Shell Cans Its Hydrogen Filling Stations, Now Hydrogen-Car Owners Are Even More Screwed

Shell Hydrogen Topshot
ADVERTISEMENT

Owning a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle became more difficult. HydrogenInsight reports that Shell is closing all of its American light-duty hydrogen refueling stations, dealing yet another blow to hydrogen-powered cars in America.

This only affects light-duty hydrogen stations operated by Shell, and heavy-duty stations for commercial applications are expected to remain unaffected. In a statement to HydrogenInsight, a Shell spokesperson outlined the process of discontinuing the availability of hydrogen:

Shell discontinued the build out of its light-duty hydrogen station network in California in 2023, and after temporary closure of five of its seven light-duty stations, made the decision to permanently close its light duty station network in California in early 2024. This was due to a number of market factors.

Shell didn’t disclose exactly what those market factors were, but it’s not particularly difficult to rub two brain cells together and come up with a handful of reasons why continuing support for hydrogen cars might not be practical.

As it stands, hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are only useful in a small part of the country and rely on expensive subsidization, even on the used side. You can currently pick up a certified pre-owned Toyota Mirai with $15,000 or three years worth of fuel thrown in for free, which is especially astonishing when you consider that one dealer is listing eligible models for as little as $10,288. However, even in localized areas like Southern California, the usefulness of fuel cell electric vehicles is limited.

Toyota Mirai

Los Angeles has been experiencing hydrogen supply issues for months, and the number of currently affected stations is astonishing. According to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership website, 14 stations in the greater Los Angeles area are down and one is being refreshed, which is a concern when there are only 40 stations total in the area.

It’s worth noting that our own David Tracy provided a great look at the current limitations of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, when he took a Toyota Mirai for a quick spin and ended up interviewing a Mirai owner at a hydrogen filling station.

In the end, what we have is a damn fine car let down by — for the most part — infrastructure. The car rides great, its 151 horsepower is adequate, the cabin is quiet aside from the screaming child, and the whole package feels modern and safe. The pedal is responsive, the seats are cushy, there’s plenty of room — there’s a reason why Micheline started our conversation with “First of all, I lovvvveee the car.” It’s a great car!

But $110 to go 240 miles is egregious, and so is having to park your car for weeks when the hydrogen stations aren’t working.

Shell bowing out of the light-duty consumer hydrogen market in America is another blow to a small but enthusiastic group of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle owners. While brands like Toyota and Honda have touted the potential benefits of hydrogen, it seems like this technology just isn’t ready for prime time in cars yet.

(Photo credits: Shell, Toyota)

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.

About the Author

View All My Posts

76 thoughts on “Shell Cans Its Hydrogen Filling Stations, Now Hydrogen-Car Owners Are Even More Screwed”

    1. Yeah! I was just in LA/Orange Counties for a week or so and saw 6 different Mirais in person on the roads – once I saw the first one I started to keep count and take pictures

  2. Wonder how hard it would be to swap a battery pack in for the fuel cell? It’s that or rig up a home fueling station with a methane reformer or electrolysis rig.

        1. The 2nd gen Mirai motor is in the back. Adding a methane burning ICE drivetrain, say out of a Camry hybrid adds a motor to the front too. It should work out if Toyota made Gen2 like they made Gen1:

          “Toyota’s latest generation hybrid components were used extensively in the fuel cell powertrain, including the electric motor, power control and main battery. The electric traction motor delivers 113 kilowatts (152 hp; 154 PS) and 335 N⋅m (247 lbf⋅ft) of torque. The Mirai has a 245V (1.6 kWh) sealed nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) traction rechargeable battery pack, similar to the one used in the Camry hybrid.”

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai

          I imagine a methane fueled dual motor hybrid would be quite the ride. Or convert it to gasoline for a range of thousands of miles.

          Damn..that IS tempting!!

          Edit: looks like they did. The JDM HFC Crown uses the same setup as the 2nd gen Mirai and it comes in a HEV flavor using the Camry ICE.

  3. The company didn’t like Shelling out all that dough to keep you filled up.

    Now of course this doesn’t mean Hydrogen is dead. Perhaps in the future it will come back after the insanely complicated hardware is as simple as a battery and an electric motor as in an EV. I don’t count on it, but Japan seems to go big on it.

    While the energy ‘weight’ for Hydrogen is better than batteries – if you don’t accelerate a lot (e.g. highway) then the weight of a vehicle is less relevant. E.g. a hypothetical lighter Mirai (2500 lbs) vs a heavier EV (3500 lbs). Assuming both cars can do brake regen properly (a hydrogen car also has a battery) then in stop and go traffic the Mirai (or hydrogen car) would be more efficient.

    But with 150 hp, a huge huge tank taking a LOT of place, near zero filling stations close to you and this downwards trend … the consumer should be mad to pursue a Hydrogen based car.

    We all understand that battery tech isn’t that super clean, so let’s focus on making it better, from the mining to the reducing those ridiculous horsepower numbers. A car with 400 hp and 1 electric motor would weigh less, still drive great but also consume much less rare earth materials.

    1. 95% of hydrogen comes from methane (or coal, see Australia) so it’s not that clean either. The FC requires precious earth catalysts so that means mining too.

