Shell opens combination hydrogen and gasoline station in LA
Filed under: Hydrogen, Green Daily

Finally, we've discovered the BMW Hydrogen 7's perfect refueling station. A new Shell station that sells both hydrogen and standard gasoline opened yesterday in West Los Angeles (oh so close to Hollywood, which is providing most of the the drivers for the dual-fuel luxury vehicle). The station is located on Santa Monica Boulevard and Federal Avenue, near I-405. If I'm not mistaken - and I might very well be, so feel free to say so in the comments - this is right near the recently-opened Tesla Motors store, which is kind of ironic.
New FCX Clarity drivers and participants in GM's Project Driveway should be able to refuel their cars at the station and feel pretty good about the provenance of their purchase. Shell will be selling hydrogen made using electrolysis right there at the station. To further cast a green haze over the whole thing, Shell is buying "green electricity" from the utilities to crack the water.
[Source: Shell Hydrogen LLC]
PRESS RELEASE:
Shell Opens Los Angeles' First Combined Hydrogen and Gasoline Station
HOUSTON, June 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Shell Hydrogen LLC, today, announced the opening of California's first hydrogen refueling station on a conventional Shell gasoline forecourt in West Los Angeles (LA).
Located on Santa Monica Boulevard and Federal Avenue (near I-405) the station joins California's 'hydrogen highway', and gives consumers a taste of the future, with refueling services for hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles becoming just as convenient as conventional gasoline motors.
In hydrogen vehicles, an electric motor powers the wheels. A chemical reaction inside a unit called a fuel cell -- usually between hydrogen and oxygen -- creates electricity for the motor.
The only tail pipe emission is water vapor, which produces zero carbon emissions and has the potential to significantly reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and protect against climate change.
California already has more fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) and hydrogen refueling stations than any other part of the world, and last year recorded 1.5 million zero emission miles from hydrogen FCV trials. Twenty-five hydrogen stations currently operate in California, most in the San Francisco-Sacramento corridor and the Greater Los Angeles and San Diego regions, serving more than 100 fuel cell passenger vehicles and transit buses, with a further ten stations already in the planning stages.
Hydrogen production at the Shell station will be done on-site by the electrolysis of water using 'green electricity'(1) purchased from the Los Angeles City Department of Water & Power. It will then be compressed and stored to provide daily fueling.
The station will also support a U.S. Department of Energy hydrogen infrastructure program, to supply hydrogen to future and existing General Motors FCVs in the LA metro area. GM plans to lease more than thirty Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell-Electric compact SUVs to private and commercial customers in Southern California, as part of a three-year trial, called "Project Driveaway" to test the vehicles in real world driving conditions.
Officiating at the launch, City of Los Angeles Councilman Bill Rosendahl said, "California has made significant progress demonstrating fuel cell vehicle technology and fuel alternatives, but this still requires much more progress by vehicle and infrastructure providers and the state. However, I am delighted that today, with support from Shell, we are able to continue to grow a safe and secure hydrogen infrastructure, that enables fuel cell vehicles to refuel more conveniently, as we move towards the future commercialisation of clean transportation technology."
With the US one of the largest automotive markets in the world, with over 247 million vehicles on its roads(2), car ownership predicted to increase by 45% between 2005 and 20203, and US energy consumption set to rise to 139.9 quadrillion Btu by 20154, hydrogen FCVs are set to play an important part in the United States' growing energy and mobility needs.
In addition to zero tailpipe emissions, finding ways to produce hydrogen from renewable sources will be critically important to making the fuel infrastructure sustainable. And with ground breaking approaches to produce 'green hydrogen', manufactured from renewable energy sources, such as bioethanol (derived from biomass) and solar energy being researched for the future, 'well to wheel' emissions will be able to near zero.
Hydrogen can also be produced from a number of different feedstocks including oil, coal, and biomass. This allows different countries to manufacture hydrogen with their own domestic supplies, and at the same time reduce costs and increase security of supply.
Graeme Sweeney, Executive Vice President for Shell Future Fuels and CO2 said: "California is leading the way with clean fuels, as it moves one step closer to realizing its hydrogen program, FCVs powered by hydrogen will provide a sustainable transportation choice for the future, opening up new markets across the globe. This requires the sustained effort of energy companies, auto manufacturers and federal and state governments working together. We are pleased to be playing our part to help develop a safe and reliable fueling infrastructure for future clean energy vehicles, as the only major energy company involved in FCV vehicle demonstrations in all three major hydrogen markets -- North America, Japan, and Europe."
