\

PERGAMON International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629

Developing an infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles] a

Southern California case study
Joan M[ Ogden
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies\ Princeton University\ Princeton\ NJ 97433\ U[S[A[

Abstract

We have examined the technical feasibility and economics of developing a hydrogen vehicle refueling infrastructure for
a speci_c area where zero emission vehicles are being considered\ Southern California[ Potential hydrogen demands for
zero emission vehicles are estimated[ We then assess in detail several near term possibilities for producing and delivering
gaseous hydrogen transportation fuel including] "0# hydrogen produced from natural gas in a large\ centralized steam
reforming plant\ and truck delivered as a liquid to refueling stations^ "1# hydrogen produced in a large\ centralized steam
reforming plant\ and delivered via small scale hydrogen gas pipeline to refueling stations^ "2# by!product hydrogen from
chemical industry sources^ "3# hydrogen produced at the refueling station via small scale steam reforming of natural gas^
and "4# hydrogen produced via small scale electrolysis at the refueling station[ The capital cost of infrastructure and the
delivered cost of hydrogen are estimated for each hydrogen supply option[ Hydrogen is compared to other fuels for fuel
cell vehicles "methanol\ gasoline# in terms of vehicle cost\ infrastructure cost and lifecycle cost of transportation[ Finally\
we discuss possible scenarios for introducing hydrogen as a fuel for fuel cell vehicles[ Þ 0888 International Association
for Hydrogen Energy[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[

0[ Introduction bus and the DaimlerÐBenz mini!van "NECAR II# employ

Motivated by concerns about urban air quality\ Cal!
ifornia and several other states have mandated the intro!
duction of zero emission vehicles[ Because of their poten!
tial for good performance\ low cost in mass production\
fast refueling time and long travelling range\ fuel cell
vehicles are among the leading contenders in emerging
markets for zero emission vehicles "ZEVs#[
All fuel cells currently being developed for near term
use in road vehicles require hydrogen as a fuel[ While
hydrogen can be produced onboard the vehicle by
reforming methanol or gasoline\ direct storage of com!
pressed gaseous hydrogen has many attractive features[
The vehicle is simpler in design\ less costly and more
energy e.cient\ refueling can be accomplished rapidly\
and hydrogen can be produced from many sources ð0Ł[
Several experimental fuel cell vehicles such as the Ballard
 Tel[] ¦0 598 147 4369^ fax] ¦0 598 147 2550^ e!mail] ogden!
Ýprinceton[edu
9259!2088:88:,19[99 Þ 0888 International Association for Hydrogen Energy[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved
PII] S 9 2 5 9 ! 2 0 8 8 " 8 7 # 9 9 0 2 0 ! 0
compressed hydrogen gas storage[ Although the energy
density of compressed hydrogen gas is lower than liquid
fuels\ it is higher than that of electric batteries ð1Ł[ With
high e.ciency fuel cell vehicles and advanced pressure
cylinders\ a travelling range of at least 509 km "279 miles#
should be possible for a fuel cell automobile ð2\ 3Ł[
The relative simplicity of vehicle design for the hydro!
gen fuel cell vehicle must be weighed against the added
complexity and cost of developing a hydrogen refueling
infrastructure[ Unlike gasoline and natural gas\ hydrogen
is not widely distributed to consumers today\ and refuel!
ing a large number of hydrogen vehicles poses signi_cant
challenges[ The question is often asked\ {Where is the
hydrogen going to come from<| Indeed\ hydrogen infra!
structure is sometimes perceived as a {show!stopper| for
hydrogen vehicles[
In this paper\ we examine the technical feasibility and
economics of developing a hydrogen vehicle refueling
infrastructure for a speci_c area where zero emission
vehicles are being considered] the Los Angeles Basin[ We
assess several near term possibilities for producing and
delivering gaseous hydrogen transportation fuel "using
609 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629

commercial or near commercial technologies for hydro!
gen production\ storage and distribution#[ These include
"see Fig[ 0#]
, hydrogen produced from natural gas in a large\ cen!
tralized steam reforming plant\ and truck delivered as
a liquid to refueling stations
, hydrogen produced in a large\ centralized steam
reforming plant\ and delivered via small scale hydrogen
gas pipeline to refueling stations
, hydrogen from chemical industry sources "e[g[ excess
capacity in ammonia plants\ re_neries which have
recently upgraded their hydrogen production capacity\
etc[#[
, hydrogen produced at the refueling station via small
scale steam reforming of natural gas
, hydrogen produced via small scale electrolysis at the
refueling station[
To compare these alternatives\ we address the fol!
lowing questions]
"0# What are projected hydrogen demands\ assuming
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles capture some fraction of
the ZEV market<
"1# What are existing and potential hydrogen supplies in
the Los Angeles Basin<
"2# How much would it cost to build a hydrogen infra!

Fig[ 0[ Near term gaseous hydrogen supply options[

 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629 600

structure including hydrogen production capacity\
hydrogen distribution systems and refueling stations<
"3# What is the delivered cost of hydrogen transportation
fuel for various supply options and levels of demand<
"4# How does hydrogen compare to other fuels for fuel
cell vehicles "methanol\ gasoline# in terms of infra!
structure cost\ vehicle cost and lifecycle cost of trans!
portation<
"5# How might a hydrogen infrastructure evolve to meet
projected demands for hydrogen for ZEVs in Sou!
thern California<
"6# What are the synergisms between near term options
and phasing in longer term supplies such as hydrogen
produced from renewables<
1[ Estimated hydrogen demand for refueling hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles in Southern California
1[0[ Estimated number of zero emission vehicles in Los
An`eles area
Data were obtained from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District for current and projected numbers
of automobiles\ light trucks and buses\ vehicle miles tra!
veled\ and fuel consumed in each county "Los Angeles\
San Bernadino\ Orange and Riverside# in the South Coast
Air Basin ð4Ł[ These are summarized in Table 0[ By 1909\
about 6[7 million passenger cars are projected for the Los
Angeles Basin[ If light trucks are considered\ a category
which includes the increasingly popular {sport!utility|
vehicles\ the total projected number of light duty vehicles
is approximately 00 million[ We have extrapolated lin!
early to estimate vehicle populations to 1919\ assuming
that the 1994Ð1909 average growth rate is maintained
between 1909 and 1919[ The estimated light duty vehicle
populations in 1919 are 7[5 million cars and 2[8 million
light trucks[
From Table 0\ the ZEV population in the Los Angeles
Basin can then be calculated for each year\ assuming that
09) of all new cars and light trucks "e[g[ sport utility
vehicles\ mini!vans\ and light pick!up trucks# are ZEVs
starting in 1992[ The number of new cars sold per year is
estimated assuming that new passenger car registrations
are about 5[1) of total car registrations[ This assumption
is based on data for new car sales and total registrations
in California in recent years ð5Ł[ The fuel cell vehicle
lifetime is assumed to be 03 years\ the United States
average ð6Ł[
We _nd that the total number of ZEV passenger cars
operating in the Los Angeles Basin is projected to be
about 269\999 in the year 1909 and about 699\999 by
1919[ Light trucks under 2649 pounds are also subject to
the ZEV mandate[ About 040\999 ZEV light trucks are
projected for 1909 and 291\999 for 1919[ A plot of the

Table 0
Data and projections for vehicle populations\ fuel economy\ annual mileage and energy use for passenger cars\ light trucks and urban
buses in the south coast air basin

Year è Vehicles Average fuel Average miles: Average energy use: Energy use all
economy year:vehicle year:vehicle passenger cars
"mpg# "GJ:year# "EJ:year#

Passenger cars "millions#

0885 5[502 14[1 09\716 45[0 9[260
1999 6[910 15[3 09\409 41[9 9[254
1994 6[398 16[6 09\540 49[2 9[262
1909 6[684 17[5 09\664 38[2 9[274

Light trucks "millions#

0885 1[362 11[9 09\815 54[9 9[050
1999 1[578 11[5 09\502 50[3 9[054
1994 1[86 11[6 09\645 50[8 9[073
1909 2[165 11[4 09\764 52[0 9[196

Urban buses "thousands#

0885 1[865 4[6 49\535 004[1 9[9923
1999 2[965 5[9 49\557 009[0 9[9923
1994 2[077 5[3 49\619 093[0 9[9922
1909 2[299 5[5 49\547 099[8 9[9922

