By on July 23, 2014

hydrogen_fueling_station

It took 13 years, but SAE International has introduced a new standard for hydrogen fueling stations: SAE J2601.

Autoblog Green reports J2601 will enable fueling of FCVs at 35 and 70 megapascals (MPa) of pressure, delivering 3- to 5-minute fueling times like those of gasoline-powered vehicles. This will likely be good news for all involved in the hydrogen movement, especially as infrastructure is only in the embryonic stage at this point — most located in California.

Meanwhile, another standard — SAE J2799 — will better enable communication between the FCV and the pump via wireless transmission, helping to boost driving range to over 300 miles per tank via a high State of Charge, or SOC.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

26 Comments on “SAE J2601, J2799 Standardize Hydrogen Fueling, Increase FCV Range...”


  • avatar
    FormerFF

    Why did they wait so long? Now the 12 extant stations will have to retrofit!

    • 0 avatar
      WheelMcCoy

      J2601 means the standard will be implemented in the year 2601.
      J2799 will bring wireless communication in the year 2799.

      Hydrogen fuel cells has been, is, and always will be… the future. :)

  • avatar
    FractureCritical

    yay! now people can pressurize a highly explosive gas to 10,000 psi and drive around with it!

    • 0 avatar
      jkk6

      Butane aka LPG has been around long ass time. Wait till you hear about credit cards. Plastic baseball cards that can steal your identity!

      • 0 avatar
        FractureCritical

        you don’t drive around with it everyday hanging out the hind end of your car. Wait until you hear about zeppilins, they were the rage of NJ night life back in the day. wonderful conveyances that are ostenibly perfectly safe.

        • 0 avatar
          LeeK

          The Hindenberg blew up when the the aluminum paint coating on the outside of the dirigible was ignited by the static electricity in the highly charged air following a thunderstorm that had moved through the landing area just minutes before. The hydrogen in the inflation bags did not go up until the fire on the skin burned through to the inside.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        LPG is very low pressure stuff, around 300 psi at room temperature. A rupture in an LP tank will not cause a catastrophic explosion, one in a high pressure hydrogen tank would. Both will cause a brief but intense fire.

    • 0 avatar
      jdogma

      Hydrogen is not an explosive gas. Nor is gasoline explosive. They can both form explosive mixtures with air, but they are not considered explosive. Hydrogen is likely less dangerous than gasoline when it comes to leaks because it disperses quickly. I guess we are going to find out.

    • 0 avatar

      Where does gasoline go when you puncture the tank? All over the ground. So if it ignites…*poof* self-carbecue. Hydrogen is lighter than air and rises so even if the tank does get punctured and ignites, the flames will simply dissipate above the vehicle as it rises.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    ‘communicate via wireless transmission’?

    How did that get through? My Leaf will communicate to Nissan – if I agree to it – but not to public chargers. I don’t see how this extends range.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      I would assume that the communication link would tell the refueling equipment what pressure it is able to accept. I gather that the maximum allowable pressure will differ from vehicle to vehicle.

      Your LEAF does communicate to its charging station, be it public or private. It tells the charging station how much current it will accept, and when it is ready, and when it is done. I assume the wireless communication link is analogous to the wired connection electric cars use, but that it’s wireless because you wouldn’t want to add a electric communication link to the hydrogen hose. Anyway, those are just assumptions, maybe someone here is familiar with the standards.

  • avatar

    JUST SO I DON’T GET ACCUSED OF MAKING RIDICULOUS or POLITICALLY DIVISIVE COMMENTS, could someone here please:

    #1 Tell us how much more/less Hyrodgen fuel costs than fossil fuel.

    #2 Tell us how much more/less ENERGY is required to produce Hydrogen fuel.

    #3 Tell us how much more/less CO2 is produced when producing Hydrogen fuel.

    #4 Tell us the cost benefit/disadvantage.

    I’d appreciate a licensed, knowledgeable expert in the field please.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      From what I can tell, hydrogen is a crummy auto fuel. Its density is low, it’s a PITA to deal with, it has to be compressed to an extremely high pressure to get a decent range, and no one has yet come up with what the price of the stuff will be for mass market use. Currently, there are two ways of producing hydrogen, from the hydrolysis of water, and from natural gas. Hydrolysis is inefficient, it requires too much electricity relative to the fuel value of the hydrogen produced, it’s much better to store the electricity in a battery. Producing it from natural gas is the more common process, but that produces a lot of carbon emissions, apparently quite similar to the amount produced from burning gasoline. There are some experimental processes that sequester the carbon, but none appear to be ready for commercial scale production. IMO it would be more effective just to use the natural gas as a motor fuel directly.

      I do think that if the California Air Resources Board were not pushing for hydrogen cars, no one would be looking at them.

      • 0 avatar
        jhefner

        “Currently, there are two ways of producing hydrogen, from the hydrolysis of water, and from natural gas.”

        They used neither to generate the millions of cubic feet needed to inflate zeppelins; but instead poured sulfric acid over iron filings. I guess we can no longer do that, or is that forgotten technology?

        • 0 avatar
          Brian P

          It’s even more energy-intensive to do it that way. It was probably only done that way because both sulfuric acid and iron filings are easily transported.