James J. Provenzano, President of the 40 year-old public advocacy group Clean Air Now added: "This is a very exciting development. With this station, Shell is helping to usher in the hydrogen age. We are very pleased to be working with a large oil company to demonstrate zero-pollution transportation technologies. Hats off to Shell for implementing innovative solutions to mitigate air pollution right here in Los Angeles."
'Shell Hydrogen' refers to the companies of the Shell Group of companies that are engaged in the pursuit and development of businesses related to hydrogen and fuel cells. Each of the companies that make up the Shell Group of companies is a separate and distinct legal entity. Principal offices of Shell Hydrogen are located in The Hague, the Netherlands, with regional bases in Houston and Tokyo. Shell Hydrogen has been developing hydrogen and fuel cell businesses since 1999. For further information, please visit http://www.shell.com/hydrogen.
Sources:
1 = Green electricity purchased from the Los Angeles City Department of
Water & Power is credited against the power company's allowance of
green sourced power.
2 = US Bureau of Transport Statistics -- 247,421,120 vehicles on US roads
in 2006
3 = Unsustainable Transport Report, January 2005, Professor David
Bannister, University College London
- Over the next 25 years (to 2020), we are likely to see a further
increase of 75 per cent in car ownership levels and a growth of 56
per cent in traffic levels globally (p22)
- In developed countries, there is some stability in the patterns of
travel, with car ownership expected to increase by 45 per cent
(North America) and 54 per cent in other OECD countries (p22)
4 = US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook
Report 2006
INQUIRIES:
Shell Oil Company Shell Media Line +1 (713) 241- 4544
Disclaimer statement
This announcement contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management's current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward- looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management's expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as "anticipate", "believe", "could", "estimate", "expect", "intend", "may", "plan", "objectives", "outlook", "probably", "project", "will", "seek", "target", "risks", "goals", "'should" and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this Report, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for the Group's products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserve estimates; (f) loss of market and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including potential litigation and regulatory effects arising from recategorisation of reserves; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, project delay or advancement, approvals and cost estimates; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, May 4, 2006. Neither Royal Dutch Shell nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this document.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved reserves that a company has demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be economically and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. We use certain terms in this presentation, such as "oil in place" that the SEC's guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575 and disclosure in our Forms 6-K file No, 1-32575, available on the SEC website http://www.sec.gov/. You can also obtain these forms from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
6-27-2008 @ 10:51AM
Danielle Andre said...
I was under the impression that BMW only worked with liquid hydrogen...
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 11:09AM
Anthony Meyer said...
I think that this is a huge step in the right direction. It is really interesting to see the race toward such new and powerful technologies. Maybe this is just the kind of push these technologies need. I found some other articles related to this stuff here... http://zoomingreen.com
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 11:40AM
Ryan Wood said...
I'd really like to know who made the car ownership and energy consumption 18,000 year prediction, c'mon.
Also, does anyone have a clue how much fueling a tank like the FCX Clarity will cost at this station?
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 11:48AM
bjd002004 said...
Using electricity and water to make hydrogen, and then using hydrogen to make electricity for the vehicle's motor doesn't make any sense from an efficiency standpoint.
Why can't we just have fuel stations with electric chargers that charge EV's instead of going the hydrogen route. Seems like it would be more efficient process, and cheaper too.
I guess another good question would be how much more electricity will Shell have to use for electrolysis than what would be needed to fill up EV's?
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 11:56AM
Joe said...
@bjd002004- When you think of Hydrogen as a battery, what you get is a lower-efficiency but super-quick charging battery for your car. A Fuel Cell car is a EV, it just needs a step in between to use its battery. Considering charge times for actual batteries right now, H2 makes for a better option in that regard.
All that being said, I think Fuel Cells are stupid.
Also, why couldn't the cell station cover its big flat roof with Solar Cells to run the Hydrolysis?
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 12:05PM
OhmExcited said...
Plug in E-Flex with a fuel cell range extender makes the most sense for passenger vehicles. Hydrogen powered buses and trucks with a battery that acts as a buffer makes the most sense for those types of vehicles.
Hydrogen e-flex vehicles would improve our standard of living. Reduced toxic emissions in population centers and reduced noise pollution.
Gas stations can't provide quick battery recharges, because 1) the outlet is limited by the laws of physics (only so many amps), and 2) even if the station had big capacitors able to output massive amps to quickly charge a vehicle, the vehicle battery would have to physically accomodate a quick charge (i.e. not lithium ion as in the Tesla, Volt, etc).
If hydrogen is used only as a range extender "efficiency" is largely a non-issue. Regulations should enforce how the hydrogen is made (i.e. X percent from renewables, Y percent max from natural gas, etc).