Source] Ranji George\ SCAQMD\ private communications 0887[ Passenger cars and light trucks under 2649 lb are subject to the ZEV
mandate[
601 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
total number of ZEV light duty vehicles "cars plus light
trucks# vs time is shown in Fig[ 1[
1[1[ Buses in the Los An`eles area
To estimate potential transit bus markets in the Los
Angeles area\ data were obtained from the South Coast
Air Quality Management District and the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transit Authority ð4\ 7Ł concerning the
number of buses in the ~eet\ annual energy use\ annual
mileage\ bus lifetime and refueling practices[ In 0885\ the
bus ~eet was about 1865 buses[ This is expected to grow
to 2299 buses by 1909[
1[2[ A scenario for introduction of hydro`en fuel cell
vehicles
Fuel cells may _nd an early application in transit bus
~eets[ Here centralized refueling is the norm\ and the cost
barriers are less stringent than for automotive markets[
Ballard Power Systems has introduced hydrogen fuel cell
buses in two test ~eets in British Columbia and Chicago\
and plans to commercialize fuel cell transit buses in 0888[
Many analysts believe that fuel cell vehicles could begin
to penetrate automotive markets some time between 1993
and 1909[ Eight automotive manufacturers "Chrysler\
Ford\ GM\ DaimlerÐBenz\ Honda Toyota\ Nissan and
Mazda# have announced that they intend to com!
mercialize fuel cell cars in the 1993Ð1994 time frame[
Although it is di.cult to predict what fraction of the
ZEV market will be captured by fuel cell vehicles\ it is
likely that their range\ cost and fast refueling time will
make them attractive alternatives to battery electric
vehicles[
In the spirit of examining what would be required to
Fig[ 1[ Projected number of zero emission and hydrogen fuel cell cars and light trucks in the Los Angeles basin[
develop infrastructure for a signi_cant number of hydro!
gen vehicles\ we assume an aggressive commercialization
scenario\ where half the ZEV market is captured by
hydrogen fuel cell cars starting in 1994\ and 09) of all
new buses are fuel cell buses starting in 0888 "the year
Ballard has planned to commercialize PEMFC buses#[
Under these assumptions\ we estimate the cumulative
number of hydrogen fuel cell cars\ light trucks and buses
in 1909 and 1919[ This totals about 039\999 hydrogen
fuel cell cars\ 47\999 light trucks and 229 buses by 1909
and 249\999 cars\ 049\999 light trucks and 229 buses by
1919 "see Fig[ 1#[
1[3[ Estimated hydro`en demand for vehicles
The hydrogen demand for an individual PEM fuel cell
car or bus is estimated in Table 1[ Bus energy con!
sumption is based on estimates by Ballard ð8Ł\ and auto!
motive energy consumption is based on vehicle modelling
by Steinbugler ð0\ 2Ł[ Given the projected number of fuel
cell cars and buses "Fig[ 1# and the hydrogen demand per
vehicle "Table 1#\ the total hydrogen demand in the South
Coast Basin can be estimated "Fig[ 2#[
For our assumptions\ a total hydrogen demand of
about 15 million standard cubic feet per day "scf:day#
would develop by 1909 "1 million scf:day for buses and
05 million scf:day for cars\ and 7 million scf:day for light
trucks#\ growing to a total of about 50 million scf:day in
1919 "1 million scf:day for buses\ 27 million scf:day for
cars and 10 million scf:day for light trucks#[ This is about
as much hydrogen as would be produced at a typical oil
re_nery today[ ðHydrogen production is commonly given
in units of millions of standard cubic feet of hydrogen
produced per day "million scf:day#[ For reference\ for
Los Angeles driving patterns\ one million scf:day would
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629 602

Table 1
Assumed characteristics of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

PEM FC bus PEM FC car PEMFC light truck

Fuel economy 41 scf H1:mile  7[1 mpg 095 mpg gasoline equivalentb 72 mpg gasoline equivalent
Diesel equivalenta "095 mpg 11[4:17[5#e
Miles:year 49\999c 00\999d 00\999d
Fuel storage H1 gas Ý2599 psi H1 gas Ý4999 psi H1 gas Ý4999 psi
Hydrogen stored onboard "scf# 02\999a 0449 "2[64 kg# 0449 "2[64 kg#
Range "mi# 149a 314 223
Energy use per year "GJ:year# 781 02[5 06[2
Hydrogen use per year "m scf:year# 1[59 9[3 9[4

a
Based on the e.ciency of the Ballard Phase II PEMFC bus "Larson\ Worrell and Chen\ 0885#[ The mile per gallon gasoline equivalent
e.ciency for a fuel cell vehicle is estimated assuming that 0 gallon of gasoline contains 9[0297 GJ "HHV#\ 0 gallon of Diesel contains
9[035 GJ "HHV# and that 0 scf of hydrogen contains 232 kJ "HHV#[
b
Based on estimates for a PEMFC automobile based on models developed by Steinbugler "Ogden\ Kreutz and Steinbugler\ 0886#[
c
Typical annual mileage for a bus in the LA Basin "see Table 0#[
d
Typical annual mileage for a passenger car in the Los Angeles Basin[ "see Table 0#[
e
The fuel economy of an average hydrogen fuel cell light truck was estimated taking the ratio of the "fuel economy for conventional
1909 gasoline cars#:"fuel economy for conventional 1909 light trucks#  11[4:17[5 and multiplying by the estimated fuel economy for
a fuel cell car[

Fig[ 2[ Projected hydrogen demand for cars\ light trucks and buses in Southern California[

fuel about 549 PEM fuel cell cars per day "or a total ~eet
of 8199 cars# or 79 PEMFC buses:day "or a total ~eet or
039 buses#[ "See Table 2[#Ł
We now consider how the projected hydrogen demand
might be met in the near term "0887Ð1919# from existing
and potential near term hydrogen supplies and in the
longer term "beyond 1919# from potential future supplies
in the Los Angeles Basin[
2[ Existing and potential near term hydrogen supplies
in the Los Angeles basin
2[0[ Existin` supplies of hydro`en
At present\ the primary suppliers of hydrogen in Sou!
thern California are the industrial gas companies Praxair\
Inc[ and Air Products and Chemicals\ Inc[
603 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629

Table 2
Fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen use

Hydrogen use FCVs Total ~eet

refueled:day fueled

0 million scf H1:day 543 FCV cars:day Total ~eet of 8112 FCV cars
66 FC Buses:day Total ~eet of 039 FCV Buses

The hydrogen use per for an average fuel cell passenger car is calculated as follows]
Hydrogen use per day per FCV "scf H1:day#  Annual mileage "mi#:254 days:year:Equivalent Fuel Economy
"mi:gallon gasoline equivalent energy#×Gasoline HHV "GJ:gallon#: H1 HHV "GJ:scf#
For a passgenger car]
Annual mileage  00\999 miles
Equivalent fuel economy  095 mpg gasoline equivalent "HHV basis#
Gasoline HHV  9[0297 GJ:gallon
Hydrogen HHV  232 kJ:scf
Hydrogen use per day "scf:day# for an average passenger car
 00999 mi:year:"254 day:year×095 mpg#×"9[0297 GJ:gallon:9[999232 GJ:scf H1#
 097[3 scf:day
So 0 million scf:day could fuel about a total ~eet of about
0 million scf:day: "097 scf:day:car#  8112 cars[
The number of vehicles served daily in the refueling station is calculated as follows]
We assume that the vehicles refuel when the tank is close to empty[ If the range of the vehicle is known\ we
can estimate how many times it must refuel per year\ and how many vehicles are refueled on average per day[
è Refuelings:year:vehicle  Annual mileage "mi#:Range "mi#
è Cars refueled per day
 è Refuelings per year:254 days:year×Total ~eet of vehicles served
 Annual mileage "mi#:Range "mi# :254 days:year×Total ~eet of vehicles served
For a passenger car\ the number of cars fueled per day at a station dispensing 0 million scf H1:day would be
è Cars refueled per day  00\999 mi:314 mi:254 day:year×8112 cars  543 cars:day[
Similarly for PEMFC buses\ where annual mileage  49\999 miles
Range  149 miles
Fuel economy  6[2 mpg equivalent[
0 million scf H1:day could fuel a ~eet of 039 buses\ or about 66 buses:day[