        • 0 avatar
          WheelMcCoy

          A third way under research is “cracking” ammonia to get hydrogen.

          http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-breakthrough-game-changer-future-car.html

          But you’re still left with the nasty problem of transporting ammonia. Ammonia or sulfuric acid, there’s still a lot of research to be done. Water is the most desirable, but like @FormerFF wrote, hydrolysis is not efficient. Meanwhile, batteries are already here.

          Then there’s “thorium”… I don’t know much about it, but it’s suppose to be a “safe” nuclear reactor to power your car up to 99 years. :)

    • 0 avatar
      wumpus

      Unfortunately, those are pretty much all the wrong questions (the answers are “a bit more” for all of them). The reason is that ICE engines simply suck (as well as bang, blow, etc.) and suck even more at speeds in normal traffic (thus the efficiency of the prius with its microengine, and 80s microboxes for that matter). If you were simply burning h2 (like ethanol) things could simply be measured this way, but H2 is used in fuel cells and tends to be vastly more efficient (compare to batteries, not ICEs).

      The real problems with H2 typically involve transportation and storage. The stuff is both low in density and likes to eat metals. Don’t ask how often a truck will have to come by with more hydrogen for your hydrogen station. Don’t ask how expensive the fuel cell will be.

      Then there is the issue of comparing a fuel cell to batteries. If the batteries are fueled by more nuclear/wind/solar (which have been increasing furiously) than by coal (twice the carbon as natural gas/oil/etc), it becomes next to impossible for H2 (read natural gas) to catch up. If natural gas production keeps up, expect even less coal produced electricity (as natural gas burning ramps up, unless of course enough trucks are modified to use it).

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

        I think a SOFC that can take legacy fuels directly (or fuels optimized for SOFC, such as methanol, DME or ammonia) makes more sense than building an H2 (or piggybacking it on natural gas) infrastructure. If SOFCs can’t be practical or affordable soon enough, then a range extender with adequate power could be developed to maximize efficiency for a fixed, predictable power level.

        A drivetrain whose peak and trough performance is handled by electric motors, and whose median power use can be provided for by a range extender after exhausting the batteries (which are sized for the median roundtrip commute or whatever’s necessary to deliver adequate voltage to get peak motor performance, whichever’s higher) would be the best compromise.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        I do think that if hydrogen is adopted in any volume as a motor fuel, it will require a pipeline system to distribute it to the fueling stations. I can’t see truck delivery being practical in the volumes needed.

        • 0 avatar
          Brian P

          Hydrogen is nasty to transport by pipeline. High pressure is a safety hazard, and it loves to leak out through the slightest imperfections. Yes, it’s lighter than air and will disperse, but even neglecting the fire hazard, the leakage is another source of inefficiency (as if there weren’t enough already). It cannot be transported through the existing pipeline infrastructure.

          In my view, if we are going to produce hydrogen by steam-reformation of natural gas, it would be better to simply skip the hydrogen step and use the natural gas itself. You can make fuel cells that will operate on hydrocarbon fuel.

    • 0 avatar
      jdogma

      #1 – for equal btu value, it costs more, but when used in a fuel cell vehicle which is about 3 times more efficient than a gasoline car, it should be a bit less on a level playing field. The playing field strongly favors petroleum because of the well developed infrastructure and history.
      #2 It requires more energy to get free hydrogen than you can get back out of it. Think of it as an energy storage medium, like a battery, in which case hydrogen gives you better range and recharging is faster.
      #3 It depends on how it is produced, but CO2 should not be a worry. we are only at .040% now. At .020% plant growth stops which means no more food, wood or natural fibers. The idea that is is a driver of climate is ridiculous when we have another greenhouse gas that varies from .1% to over 4% and we have no handle on it whatsoever – that would be H2O.
      #4 It depends on how much petroleum products are penalized in the market.

      I have a degree in chemistry and have studied fuel chemistry and alternative fuels extensively. I don’t think there is any applicable license, but realize that I have no horse in this race and no incentive to mislead you.

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      Hydrogen is great. Hydrogen-based engines like Centaur have a significantly higher specific impulse than petroleum-based engines, so you end up with a higher payload fraction and ultimately more mass to orbit. Plus, it ignites more reliably and doesn’t leave carbon deposits on the nozzle or injectors. The density is very low, though, and you don’t get as much thrust, and it’s more expensive than RP-1, so a good combination is a petroleum-fueled first stage and a hydrogen-fueled upper stage. This is what the Saturn V moon rocket used, and what Atlas V uses today. Delta uses hydrogen for the first stage and it ended up bulkier and more expensive.

      Also, I guess some people are using it to fuel cars now, which doesn’t make any sense.

  • avatar
    redav

    Per the comments over at Autoblog, the 3 min – 5 min fueling time is a pipe dream.

    Additionally, I think travel time to the fuel station should be included in the refuel time number. If the nearest station is 20 min away, then the refuel time is closer to 45 min than 5 min, plus a loss of range & increased cost due to the required distance to travel.

  • avatar
    rpol35

    It took that long to figure out that only Lakehurst, NJ would be an appropriate location for a fueling station (and we all know how well that worked last time).


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States