Power stations tend to be placed around population centers because of the energy lost in long line transmissions. However, parts of the country and world that are relatively unpopulated have the potential to create hydrogen from renewable sources. For examples, the Dakotas have massive wind power potential. Feeding that to Los Angeles by a transmission line is not feasible. Turning that into hydrogen is. In addition, countries like Iceland have more geothermal energy than they know what to do with it. They could create hydrogen and export it.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 12:45PM
meme said...
"Considering charge times for actual batteries right now"
You mean like 5 minutes for lithium titanate? 10-20 minutes for phosphates and spinels? Heaven forbid!
When will this whole "batteries can't charge quickly" myth die?
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 12:48PM
OhmExcited said...
You sound like you have stock in Altairnano. Unfortunately, the major automakers have chosen to not use them yet.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 12:55PM
BillySharps said...
@OhmExcited
The newer batteries that will be in the Volt can very quickly accept charge reliably. The iMiev can reportedly get an 80% charge in 15 minutes from a dryer outlet. That battery will be bigger than the Volt's, so it is conceivable that the Volt could accept most of a charge in just a few minutes.
Besides, charge times were never limited by the batteries, but by the amount of current you could push. The difficulty was preventing the batteries from wearing out too quickly. The batteries in the Tesla will quick charge just fine, but their calendar life will be reduced. Newer chemistries will not have this problem.
Just remember that any problems EVs have, hydrogen powered vehicles have to a greater degree.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 1:10PM
meme said...
"8. You sound like you have stock in Altairnano. Unfortunately, the major automakers have chosen to not use them yet."
I don't. I don't even prefer them; they're way too expensive ($2/Wh). But they do seem to have the best battery on the market.
I personally prefer LiP and the spinels. Good stats (even if not the best), down to earth pricing, and likely to become cheaper than even conventional li-ion as increased production comes online (due to the fact that they ditch the most expensive component, the LiCoO2 cathode, which is constrained by the price of cobalt, and replace it with one made entirely of cheap raw ingredients)
I'll note, of course, that you completely dodged the point: that there are a number of battery chemistries out there that can fast charge, from dozens of fast manufacturers. I didn't even begin to list all of them; for example, Toshiba reports that their SCiB does 5 minute charges, too, and has higher density than AltairNano's.
The claim that batteries can't fast charge is a complete myth that just won't die. The only thing standing in the way of fast charging EVs is not the nonexistance of fast charging batteries -- they most certainly exist, and are becoming the standard -- or even the nonexistance of fast chargers -- several companies make them (AltairNano's is a whopping 250kW). The only thing standing in the way is the lack of installations of fast chargers -- the *exact same problem* that hydrogen has. Except for the fact that EV fast chargers are cheaper than hydrogen pumps, can turn a profit far easier (since what they sell is dirt-cheap), and EVs *don't require them*, since they can also slow charge; fast charger installations are just an *improvement* to EV transportation, not a *requirement*.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 1:20PM
GoodCheer said...
"Also, why couldn't the cell station cover its big flat roof with Solar Cells to run the Hydrolysis?"
This is an interesting question. Let's try to answer it:
In the LA area the sun puts down about 6 kWh/m2/day. Commercially available cells are about 12% efficient, so I'll be generous and call it 1 kWh/m2/day.
Electric vehicles use about 250 Wh/mile. Let's say you fuel up 100 vehicles and each wants to take on 100 miles worth of energy, that's 10,000 miles, so 2,500 kWh/day. If these are battery EVs and I'll ignore conversion losses, you'd need 2,500 m2 to keep them running. 50m x 50m is probably a good estimate for the size of the lot of a small gas station, so that would work.
If these are fool cell vehicles, the fool cell converts hydrogen to electricity at about 50% efficiency, so you need to generate 500 Wh(H2)/mile. Electrolysis is about 50% efficient in its wildest dreams, so to generate that hydrogen you need a PV array to put out 1 kWh/mile driven. For the same 10,000 miles you then need 10,000 kWh, or 10,000 m2. 100m x 100m is probably about the size of the lot of a really big gas station.
These are all rough numbers, but that a fool cell requires 4x the energy input of a BEV is simple physics, and no technological breakthroughs will get that number down to better than about 3x.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 1:34PM
BlackbirdHighway said...
Some car maker will eventually start making an EV that is fast charge capable. You'll still be able to charge it at home the normal, slow way. As soon as a reasonable number are on the road, then it will become feasible to begin offering roadside fast charging.
I believe Phoenix and Lightning are both planning fast charge capability, but I don't think either one is close to delivering cars.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 2:14PM
fnc said...
Others have addressed the "batteries can't fast charge" myth, but I'm wondering about another myth ingrained into people by driving gasoline cars for so long.
