itself from vulnerabilities if one technology wins out over another.
And an important point left out of my original post-GM is paying for the installation of this hydrogen pump itself. And there needs to be a partnership with government when it comes to developing a refueling infrastructure for whatever technology wins--hydrogen, batteries, etc. Auto manufacturers can't do it all themselves. Autocompanies and business are doing their part as witnessed by the announcement--where is government?
Reply
James 7:46PM (6/11/2008)
Hydrogen, Batterys, Bio-fuel it does not realy matter what it is if somebody does not come up with something real quick we will be living like cave men.
Reply
Chris M 9:25PM (6/11/2008)
MattKelly: Is energy use really going to triple in 30 years? That is actually an argument against H2, as it is less efficient. Neither batteries or H2 are sources of energy, they are merely carriers of energy.
From electric power through electrolysis of water, storage, and fuel cell combined is an overall efficiency of about 24%, compare that with 85% combined efficiency for charger and battery. We can go 3x farther with batteries, or use 3x more electricity by using H2 fuel cells.
But what about making H2 from sunlight? Yes, methods have been developed, but are not very efficient (about 10%) and are not yet cost effective. Then the H2 must be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity, and PEM fuel cells are at best 60% efficient, making overall efficiency about 6%. Turns out, using regular photovoltaic cells and batteries is about twice that efficient, meaning we could go twice as far on the same amount of sunlight! Good thing there is plenty of sun...
Reply
T2 10:41PM (6/11/2008)
...... and you can see the sun !
I don't know about you, but when I can actually see something well, it sure helps credibility along -know what I mean ?
( George Carlin on 'Worshipping false Gods' )
Reply
mike baz 9:59AM (6/12/2008)
They see the iceberg, but they just can't bring themselves to steer clear of it. Watching the once big three in action is like watching a horror movie where you're pretty sure everybody is going to die, it's just a question of when. The Volt should be GM's number one priority, drop all other money wasting exercises.
Reply
Merritt Johnson 1:21PM (6/12/2008)
I previously made a quick reply, but I should have further expanded on the reasoning. By power to weight ratio I was thinking in terms of the whole system in comparable vehicles, putting out about the same wattage to the wheels. Batteries are heavy and they cannot last through constant deep discharge, therefore they have some dead weight built-in (energy unusable by the system on a normal occasion). A hybrid-electric vehicle is comparable with a fuel cell vehicle, but a pure battery electric car cannot currently meet range demands and maintain a reasonable mass. That is without going the route of a light weight chassis, sleek carbon fiber design like the Tesla Roadster.
As for the cost of various technologies, there was an interesting paper presented at the recent SAE Conference. It was written by Matthew Kromer and John Heywood of MIT and titled a Comparative Assessment of Electric Propulsion Systems in the 2030 US Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. Heywood is a well respected researcher in the world of internal combustion engines. The paper explored the comparative costs between hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell and battery electric vehicles in the year 2007 and estimates advances and cost reductions come 2030. Of course though, the means of crunching the numbers that were presented in the paper have worked many greenies into a frenzy.
When throwing out cost analysis everyone is quick to mention raw materials. However, the cost comes more in the areas of manufacturing and ease of assembly. In the near future though, as battery technology gets more pressure and people develop new tools, batteries should come down quickly. Not to say though that all focus should aim at battery cost reducing when currently other alternatives, like hydrogen fuel cells, show just as much promise. Fuel cells though do need a new infrastructure, but with that infrastructure at least they could be refueled in a quick manner. Also the infrastructure to go a long with hydrogen is something to which existing fueling stations could adapt. Lots of people do not have the time or means to plug a car in for hours. Adding outlets everywhere and developing a system of energy payment would be a mess in itself.
Another paper to read can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4MTC6HN-2&_user=107229&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000008279&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=107229&md5=d0d882bca9dc2ce3ff9867b0f55cf437 It is biased for hyrdogen, but it doesn’t pretend to be a wide view point either.
Reply
Sam Abuelsamid 1:43PM (6/12/2008)
There is another issue here as well. Battery proponents like to tout quick charging capabilities while denegrating the lack of hydrogen fueling infrastructure. There are several dozen hydrogen filling stations around the country. There is not a single publicly accessible fast charge station. Charging an automotive sized battery in 10 minutes requires 480v service and upwards of 1,000 amps. This not a trivial matter and installing facilities to do that is costly. Delivering that kind of electrical power requires a large buffer system and some very heavy cabling.
Reply
GSP 8:45AM (6/14/2008)
Matt Kelly,
I am confused by your statement "global energy needs are going to triple to 45 terrawatts." Do you mean that engery used per year will be 45 terrawatt-hours, or that that global rate of energy use will be 45 terrawatts?
Sam,
H2 does offer quick refill, but so does CNG and LNG. The only thing H2 offers compared to CH4 is extra cost, for both the vehicle and the fuel. I can't see how H2 can be more popular than CNG, but I do think we will be seeing more CNG vehicles in the US, and even more abroad.
Tesla had an interesting idea on quick charging. They were (are?) considering a dedicated charging station, powered by 3-phase AC, that would provide DC current directly to the high voltage DC battery cables in the Roadster. This would reduce the charge time from 3.5 hrs (with the on-board 240v 70A charger) to 1.0 hr. I think that the key concept here is to specify 1.0 hr instead of 5-10 minutes. 1.0 hr is much more pratical for the recharging equipment and it's power supply, and easier on the expensive battery. When I stop for lunch or dinner on a trip, it always takes over 1.0 hr, so I could re-charge with no lost time. The 5-10 min goal is just tring to be exactly like a gas car.
Electric cars can be sold in very large numbers without replicating *all* of the stengths of gas cars. If they are as good as in most respects, and better in some respects, then many (but not all) customers will accept worse inital cost, range, and "re-fill" time than a gas car.
GSP
Reply
MattKelly 4:09PM (6/16/2008)
GSP--global energy needs will be three times what it is today, 15 terrawatts to 45 terrawatts. Does that make better sense?
My question about your quick charging comment and Tesla is, who is going to install all of these units? If you remember the EV1, GM ended up floating the bill for a vast majority of the public chargers in CA and AZ. Should Tesla fund all the quick chargers you are talking about? Should Tesla owners have to buy a charger that connects to an electric outlet to do what you propose? Will fueling stations do it? I doubt the later--many haven't even put ion E85 pumps and there's over 7 million of those on the roads...
Reply