Praxair has a hydrogen plant in Ontario\ California
which currently produces 04 ton:day of liquid hydrogen
"equivalent in energy to about 4[5 million scf:day of gase!
ous hydrogen# for users in the aerospace industry and to
chemical industries[ Although most of the current output
of this plant is already committed\ there may be a million
scf:day or so available today for transportation fuel ð09Ł[
The output of this plant might be increased to 17 ton:day
by restarting a currently idled reformer\ producing
enough fuel "an extra 02 tons:day# for a ~eet of about
32\999 fuel cell cars or about 579 Ballard type PEMFC
urban transit buses[ There is also room for expansion
beyond 17 ton:day\ if the market warranted ð09Ł[ The
price of liquid hydrogen in the Los Angeles area at
demand levels of 9[0Ð1[9 million scf:day is currently
about ,0[0Ð0[4:lb or ,06Ð12:GJ ð00Ł[ A liquid hydrogen
refueling station might add several ,:GJ to this cost ð01Ł[
Air Products and Chemicals recently completed a new
79 million scf:day hydrogen plant "based on steam
reforming of natural gas# in Wilmington\ California to
provide gaseous hydrogen to nearby oil re_neries ð02Ł[
The plant may still have some uncommitted capacity\
which could be used for vehicle fuel[ If 4 million scf:day
were available\ this could fuel a ~eet of about 35\999 fuel
cell cars or 699 fuel cell buses[ The cost of hydrogen at a
large reformer plant might be ,4Ð8:GJ ð03Ð05Ł[ With
gaseous hydrogen\ a pipeline distribution system would
have to be built "or refueling might be done at the hydro!
gen plant#[ The distribution cost would depend on the
type of pipeline system needed ð01Ł[ A gaseous hydrogen
refueling station would add perhaps ,4:GJ to the deliv!
ered cost ð01Ł[ We estimate that the cost of pipeline deliv!
ered hydrogen transportation fuel could be as low as
,01:GJ for a demand near a low cost supply[
In addition\ a number of oil re_neries are located in
the Torrance:Wilmington area[ Typically oil re_neries
produce large amounts of gaseous hydrogen "14Ð099
million scf:day# using most or all of it on site[ Historically
some excess hydrogen has been available\ and some
re_neries have sold a few million scf:day of hydrogen
{over the fence| to other re_neries or chemical users\
delivering the hydrogen by small scale pipeline[ To meet
0885 requirements for Phase II reformulated gasoline\
signi_cantly more hydrogen is required by re_neries[ As a
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
result\ several re_neries have recently built extra reformer
capacity or are buying hydrogen from the new Air Prod!
ucts plant[ It may be possible to purchase a few million
scf:day from re_neries\ especially those with newly
expanded reformer capacity[ This could be economically
attractive\ as the cost "at the plant site# would be quite
low[ If the reformer capital cost is considered to be a
{sunk| cost\ gaseous hydrogen might be sold for as little
as ,0:0999 scf ",1[7:GJ#[ If the reformer capital costs are
counted\ the price for gaseous hydrogen would be ,1[4Ð
2[9:0999 scf ",5[8Ð7[2:GJ# ð06Ł[ The delivered cost to the
user would depend on how long a pipeline was required\
as well as the cost of the refueling station[
Hydrogen from existing sources could be signi_cant in
getting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles started over the next
4Ð09 years[ Even without building any new hydrogen
production capacity\ the total available from all existing
sources might be 4Ð04 million scf:day or enough for
35\999Ð027\999 fuel cell cars or 699Ð1099 fuel cell buses[
Of course\ there would be signi_cant costs to build new
distribution systems and refueling stations to bring the
excess hydrogen potentially available in the Los Angeles
Basin today to consumers| vehicles[
2[1[ Other potential near term sources of hydro`en in
Southern California
If fuel cell vehicles capture a signi_cant fraction of the
ZEV passenger car market\ demand would soon outstrip
existing excess hydrogen production capacity[ "Recall
that by 1909\ fueling 49) of all ZEVs plus 09) of transit
buses with hydrogen would require 15 million scf H1:day\
and by 1919 about 50 million scf:day would be needed[#
In this case\ other near term supplies could be developed[
, If a large market for hydrogen transportation fuel were
to develop\ industrial gas suppliers indicated that they
could build a new\ large hydrogen plant based on steam
reforming of natural gas in 1Ð2 years[ Typical hydrogen
output capacities for large scale reformer plants are
14Ð099 million scf:day[ An 79 million scf:day steam
reformer plant "similar in size to the recently built Air
Products plant# could serve a ~eet of 699\999 fuel cell
passenger cars[ Hydrogen from such a plant could be
liqui_ed for truck delivery or delivered via a small scale
pipeline system[
, It is also possible to produce hydrogen on site at the
refueling station via small scale steam reforming of
natural gas[ Recent improvements in small scale
reformer technology are making this option increas!
ingly attractive ð07\ 08Ł[ Partial oxidation of methane
at the refueling station is another potentially interesting
option[
, Ample natural gas resources are available in the Los
Angeles area to produce hydrogen transportation fuel
in the near term[ Fueling a ~eet of 199\999 fuel cell cars
604
and light trucks plus 229 fuel cell buses would require
about 15 million scf H1:day[ This amount of hydrogen
could be produced via steam reforming from about 7
million scf:day of natural gas or about 9[2) of the total
natural gas ~ow through Southern California Gas|s
distribution system "which carries about 2 billion scf
natural gas:day#[ Natural gas is widely available
throughout the Los Angeles Basin[ Based on experience
with installing compressed natural gas vehicle refueling
stations "which would require a similar natural gas ~ow
to hydrogen refueling stations based on onsite reform!
ing#\ the natural gas distribution system would not have
to be modi_ed to bring natural gas to refueling stations
for onsite hydrogen production ð19Ł[
, There is a large potential for using o}!peak power in
Southern California[ Southern California Edison esti!
mated that some 3999Ð5999 MW of o}!peak power
might available from 07[99Ð09[99 h[ This could be used
to power electrolyzers\ providing some 369Ð699 million
scf H1:day "assuming an electrolyzer e.ciency of 69)#\
enough to fuel a ~eet of 3[0Ð5[2 million fuel cell cars[
The price of o}!peak power would be 3Ð3[4 cents:kWh
for small commercial customers "49Ð499 kW# ð10Ł\ and
2 cents:kWh for large customers "×499 kW#[ Elec!
trolyzers producing 9[0Ð1[9 million scf H1:day "the size
range needed to serve 7Ð059 buses or 54Ð0299 cars:day#
would be in the 399Ð7999 kW range\ and might take
advantage of lower o}!peak rates[
In Fig[ 3\ we compare the projected near term "0887Ð
1919# hydrogen demand for vehicles in the Los Angeles
Basin to the amount of hydrogen which could be supplied
from various existing and near term supplies[ Hydrogen
from existing industrial and re_nery sources in the Los
Angeles area are su.cient for getting started and could
fuel a ~eet of perhaps 35\999Ð027\999 fuel cell cars or
699Ð1099 Ballard buses:day[ Beyond this level\ modest
amounts of natural gas or o}!peak power could meet
near term demand[ A ~eet of about 699\999 fuel cell cars
could be fueled with hydrogen made from 0) of the
natural gas ~ow in the Southern California Gas system[
Using 09) of o}!peak power available in the Los Ang!
eles area could fuel perhaps 399\999Ð599\999 fuel cell
cars[
3[ Beyond 1919] A transition to long term hydrogen
supplies
Natural gas supplies would probably be su.cient to
supply feedstock for hydrogen production for up to sev!
eral million PEMFC cars\ for several decades[ "Assuming
an amount equivalent to 4Ð09) of current natural gas
~ow is used for hydrogen production\ a ~eet of 2[4Ð6
million hydrogen fuel cell cars could be served[# If the
entire ~eet in the Los Angeles area eventually converted
605 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
Fig[ 3[ Potential hydrogen supplies and demands for vehicle fuel in Southern California[
to ZEVs\ hydrogen for some 01Ð03 million passenger cars
and light trucks might be required[ Long term options
might be phased in at this time "see Fig[ 4#[
These include gasi_cation of municipal solid waste "a
potential resource capable of producing serving 3Ð5
million FCV cars in the Los Angeles area# biomass\ wind
or solar "a potentially huge resource\ which could meet
foreseeable demands\ even for a 099) ZEV trans!
portation system#[ Hydrogen could also be produced
from distant natural gas or coal with sequestration of
CO1 underground\ and pipeline delivery of hydrogen ð05Ł[
3[0[ Hydro`en from municipal solid waste
Municipal solid waste "MSW# can be gasi_ed to pro!
duce methanol or hydrogen[ Chen ð11Ł has estimated that
264Ð499 million scf H1:day could be produced in the Los
Angeles area via gas_cation of MSW[ This would be
enough to fuel a ~eet of 2Ð3 million fuel cell cars[ The
cost of hydrogen production was estimated to be about
,09[1Ð02[2:GJ for a plant producing 15[4 million scf
H1:day\ assuming tipping fees of ,11:tonne of raw MSW\
the _gure used in Los Angeles[ Hydrogen plants using
MSW as a feedstock would bene_t from economies of
scale[
The delivered cost of hydrogen to the consumer would
depend on the cost of distribution via pipeline[ For a
09 km\ 2 in diameter hydrogen pipeline costing about
,0\999\999:mile\ the cost of transmitting 00 million scf!
:day would be about ,0:GJ "see Fig[ 8#[ Assuming that
the refueling station added another ,4:GJ\ the total deliv!
ered cost of compressed hydrogen gas transportation fuel
from MSW would be about ,05Ð08:GJ[
Hydrogen could also be produced via gasi_cation of
biomass\ probably at similar costs to hydrogen from
MSW[ We have not speci_cally estimated potential
biomass resources in the Los Angeles area[
3[1[ Hydro`en from solar\ wind and `eothermal
In areas with good direct insolation "such as the desert
areas east of Los Angeles#\ solar thermal power could be
used in thermochemical cycles for producing hydrogen
via solar!assisted steam reforming of natural gas or via
water decomposition ð12Ł[
Solar photovoltaic "PV# electrolytic hydrogen could be
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629 606