I don't know why people think a centralized fuel dispensing infrastructure is a ~necessary~ thing going forward. I guess because gas stations have always been around, so why wouldn't something like them always be around? But do you see any blacksmiths around your neighborhood? The beauty of having a transportation network fueled by electricity is that unlike gasoline distribution it does NOT require a network optimized for delivering flammable liquid to specialized distribution points. For urban dwellers at least, you're never more than a few feet from a source of fuel for an electric vehicle. Why would we need stations when a charging infrastructure can be put in place alongside the places cars are normally left for any length of time? We need standards for chargers so you're not locked into a type of charger depending on the car you purchase, and then make them pretty much ubiquitous in the cities.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 2:25PM
Nathaniel Sears said...
o thank god shell can keep making record proffits into the future.
lets face it hydrogen is not an economic fuel. you waste so much energy in the turning air into hydrogen and then lose more energy in the engine.
why not just use that electricity in electric cars. and i know that people say that the charge time is to lon but some batteries can be recharged in 15 minutes and that time can only get lower over time.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 2:29PM
jag said...
Well this is amazing they did it first. Its to expensive to make it happen every where. Everyone knows this is a green PR not a world wide solution.
How about plug-in electric station, no infrastructure, available everywhere where there is a 110V plug in your house coffee shop, anyone can do it.
It is not what country’s energy policy can do for you it is what you can do for your country's energy. Join the revolution at HouseDNA.com
Why not we Join the revolution of network of Plug-In electric Stations at www.HouseDNA.com
This would allow you and anyone who has an electric car or road legal golf cart to refuel their charge in their local stores, neighborhood cafes, or houses. And encourage more electric car-plug-in buyers. This would drive individuals to get involved into green energy.
Jag
www.housedna.com
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 3:19PM
Doug said...
The lack of information in this press release is annoying. I take it from the comments this is a compressed H2 gas station (i.e. not LH2). Do they say anything about what pressure is available? How many FCVs are actually on the road now? AFAIK, just the few Hondas loaned to celebrities.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 3:37PM
Doug said...
How much are they charging per kg to fill up with hydrogen?
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 3:40PM
Serge said...
Incumbent big energy players have a lot of benefits derived from dominating the transportation energy market with only a handful of products. Coke or Pepsi, an illusion of choice, a paradigm that keeps consumers locked within and tallied up. This state of affairs, a controlled [planned] supply-demand system, works very well for them and their modus operandi is very effective at ensuring the status quo.
The rise of electric propulsion represents a significant challenge to this paradigm, for it allows choice (and therefore competition) on both the demand and supply side of things.
As has been stated earlier, current generations of FCVs are an attempt to harness the emerging EV technology and lock it within the current paradigm of "no choice for you."
Visions of energy independence, offered by a prospect of households tending to their own propulsion needs using free solar energy or communities on a larger scale with wind, hydroelectric, geo-thermal, nuclear or even local fossil fuel energy are sweet dreams to some and dread to others. They will expend a lot of resources (of which they have plenty) to keep their version of the dream alive, but the forces at play are far greater, I believe ...
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 4:12PM
A.Brien said...
Im sure it cost few in electricity to make hydrogen. There is methods to crack water with voltage and frequencies with little current. This is the only method without pollution but the best is to put the electrolyser inside the car .
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 7:07PM
jake said...
@A.Brien
Even the most pro-hydrogen sources quote a number of ~75%, so the loss there is still fairly significant. Then there is the compression or liquification which is probably comparable to charging losses on EVs. But the thing that hydrogen doesn't have any method to get around is the losses from the fuel cell stack, that is what dictates that EVs will always be more efficient.
For those talking about EVs and quick charge, again I'd like to point to an example I have always pointed to: 10 minute for 100 miles in hawaii for a couple of years already, using older lead acids. Newer batteries can probably do better. If you just do a partial charge instead of full charge it'll probably be faster.
http://www.greencar.com/features/features39/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=ssp&utm_campaign=yssp_features
Not as fast as hydrogen, but I think 10 minutes is fast enough, esp if it's not going to be frequent use, since by the time more EVs are adopted they will most likely be charged overnight, even in urban centers (just have street chargers). For rapid charging, I think the load on the utility companies is what is the limiting factor, to solve that there needs to be some kind of energy storage and/or energy generation at the station to take some load off the grid.
@Ohmexcited
I agree fuel cells, on principle, would serve very well as a range extender for passenger vehicles, since no matter what, it's more efficient than the ICE range extenders we have now, but that's only true if the prices come down to drastically.
I could only imagine if the effort to develop EVs and EV charging continued in California without the current switch to focus on hydrogen. Again 2010 is coming soon, and hopefully some focus will turn back to PHEV/BEVs.
Reply