Fig[ 4[ Long term hydrogen supply options[

produced almost anywhere[ The Los Angeles area has a
good solar resource[ The amount of land required to
produce 047 million scf H1:day "enough to fuel a ~eet of
0 million fuel cell cars# would be about 41 km1 or 10 mi1
"assuming annual average insolation of 119 W:m1\ PV
e.ciency of 04) and electrolyzer e.ciency of 79)#[ PV
hydrogen systems could be centralized or stand!alone "at
the refueling site#[ With projected improvements in the
cost of mass!produced thin _lm PV\ the delivered cost of
transportation fuel might be ,11Ð29:GJ "roughly twice
that of hydrogen from natural gas# ð13\ 14Ł[ Ultimately\
to meet the demand for 03 million fuel cell cars "levels
projected for cars in the Los Angeles Basin in the early
to middle part of the next century# about 149 mi1 of PV
plants would be needed[
There are several excellent wind sites in Southern Cal!
ifornia\ including sites at Tehachapi Pass and San Gor!
gonio Pass "on Route I!09 an hour or so east of Los
Angeles#[ Costs for wind electrolytic hydrogen would
probably be similar to those projected for PV\ if long
term goals are met ð13Ł[ Local wind resources have not
been quanti_ed in this study\ but could be looked at in
more detail[
Geothermal power is another possible option in the
Southern California area[ Kruger ð15\ 16Ł has estimated
that there are a number of sites in Southern California
suitable for high quality\ hot dry rock geothermal plants\
each producing as much as 048 MW of hydrogen output
"equivalent to hydrogen production of about 39 million
scf hydrogen:day\ enough for a ~eet of about 249\999
hydrogen fuel cell cars#[ The total size of this resource
has not been estimated[
607 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
3[2[ Hydro`en from fossil fuels or biomass with seques!
terin` of CO1
Hydrogen might also be produced from fossil fuels
"natural gas or coal# or biomass with sequestering of the
byproduct CO1 in gas _elds or aquifers\ and piped to
users ð05Ł[ This might occur after a su.ciently large
demand had built up to justify building a hydrogen pipe!
line system ð17Ł[
3[3[ Summary of lon` term options for hydro`en pro!
duction
A comparison of hydrogen potentially available from
long term supplies\ and potential long term demands "for
a ~eet with 49Ð099) fuel cell vehicles# is made in Fig[ 5[
It appears that hydrogen produced from a combination
of primary sources "natural gas\ wastes and renewables#
could meet foreseeable demands for hydrogen trans!
portation fuel\ even for a ~eet made up entirely of hydro!
gen fuel cell vehicles[
4[ Economics of hydrogen production and delivery
4[0[ Delivered cost of hydro`en transportation fuel
We now estimate the delivered cost of hydrogen trans!
portation fuel in Southern California for the various near
term options shown in Fig[ 0[ A range of refueling station
Fig[ 5[ Long term supplies and demands for hydrogen trans!
portation fuel in Southern California[
sizes from 9[0 to 1[9 million scf:day is considered "e[g[
stations capable of refueling about 54Ð0299 fuel cell cars:
day or 7Ð059 fuel cell buses:day#[ Data for refueling
station components were obtained from industry sources\
and conceptual designs were made for each option ð01\
08Ł[
Energy prices for Southern California are summarized
in Table 3 based on data obtained from Southern Cal!
ifornia Gas Company ð19Ł and Southern California Edi!
son ð10Ł[ The delivered cost of hydrogen transportation
fuel is then estimated\ using data developed in our earlier
studies of hydrogen transportation fuel supply options
ð01\ 18\ 29Ł[
The delivered cost of hydrogen transportation fuel for
Southern California conditions is shown in Fig[ 6 for
a variety of station sizes and supply options[ The cost
contributions of various factors are shown for each tech!
nology over a range of station sizes[ Although all the
supply options are roughly competitive\ several points
are readily apparent[
"0# Truck delivered liquid hydrogen gives a delivered
hydrogen cost of ,19Ð29:GJ\ depending on the
station size[ Although other options "such as on site
reforming# may o}er a lower delivered hydrogen cost\
this alternative would be attractive for the _rst dem!
onstration projects\ as the capital requirements for
the refueling station would be relatively small ð01\
08Ł\ and no pipeline infrastructure would be required[
"1# On site production of hydrogen via small scale
reforming of natural gas is economically attractive
and has the advantage that no hydrogen distribution
system is required[ Delivered hydrogen costs are
shown in Fig[ 7 for on site reforming of natural gas
based on] "0# conventional small steam reformer sys!
tems and "1# advanced low cost reformers\ which
have recently been introduced for stationary hydro!
gen production ð07Ł[ With conventional reformer
technology\ hydrogen is expensive at small station
sizes\ but is economically attractive at larger station
sizes[ As discussed in a recent report ð08Ł\ adopting
lower cost\ advanced steam methane reformer
designs based on fuel cell reformers could sub!
stantially reduce the delivered cost of hydrogen
especially at small station size[ With advanced
reformers\ on site reforming is competitive with liquid
hydrogen truck delivery and pipeline delivery over
the whole range of station sizes considered[
"2# Under certain conditions\ pipeline hydrogen could
o}er low delivered costs[ The capital cost of building
a small "2 in diameter# hydrogen pipeline would be
about ,0 million per mile in the heavily populated
Los Angeles area ð20Ł[ Figure 8 shows the cost of
hydrogen pipeline delivery in a 2 in diameter pipeline
as a function of the pipeline ~ow rate and the
distance[ The levelized cost of pipeline delivery in Los
Angeles is about]
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629 608

Table 3
Assumed energy prices in Southern California

Application Annual average electricity cost ",:kWh#

On site reforming station

Pipeline hydrogen station 6[1 cents:kWh
LH1 station

On site electrolysis station

continuous operation 3[7 cents:kWh
o}!peak operation 2[9 cents:kWh
Source] Southern California Edison[

Natural gas price ,1[7:GJ

This is the price of natural gas delivered to a CNG vehicle
station[ Source] Southern California Gas Co[

Water price ,9[9924:gallon

Source] Los Angeles Department of Water and Power[

Fig[ 6[ Delivered cost of hydrogen transportation fuel as a function of refueling station size[

Ppipeline",:GJ#
,0[1:GJ×distance "in km#:~ow rate "in million scf
H1:day#[
The levelized cost of pipeline delivery depends on the
~ow rate and the length of the pipeline ð01Ł[ The
higher the ~ow rate\ and the shorter the pipeline\ the
lower the cost[
"3# Centrally produced hydrogen ranges in cost from
,2:GJ for re_nery excess\ to ,4Ð8:GJ for large scale
steam reforming to ,7Ð09:GJ for hydrogen from
biomass\ coal or MSW[ If the cost of hydrogen pro!
619 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629

Fig[ 7[ Delivered cost of hydrogen transportation fuel from conventional and advanced small scale steam methane reformers[

Fig[ 8[ Levelized cost of small!scale hydrogen pipeline transmission vs Pipeline length and ~owrate[

duction is low\ higher pipeline costs could be toler!
ated[ Still\ for pipeline hydrogen to be competitive
with truck delivery or on site reforming\ pipeline costs
can be no more than a few ,:GJ[ For a small scale
hydrogen pipeline system to be economically com!
petitive a large\ fairly localized demand would be
required[ Alternatively\ a small demand might be
served by a nearby\ low cost supply of hydrogen[ For
example\ from Fig[ 8\ if we want a transmission cost
of ,0:GJ\ we could have a ~ow rate of 09 million
scf:day ðan amount which could serve a total ~eet of
81\999 cars "see Table 2#Ł over a pipeline distance of
about 09 km "e[g[ an entire small city converts to
hydrogen fuel cell cars\ supplied by a hydrogen plant
within 09 km#[ Another scenario giving a levelized
pipeline cost of ,0:GJ is a single refueling station
serving a ~eet of 8199 cars located 0 km from a large
hydrogen plant "e[g[ 09) of the cars in a small city
convert to hydrogen fuel cells\ and the refueling
station is located near a hydrogen plant#[
"4# For our assumptions\ it appears that on site elec!
trolysis would be somewhat more expensive than
other options\ largely because of the relatively high
cost of o}!peak power in the Los Angeles area[ "If
the cost of o}!peak power were reduced from 2
cents:kWh to 0Ð0[4 cents:kWh\ e[g[ as a result of
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629 610

utility restructuring or availability of low cost o}
peak hydropower\ hydrogen costs would become
more competitive[#
4[1[ Capital cost of buildin` a hydro`en refuelin` infra!
structure
The capital cost of building a hydrogen refueling infra!
structure is often cited as a serious impediment to use of
hydrogen in vehicles[ In Tables 4 and 5 and Fig[ 09\ we
show the capital cost of building a hydrogen refueling
infrastructure for the various options discussed in the
previous section[ We consider two levels of infrastructure
development[
"0# Early development of a distribution system and
refueling stations to bring excess hydrogen from
existing hydrogen capacity to users[ We assume that
no new centralized hydrogen production capacity is
needed[ Two refueling stations serve a total ~eet of
07\399 cars\ each station dispensing 0 million scf
H1:day to 543 cars:day[ The options for providing
hydrogen include] "0# liquid hydrogen delivery via
truck from existing capacity^ "1# pipeline hydrogen
delivery from a nearby large hydrogen plant or
re_nery^ "2# on site production from steam reforming
of natural gas^ and "3# on site production from elec!
trolysis[
"1# Development of new hydrogen production\ delivery
and refueling capacity to meet growing demands for
hydrogen transportation fuel[ The system dispenses
042 million scf of hydrogen per day\ serving a total
~eet of 0[3 million cars[ Each of 042 refueling stations
dispenses 0 million scf H1:day to 543 cars:day[
Options for providing hydrogen are] "0# liquid hydro!
gen delivery via truck from new centralized steam
reformer capacity^ "1# pipeline hydrogen delivery
from a new centralized hydrogen plant^ "2# on site
production from steam reforming of natural gas^ and
"3# on site production from electrolysis[
The range of infrastructure capital costs for a system
serving 07\399 fuel cell cars\ is about ,0[3Ð00[3 million
or ,79Ð519:car[ "The ,79:car capital cost is for liquid
hydrogen delivery assuming no new liquid hydrogen
trucks or hydrogen production capacity is needed[ Such
low costs would only be available for low levels of hydro!
gen demand[# The range of infrastructure capital costs
for a system serving 0[3 million fuel cell cars\ is about
,399Ð899 million or ,209Ð519:car[
It is important to keep in mind the results of Fig[ 6 for
the total delivered cost of hydrogen transportation fuel\

Table 4
Capital cost for developing new hydrogen delivery and refueling station infrastructure serving a total ~eet of 07\399 FCV cars\ delivering
1 million scf H1:day "assuming that existing production capacity is used#

Centralized Centralized On site steam On site steam On site

production production reforming reforming advanced
via steam reforming via steam reforming of natural gas] of natural gas] electrolysis using
of natural gas of natural gas conventional steam fuel cell steam o}!peak power
w:LH1 delivery w:pipeline delivery methane reformer methane reformer

Centralized 9 "assumed 9 "assumed

hydrogen that existing that existing
production capacity is used# capacity is used#

Hydrogen 9 "assumed 09 km pipeline 

distribution that existing ,5[1 million
trucks are "at ,0 million
used# per mile#

1 refueling ,0[3 m ,2[3 m ,09[7 m ,5[7 m ,00[3 m

stations each ",9[6 per station# ",0[6 million ",4[3 million ",2[3 million ",4[6 million
serving 543 per station# per station# per station# per station#
cars:day

TOTAL ,0[3 m ,8[5 m ,09[7 m ,5[7 m ,00[3 m

Infrastructure ,65 ,411 ,476 ,269 ,519

cost per car

Adapted from Ogden\ Kreutz\ Iwan and Kartha\ 0885[

611 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629

Table 5
Capital cost for developing new hydrogen production\ delivery and refueling station infrastructure serving a total ~eet of 0[30 million
fuel cell cars\ delivering 042 million scf H1:day

Centralized Centralized On site steam On site steam On site

production production reforming reforming advanced
via steam reforming via steam reforming of natural gas] of natural gas] electrolysis using
of natural gas of natural gas conventional steam fuel cell steam o}!peak power
w:LH1 delivery w:pipeline delivery methane reformer methane reformer

Centralized ,099 million ,069 million

hydrogen for reformer for reformer
production ¦, 199 million ¦H1 compressor
for lique_er¦
LH1 storage

Hydrogen 79 LH1 trucks 599 km pipeline 

distribution each with a ,279 million
2 tonne capacity\ "at ,0 million
each making 1 local per mile#
deliveries:day 
,39 m

042 ,093 m ,159 m ,729 m ,405 m ,769 m

0 million scf ",9[6 million per ",0[6 million per ",4[3 million ",2[3 million ,4[6 million
H1:day station# station# per station# per station# per station#
refueling
stations each
serving 543
cars:day

TOTAL ,339 m ,709 m ,729 m ,405 m ,769 m

Infrastructure cost ,201 ,463 ,476 ,269 ,519

per car

Adapted from Ogden\ Kreutz\ Iwan and Kartha\ 0885[

as well as the capital cost of infrastructure[ Some of
the lower capital cost options such as liquid hydrogen
delivery\ can give a higher delivered fuel cost than on site
reforming or pipeline delivery[
4[2[ Infrastructure capital costs for fuel cell vehicles]
Hydro`en compared to methanol and `asoline
It is often stated that use of methanol or gasoline
with onboard reformers in fuel cell vehicles would greatly
reduce "for methanol# or eliminate "for gasoline# the
problem of developing a new fuel infrastructure[ How
does the capital cost of building a hydrogen refueling
infrastructure compare to the capital cost of infra!
structure development for methanol or gasoline fuel cell
vehicles<
De_ning {infrastructure| to mean all the equipment
"both on and o} the vehicle# required to bring hydrogen
to the fuel cell\ it is clear that gasoline and methanol fuel
cell vehicles also entail extra costs*largely for onboard
fuel processing[ In the case of hydrogen or methanol\ the
infrastructure development capital cost is paid by the fuel
producer "and presumably passed along to the consumer
as a higher fuel cost#[ In the case of methanol or gasoline
fuel cell vehicles\ an additional capital cost for onboard
fuel processing is paid by the consumer buying the car[
Recent studies by Ogden\ Steinbugler and Kreutz ð0\
21Ð23Ł conclude that when the total infrastructure cost
"on and o} the vehicle# is considered\ hydrogen infra!
structure capital costs are comparable to or less than
those for methanol and gasoline[ Figure 00 shows the
incremental costs for fuel processors onboard a fuel cell
vehicle "compared to a hydrogen vehicle# and the
incremental cost of o}!vehicle infrastructure per car
"compared to gasoline#[ This study indicates that mass
produced methanol fuel cell vehicles are likely to cost
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629 612

Fig[ 09[ Capital cost of hydrogen refueling infrastructure[

Fig[ 00[ Comparison of incremental costs for fuel cell vehicles "compared to a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle# and refueling infrastructure
"compared to gasoline# in ,:car[
613 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
,499Ð599 more than comparable hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles[ In the early stages of developing a methanol
infrastructure\ no new production capacity would be
needed[ In this case\ o}!vehicle refueling infrastructure
for methanol might cost ,49:car for conversion of gaso!
line stations to methanol\ and for new marine terminal
equipment and trucks[ "If new methanol production
capacity is needed\ the methanol infrastructure capital
cost rises to ,299Ð799:car ð21Ð23Ł[# Gasoline POX fuel
cell vehicles are likely to cost ,749Ð0199 more than com!
parable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles[ For hydrogen the
incremental capital cost of infrastructure development is
about ,209Ð519:car[ This supports the view that the total
cost for hydrogen infrastructure on and o} the vehicle
would be comparable to or less than that for methanol
or gasoline[
4[3[ Lifecycle cost of ownin` and operatin` a hydro`en
fuel cell car compared to alternatives
The delivered costs of alternative transportation fuels
for fuel cells "hydrogen\ methanol and gasoline# are
shown in Fig[ 01[ We see that the delivered cost of hydro!
gen is higher on an energy basis ",:GJ# than methanol or
gasoline[ However\ because the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle
has a 49) higher fuel economy than comparable meth!
anol or gasoline fuel cell vehicles ð0Ł\ the fuel cost per km
is about the same for hydrogen made from natural gas
as for gasoline "Fig[ 02#[
The total lifecycle cost of transportation "cents:km# of
fuel cell vehicles "counting vehicle capital costs\ O+M
Fig[ 01[ Delivered cost of hydrogen\ methanol and gasoline transportation fuel[
and fuel# is slightly lower for hydrogen fueled vehicles
"assuming the hydrogen is derived from natural gas# than
for fuel cell vehicles using methanol or gasoline "see Fig[
03#[ This is true because the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
are likely to cost less to buy\ and have roughly 49)
higher fuel economy than methanol or gasoline fuel cell
vehicles[
4[4[ Comparison with other studies of hydro`en refuelin`
infrastructure
Several other studies have been undertaken assessing
the cost and feasibility of building a hydrogen infra!
structure for vehicles ð24Ð31Ł[ The most comprehensive
of these was supported by Ford Motor Company and
the United States Department of Energy and was coor!
dinated by Directed Technologies Inc[ "DTI#\ as part of
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
"PNGV# program[ In this study\ four major industrial
hydrogen gas companies "Air Products and Chemicals\
Inc[\ BOC Gases\ Praxair and Electrolyser Corporation#
carried out conceptual designs for hydrogen refueling
infrastructure[ The results of these studies are consistent
with our results[ For example\ in a recent paper ð30Ł\
summarizing earlier studies\ DTI researchers cited long
term infrastructure capital costs of ,129Ð279 per vehicle
for hydrogen "as compared to our estimate of ,209Ð
519:car#\ and ,529Ð0249 per vehicle for methanol "as
compared to our estimate of ",449Ð0399:car#[ Moreover\
the delivered hydrogen costs DTI estimated for gaseous
hydrogen refueling stations based on small scale on site
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629 614

Fig[ 02[ Fuel cost per km for fuel cell vehicles[

Fig[ 03[ Lifecycle cost of transportation for fuel cell vehicles[

reformation of natural gas are within 4Ð09) of our esti! obstacle to introducing hydrogen vehicles in Southern
mates ð24Ł[ California[

"0# The technologies to produce\ deliver and dispense

5[ Discussion] Is hydrogen refueling infrastructure a hydrogen are well known[ There appear to be no
{show!stopper| for hydrogen vehicles in Southern major technical hurdles to dispensing hydrogen
California< transportation fuel[
"1# Ample supplies of hydrogen exist in the Los Angeles
Our study suggests several reasons why hydrogen infra! area[ It would be possible to introduce signi_cant
structure development may not be an insurmountable numbers of fuel cell vehicles\ even without building
615 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
any new hydrogen production capacity[ The excess
hydrogen capacity available from industrial suppliers
and re_neries today might fuel 699Ð1099 PEM fuel
cell buses or 35\999Ð027\999 PEM fuel cell cars[
"2# Once demand exceeded these levels\ hydrogen from
steam reforming of natural gas\ gasi_cation of MSW\
or o}!peak power could supply hydrogen for millions
of FCVs[
"3# According to our estimates\ the capital cost of build!
ing a hydrogen refueling infrastructure o} the vehicle
is comparable to or less than the added cost of putting
individual small hydrogen production systems "fuel
processors# onboard each vehicle[ Initially\ o}!board
methanol infrastructure costs would be relatively
small ",49:car#\ but once methanol production
capacity is needed\ signi_cant o}!vehicle capital costs
are incurred[
6[ Possible scenarios for developing a hydrogen
refueling infrastructure in the Los Angeles basin
6[0[ Introduction of PEM fuel cell buses
There are a number of reasons why PEM fuel cell buses
might be the _rst users of hydrogen as a transportation
fuel[
"0# Ballard is demonstrating hydrogen fueled PEMFC
buses in several cities\ with commercialization plan!
ned for 0888[
"1# Refueling with hydrogen or any alternative trans!
portation fuel is easier at centralized ~eet locations
such as bus garages[
"2# The daily demand for hydrogen for a bus depot
would be large enough to bring the delivered cost of
hydrogen down somewhat because of economies of
scale\ especially for stations based on small scale
reformers[
"3# Fuel cells might be economically competitive _rst in
bus markets\ where cost goals are not as stringent as
for automobiles[
Existing industrial hydrogen sources would be
su.cient to supply several hundred buses[ It is interesting
to note that all the urban transit bus depots in the Los
Angeles area are within an hour or so of the Praxair
liquid hydrogen plant[ Several bus depots are located in
the Long Beach area\ possibly within short\ local pipeline
distance of re_neries or the Air Products plant[ Alter!
natively\ on site production of hydrogen from natural
gas might be used[ A ~eet of about eight PEMFC buses
could be refueled daily using a small scale reformer pro!
ducing 099\999 scf H1:day[ Rapid developments in small
scale reformer technology are making this an increasingly
attractive supply option[
6[1[ Pro`ress in the commercialization of fuel cell auto!
mobiles
Several automobile manufacturers "Chrysler\ GM\
Ford\ DaimlerÐBenz\ Toyota\ Mazda\ Honda and Nis!
san# have announced that they plan to commercialize
PEM fuel cell cars around 1993Ð1994[ Various fuel stor!
age approaches are being investigated by manufacturers
including direct hydrogen storage "DaimlerÐBenz|s
NECAR II#\ methanol with onboard reforming "Daim!
lerÐBenz|s NECAR III and Toyota|s RAV\ plus pro!
posed designs by Honda\ Nissan#\ and gasoline with
onboard partial oxidation "Chrysler and DaimlerÐBenz
with Shell Oil#[ Experimental hydrogen and methanol
fuel cell cars have been demonstrated in 0885 and 0886\
and the gasoline:POX fuel cell car will probably be dem!
onstrated over the next year or so[
6[2[ Aside] Fuel choice for fuel cell automobiles
Hydrogen is the prefered fuel for fuel cell vehicles in
terms of vehicle cost\ performance\ and simplicity of
design ð0Ł[ However\ the o}!vehicle infrastructure is more
costly and complex than for methanol or gasoline[ While
many in the fuel cell vehicle community see general use
of hydrogen fuel cell cars as the ultimate aim\ there is an
ongoing debate about the most direct path to this goal[
If onboard partial oxidation "POX# of gasoline is per!
fected\ this might allow a rapid introduction of fuel cell
cars to the general public\ with attendant lowering of fuel
cell costs in mass production[ But onboard POX vehicles
appear to have penalties in terms of vehicle cost\ e.ciency
and emissions\ which may make hydrogen vehicles an
extremely attractive successor or alternative[
Methanol could be more readily stored and trans!
ported than hydrogen\ and o}!vehicle infrastructure
development costs would be lower\ at least initially ð21Ł[
Methanol blends "M!74# are currently o}ered about 19
public access refueling stations in the Los Angeles area
"e[g[ within 29 miles of Los Angeles# ð32Ł[ However\ meth!
anol use is primarily in ~eets that operate locally rather
than private passenger cars[ Thus\ methanol faces the
same {chicken and egg| problem as any non!gasoline fuel
in reaching beyond centrally refueled ~eet markets into
large automotive markets[ Moreover\ methanol fuel cell
vehicles face fuel processor issues analogous to those for
gasoline POX fuel cell vehicles[
Because of their projected lower _rst cost and higher
fuel economy\ hydrogen fuel cell vehicles might be econ!
omically preferable to methanol or gasoline[ As shown
in Fig[ 03\ the total lifecycle cost of transportation for a
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle "when hydrogen is made from
natural gas# is estimated to be slightly less than for a
gasoline fuel cell vehicle[ Williams ð33Ł has suggested that
this could be su.cient incentive to develop a hydrogen
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
refueling infrastructure\ even if gasoline fuel cell vehicles
are introduced _rst[
A good case can be made that hydrogen is ultimately
the fuel of choice for fuel cell automobiles[ The timing
for introducing hydrogen is uncertain[ As vehicle dem!
onstrations progress over the next few years\ technical
and cost issues for various types of fuel cell vehicles
"in particular for onboard fuel processors# will be better
understood and the path to commercialization of fuel cell
automobiles should become clearer[
6[3[ Introduction of PEMFC automobiles in Southern
California
If hydrogen PEMFC cars capture a signi_cant fraction
of the mandated ZEV market\ the demand for hydrogen
could grow rapidly\ and new hydrogen production
capacity and delivery infrastructure would be needed[
The _rst hydrogen fuel cell cars would probably appear
in centrally refueled ~eets[ Issues in moving beyond these
initial markets may be similar to those for compressed
natural gas\ methanol and other alternative fuels[
In near term liquid hydrogen truck delivery or on site
production of hydrogen from natural gas would probably
give the lowest delivered transportation fuel costs to the
consumer[ Because of the high cost of building small
scale gaseous pipelines\ development of new\ large scale\
centralized production capacity with pipeline distribution
would require a fairly large\ localized hydrogen demand[
This might not develop until a larger fraction of the
automotive population was hydrogen!fueled[ "Excep!
tions might be found\ where gaseous distribution was
more attractive\ e[g[ a cluster of ~eet cars in an industrial
area[# Onsite electrolysis appears less economically
attractive than steam reforming in the Los Angeles area\
because of the relatively high cost of o}!peak power "2
cents:kWh#[ If lower cost electricity supplies were avail!
able\ this alternative would be more competitive[
7[ Conclusions
, If hydrogen fuel cell vehicles capture a signi_cant frac!
tion of the mandated zero emission vehicle "ZEV#
market\ a large demand for hydrogen could develop
over the next 04Ð19 years[ If PEMFC "proton exchange
membrane fuel cell# cars accounted for half the man!
dated ZEV population after 1994\ and 09) of new
buses\ there would be about 199\999 fuel cell light duty
vehicles and 229 fuel cell buses on the road in the
Los Angeles Basin by 1909\ requiring 15 million scf of
hydrogen per day[ By 1919 this would grow to 50
million scf of hydrogen per day[ "This is comparable to
the amount of hydrogen produced in a large steam
reformer plant in a typical oil re_nery today[#
, We found that a considerable amount of hydrogen\
616
perhaps 4Ð04 million scf:day\ would be available in the
Los Angeles Basin from existing industrial gas supplies
and from re_nery excess hydrogen[ Fleets of perhaps
35\999Ð027\999 fuel cell cars or 699Ð1099 PEM fuel cell
buses might be fueled without building new hydrogen
production capacity[ New hydrogen distribution and
refueling station capacity would be needed to bring the
available hydrogen to consumers[
, The delivered cost of hydrogen transportation fuel from
existing sources would vary from perhaps ,01 to 29:GJ[
If hydrogen were trucked as a liquid to a refueling
station\ then vaporized and dispensed as a compressed
gas\ the delivered hydrogen cost to the consumer would
be ,19Ð29:GJ[ Costs for gaseous hydrogen delivered by
small pipeline would vary from as little as ,01:GJ to
more than ,29:GJ\ depending on the level of demand
and the pipeline length[ Pipeline delivery might be
attractive for users located near an inexpensive hydro!
gen source "such as re_nery excess or the Air Products
plant in Wilmington\ California[# Capital costs would
be lower for a hydrogen refueling station based on
liquid hydrogen delivery than for a station served by
pipeline[
, Once demand for hydrogen exceeded existing excess
hydrogen production capacity "perhaps 4Ð04 million
scf:day#\ new production capacity would be needed[
There are a number of possibilities for producing
hydrogen in the Los Angeles region[ In the near term\
these include small scale steam reforming of natural gas
at the refueling station and small scale electrolysis of
water using o}!peak electricity[ In the longer term\
other hydrogen supplies might be phased such as cen!
tralized production of hydrogen via large scale steam
reforming of natural gas\ gasi_cation of municipal solid
waste or biomass\ solar or wind powered electrolysis\
or hydrogen from fossil fuels with sequestration of CO1[
, Natural gas supplies would probably be su.cient to
supply feedstock for hydrogen production for up to
several million PEMFC cars\ for several decades[ For
advanced small scale steam methane reformers now
under development\ we estimate that the hydrogen cost
might be ,01Ð14:GJ\ making this an economically
attractive option[ The station capital costs would be
higher than for liquid hydrogen refueling stations[
, For energy prices and conditions in the Los Angeles
area\ it appears that in the near term\ on site production
via small scale steam reforming and truck delivery of
liquid hydrogen o}er the lowest delivered fuel costs[
Moreover\ these two options would allow the addition
of hydrogen production capacity in small increments\
without building a new hydrogen pipeline distribution
system[ Improvements in small!scale reformer tech!
nology might make this option even more attractive[
, O}!peak power is a signi_cant resource which could
provide fuel for 3Ð5 million fuel cell vehicles[ However\
hydrogen produced via small scale electrolysis at the
617 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
refueling station was somewhat more expensive than
other options\ largely because of the relatively high cost
of o}!peak power in the Los Angeles area[
, In the longer term\ for large\ geographically con!
centrated demands\ pipeline distribution might ulti!
mately yield the lowest delivered fuel cost[ "Although
improvements in small scale steam reformer technology
may make on site production competitive with cen!
tralized hydrogen generation[# Pipeline delivery might
also be prefered for a smaller demand very close to
an existing low cost source of hydrogen "e[g[ re_nery
excess#[
, The _rst hydrogen vehicles in the Los Angeles Basin
are likely to be PEM fuel cell buses\ which could be
commercialized as early as 0888[ Early bus dem!
onstrations might be fueled from existing sources
"trucked in liquid hydrogen\ or piped in hydrogen for
depots near the Los Angeles re_nery area#[ Or they
might use small scale advanced steam methane reformer
systems now being commercialized for stand!alone
hydrogen production[
, Once fuel cell cars were introduced\ hydrogen pro!
duction from natural gas would o}er the lowest costs
for the near term[ In the longer term\ other local sup!
plies might be phased in such as hydrogen from wastes\
biomass or solar^ or distant\ low cost sources of hydro!
gen might be brought in via long distance pipeline[
, Our estimate of infrastructure capital costs suggests
that the cost per vehicle to develop a hydrogen refueling
infrastructure would be perhaps ,209Ð519:vehicle[
Considering the cost of infrastructure on and o} the
vehicle\ it appears that costs for hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles would be comparable to or less than those
for methanol or gasoline fuel cell vehicles "which are
estimated to be ,449Ð0399:car for methanol and ,749Ð
0199:car for gasoline#[
, Our study suggests a number of interesting near and
long term possibilities for developing hydrogen refuel!
ing infrastructure to serve hydrogen vehicles in Sou!
thern California[ It appears that hydrogen infra!
structure development may not be as severe a technical
and economic problem as is often stated[ The hydrogen
fuel option should be considered viable for fuel cell
vehicles\ and development of hydrogen refueling sys!
tems should be undertaken in parallel with fuel cell
vehicle demonstrations[ Demonstration of small scale
natural gas reformers may be of particular interest[
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the U[S[ Department of Energy
Hydrogen R+D Program and the Energy Foundation
for their support[
For useful conversations\ the author would like to thank
Archana Agrawal "California Air Resources Board#\
Richard Bellows "Exxon#\ Je} Bentley "Epyx#\ Tom
Burhenn "Southern California Edison#\ Eck Chaiboonma
"Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority#\ Adam
Cox "Princeton University#\ David Crain "David Crain
Associates#\ Michael Furgeson "Southern California Gas
Company#\ Ranji George "South Coast Air Quality Man!
agement District#\ Shimson Gottesfeld "Los Alamos
National Laboratory#\ Michael Kerr "Praxair#\ Nathaniel
Kong "California Air Resources Board#\ Paul Kydd
"BOC#\ Christian Lenci "Praxair#\ Eric Larson "Princeton
University#\ Jon Leonard "SCAQMD#\ Frank Lomax
"Directed Technologies\ Inc[#\ Robert Miller "Air Prod!
ucts and Chemicals\ Inc[#\ Robert Moore "Air Products
and Chemicals\ Inc[#\ David Nahmias "National Hydro!
gen Association#\ Michael Payne "ARCO#\ James Pro!
venzano "Xerox#\ Venki Raman "Air Products and
Chemicals\ Inc[#\ Glenn Rambach "LLNL#\ Mr Soriano
"Los Angeles Department of Water and Power#\ Robert
Socolow "Princeton University#\ Margaret Steinbugler
"Princeton University#\ Wayne Tanaka "Southern Cal!
ifornia Gas Company#\ Sandy Thomas "Directed Tech!
nologies\ Inc[#\ Mr Thomas "Southern California Gas
Company#\ Jason White "Princeton University#\ Robert
Williams "Princeton University#\ Gary Youngman
"ARCO#\ Ed Yotter "California Air Resources Board#\
and Robert Zweig "Clean Air Now#[
Appendix
Conversion factors and economic assumptions
0 GJ "Gigajoule#  098 Joules  9[84 million BTU
0 EJ "Exajoule#  0907 Joules  9[84 Quadrillion "0904#
BTUs
0 million standard cubic feet "scf#  15\749 Normal cubic
meters "mN2#  232 GJ "HHV#
0 million scf:day  1[55 tons:day  2[86 MW H1 "based
on the HHV of hydrogen#
0 scf H1  232 kJ "HHV#  214 BTU "HHV#^
0 lb H1  53[3 MJ "HHV#  50[3 kBTU "HHV#  076[7
scf
0 mN2  01[7 MJ "HHV#^ 0 kg H1  030[8 MJ
"HHV#  303 scf
0 gallon gasoline  029[7 MJ "HHV#^ ,0:gallon gaso!
line  ,6[56:GJ "HHV#
All costs are given in constant ,0882[
Capital recovery factor for hydrogen production systems\
distribution systems and refueling stations  04)
References
ð0Ł Ogden J\ Steinbugler M\ Kreutz T[ Hydrogen as a fuel for
fuel cell vehicles[ Proceedings of the 7th National Hydrogen
Association Meeting[ Alexandria\ VA[ March 00Ð02\ 0886[
 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
ð1Ł Little Arthur D[ Multi!fuel reformers for fuel cells used in
transportation\ assessment of hydrogen storage tech!
nologies\ phase I _nal report[ United States Department of
Energy\ O.ce of Transportation Technologies\ Contract
No[ DE!AC91!81!CE49232\ 0883[
ð2Ł Steinbugler M\ Ogden J[ Fuel economy and range estimates
for fuel cell vehicles[ Program and Abstracts\ 0885 Fuel
Cell Seminar\ Orlando\ FL\ Nov 06Ð19\ 0885[ p[ 228Ð30[
ð3Ł Thomas CE[ Overview of onboard liquid fuel storage and
reforming systems[ Proceedings Fuel Cells for Trans!
portation TOPTEC] Arlington\ VA\ Society of Automotive
Engineers\ April 0Ð1\ 0885[
ð4Ł George R[ South Coast Air Quality Management District[
Private communcations\ 0884\ 0885\ 0887[
ð5Ł American Automobile Manufacturers Association[ Motor
Vehicle Facts and Figures[ Detroit\ MI\ 0886[
ð6Ł Davis SC\ McFarlin DN[ Transportation Energy Data
Book] Edition 05[ Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report\
No[ ORNL!5787\ July 0885[
ð7Ł Chaiboonma E[ Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Auth!
ority[ Private communications\ 0885[
ð8Ł Larson E\ Worrell E\ Chen J[ Clean fuels from municipal
solid waste for fuel cell buses in metropolitan areas[
Resources\ Conservation and Recycling 0885^06]162Ð87[
ð09Ł Kerr M[ Praxair Inc[ Private communications\ 0884\
0885[
ð00Ł Lenci C[ Praxair Inc[ Private communications\ 0884[
ð01Ł Ogden JM\ Dennis E\ Steinbugler M\ Strohbehn J[ Hydro!
gen energy systems studies[ Final report to the United
States Department of Energy for Contract No[ XR!00154!
1\ Jan[ 07\ 0884[
ð02Ł Moore R[ Air Products and Chemicals\ Inc[ Allentown\
PA[ Private communications\ 0884\ 0885[
ð03Ł Steinberg M\ Chang HC[ Modern and prospective tech!
nologies for hydrogen production from fossil fuels[ Inter!
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy 0877^03"00#]686Ð719[
ð04Ł Williams RH\ Larson ED\ Katofsky RE\ Chen J[ Methanol
and hydrogen from biomass for transportation[ Energy
for Sustainable Development] The Journal of International
Energy Initiative 0884^0"4#]07Ð23[
ð05Ł Williams RH[ Fuel decarbonization for fuel cell appli!
cations and sequestering of the separated CO1[ Princeton
University Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Report No[ 185\ January 0885[
ð06Ł Youngman G[ ARCO[ Private communications\ 0884[
ð07Ł Halvorson T\ Farris P[ On site hydrogen generator for
vehicle refueling application[ Proceedings of the |86 World
Car Conference[ Riverside\ CA\ 08Ð11 January\ 0886[ p[
220Ð7[
ð08Ł Ogden J\ Kreutz T\ Kartha S\ Iwan L[ Assessment of tech!
nologies for producing hydrogen from natural gas at small
scale[ Princeton University Center for Energy and Environ!
mental Studies[ Draft Report\ November 15\ 0885[
ð19Ł Tanaka W[ Southern California Gas[ Private communi!
cations\ 0884[
ð10Ł Burhenn T[ Southern California Edison[ Private com!
munications\ 0884[
ð11Ł Chen JS[ The production of methanol and hydrogen from
municipal solid waste[ Princeton University\ Center for
Energy and Environmental Studies Report No[ 178\ March
0884[
618
ð12Ł Williams RH\ Wells B[ Solar!assisted hydrogen production
from natural gas with low CO1 emissions\ presented at the
International Conference on Technologies for Activities
Implemented Jointly[ IEA Greenhouse Gas R+D
Programme\ Vancouver\ British Columbia\ Canada\ May
15Ð18\ 0886[
ð13Ł Ogden JM\ Nitsch J[ Solar hydrogen[ In] Johansson T\
Kelly H\ Reddy AKN\ Williams RH\ editors[ Renewable
Energy] Fuels and Electricity from Renewable Sources[
Washington\ DC] Island Press\ 0882[ p[ 814Ð0998[
ð14Ł Ogden JM[ Renewable hydrogen energy systems studies[
Final report to the United States Department of Energy\
NREL Contract No[ XR!1!00154!0\ June 13\ 0882[
ð15Ł Kruger P\ Fioravanti M\ Duchane D\ Vaughan A[ Geo!
thermal Requirements for an Energy Self!Su.cient Space
Port[ Proceedings of the 7th National Hydrogen Associ!
ation Meeting[ Alexandria\ VA[ March 00Ð02\ 0886[ p[
152Ð68[
ð16Ł Kruger P[ Comparison of Potential for Air Quality
Improvement from Hydrogen Fuel in Three Metropolitan
Basins[ Proceedings of the 00th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference\ Stuttgart\ Germany\ June 12Ð17\ 0885[ p[ 250Ð
261[
ð17Ł Ogden J[ Hydrogen systems and CO1 sequestration[ Pro!
ceedings of the United States Department of Energy Work!
shop on Fuels Decarbonization and CO1 Sequestration[
Washington\ DC\ July 17Ð29\ 0886[
ð18Ł Ogden JM\ Dennis E\ Montemayor K[ Development of
refueling infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles[ Proceedings
of the 5th National Hydrogen Association Meeting\ Arling!
ton\ VA[ March 0884[ p[ 126Ð59[
ð29Ł Dennis EB[ Design and feasibility of a gaseous hydrogen
refueling station based on small scale steam reforming of
natural gas[ Princeton University senior thesis\ Department
of Chemical Engineering\ May 0883[
ð20Ł Lenci C[ Praxair Inc[ Private communications\ 0884[
ð21Ł Ogden JM\ Kreutz T\ Steinbugler M[ Hydrogen energy
systems studies[ Proceedings of the United States Depart!
ment of Energy Hydrogen R+D Program Review Meeting\
Alexandria\ VA[ April 17Ð29\ 0887[
ð22Ł Ogden J\ Steinbugler M\ Kreutz T[ A comparison of hydro!
gen\ methanol and gasoline as fuels for fuel cell vehicles]
implications for vehicle and infrastructure development[
Manuscript submitted to the Journal of Power Sources\
September 0887[
ð23Ł Ogden J\ Kreutz T[ Fuels for fuel cell vehicles] vehicle design
and infrastructure issues[ Society of Automotive Engineers
paper No[ 871499\ October 0887[
ð24Ł Thomas CE\ Kuhn IF\ James BD\ Lomax FD\ Baum GN[
A}ordable hydrogen supply pathways for fuel cell vehicles[
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 0887^12"5#[
ð25Ł Moore RB[ Ford Hydrogen Infrastructure Study\ Summary
Report Subcontract No[ 36!1!R20044[ Air Products and
Chemicals\ Inc[ Allentown\ PA[ March 0885[
ð26Ł Raman V[ Commercial Pathways to Hydrogen Fuel Infra!
structure[ Proceedings of the |86 World Car Conference[
Riverside\ CA[ 08Ð11 January\ 0886[ p[ 296Ð03[
ð27Ł Halvorson TG\ Terbot CE\ Wisz MW[ Hydrogen pro!
duction and fueling system infrastructure for PEM fuel cell
powered vehicles] Final Report\ Praxair\ Inc[ Tonawanda\
New York\ April 0885[
629 J[M[ Ogden : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 13 "0888# 698Ð629
ð28Ł Ferrell J\ Kotar A\ Stern S[ Direct hydrogen fueled proton
exchange membrane fuel cell system for transportation
applications[ Final Report\ BOC Gases\ Murray Hill\ NJ\
September 0885[
ð39Ł Fairlie M[ FCV Fuel Supply Infrastructure] The Elec!
trolysis Option\ Electrolyzer\ Ltd[ Toronto\ Canada[
December 0885[
ð30Ł Thomas CE\ James BD\ Lomax FD\ Kuhn IF[ Societal
impacts of fuel options for fuel cell vehicles[ Society of
Automotive Engineers paper No[ 87FL!591[
ð31Ł Mark J[ Fuel Choices for fuel cell vehicles[ Proceedings
of the {86 World Car Conference[ Riverside\ CA[ 08Ð11
January\ 0886[ p[ 282Ð395[
ð32Ł Estimate of the number of M!74 _lling stations in the Los
Angeles area is based on a search of the US Department of
Energy|s _lling station database at the Alternative Fuels
Data Center website] http]::www[afdc[doe[gov
ð33Ł Williams RH[ Fuel decarbonization for fuel cell appli!
cations and sequestration of the separated CO1[ In] Ayres
W\ editor[ Eco!restructuring] Implications for Sustainable
Development[ Tokyo\ Japan] UN University Press\ 0887[
p[ 079Ð111[