      Yes hydrogen can be made renewably, HOWEVER until all that renewably made hydrogen saturates the hydrogen demands of industry its pointless to wax poetic about using it for transport. To meet the worldwide demand for industrial hydrogen would take more than the entire renewable capacity of the United States including all its hydro power.

      1. “Hydrogen is green because a tiny percent of it is made with renewables, but EVs are dirty because a small part (and getting smaller by the day) of electricity is made from coal!”

        hydrogen enthusiasts

  4. Many years ago I considered a Honda FCX Clarity. I worked next to a hydrogen filling station in Chicago, and at the time it would have been cheaper than gas on my commute. My wife (easily) talked me out of it because of the lack of infrastructure. One of the many times, she was right.

    1. I just had that thought too and came here to see if anyone else had that idea…was hoping this would work WAY way in the future if I was forced to choose, would go with this just to spite the EV fanatics!

  6. Oil company slinks away from hydrogen. Quelle surprise! I mean, you will never be able to maintain record profits if you continue to support future technologies, right? I hope solar cells, electricity, and water make oil irrelevant for everything but our beloved collector cars.

    1. From an oil company perspective, going in on hydrogen actually does make sense. Because if it’s just BEVs, you’re going to see gas stations get increasingly irrelevant, and you’ll lose that revenue stream. If you invest in hydrogen, however, drivers are still beholden to your infrastructure – you still have to go to a filling station.

      Will it be as profitable as oil? Probably not, but it’ll be more profitable than BEVs and you get to do a little bit of green washing as you run campaigns to make people suspicious of green options in anything.

    2. I worked on a project for the oil company noted in the article. The project was a third gen ethanol plant (ethanol from waste fiber). The project dragged on for years in the design phase but never got approved for construction (Final Investment Decision or FID). Eventually we (the project team) came to realize that while it was worth investing a few million a year of marketing budget to look green, they were never going to invest billions in a production facility when they could get higher return elsewhere.

      1. Thanks for this. One point I take away from your experience is that oil companies are happy to get into some thing when it buys them publicity, and when there seems to be immediate or near immediate revenue stream available. As soon as the spotlights are off, they’re back to digging stuff up out of the ground, just as they’ve done for 100 years. As you said, if it’s more profitable for the foreseeable future, why ever ever change? It’s not like global warming is real, or anything… /s

        1. In fairness, it’s the shareholder’s demands for profits that drive most of their decisions. If they can get a 2% return on a green project or a 10+% return on a oilfield in a third world country with no shits given about the environment, the shareholder expectations are that they will go for the higher margin project. The C Suite’s bonuses are tied to the share price. Compensation drives behavior.

          If you want to change the behavior (and we all should) get active as a shareholder.

          1. I just had a flashback to my B-school days. This was one of the most highly debated topics of my whole time there. I don’t think you’re wrong, but my contrarian nature had me insisting that companies need to be more forthright about what they’re going to do (as in “doing the right thing”), and the share price would inevitably follow, but likely not immediately. I was shouted down by many, but not by all…

        2. “It’s not like global warming is real, or anything…”

          Who cares about global warming when you’ve got AC?

          You really should focus on how impressed your neighbors will be when they see your shiny new supersized Canyonero. 2.1 mpg is a feature!!

  9. So this decision simply comes down to the current availability of hydrogen for transport purposes in California (low), the current price of hydrogen (very high) and the current number of hydrogen powered vehicles in California (low).

    It’s not so much about the suitability and efficiency of hydrogen as an energy source…it’s just about the money.

    So what would the situation be if hydrogen fuel stocks were more readily available and therefore cheaper? Here in Oz, those in the energy market are looking hopefully for hydrogen pricing to come down to less than $10/kg with the rollout of green hydrogen. I’m not convinced they’ll get there but the potential implications are interesting.

    1. I’m curious as to what they consider green hydrogen. Is it just the initial production, or does it include pressurization, transport, transfer, and pressurizing the smaller feed tank prior to the actual fueling of the vehicles? AUS has plenty of sunshine, but I wonder about the costs of those vs the vehicle miles resulting.

      —I’m rather dubious about hydrogen as I work daily maintaining machines that run at much lower pressures, and have much larger molecules. And the energy usage at each stage until in the user’s tank makes me think that solar to BEV makes more sense

      1. Green refers only to production side. Not the distribution.

        Solar to BEV for personal transportation is a better choice but for commercial (long distance and/or time bound) transportation where diesel and fuel oil are currently king (trucks, trains and shipping) then other options like hydrogen need to be explored.

    2. There’s only so much cheaper hydrogen can get because it will always be pegged to the price of electricity.

      It takes about 55kWh to electrolyze 1kg of H2 (ideal thermal efficiency is 70%, and we get 85% of that ideal). Liquefaction for transport takes around 10kWh/kg, and a liquid H2 tanker can carry 3500lb of H2. Compression is cheaper, typically under 4kWh/kg, but the trucks can only carry 600kg at a time that way. Assuming an electric (not H2, lol) truck driving 200 miles, that adds about 1kWh/kg to the compressed H2 and basically none to the liquefied H2.

      Bottom line, it’s 55-60kWh to make and deliver 1kg of H2. It’s hard for me to find industrial electricity prices in Australia, but if they’re 50-60% the residential rate like in the US, then hydrogen will cost $10/kg just for the electricity to make and distribute it, not including all the equipment, maintenance, salaries, and profit margins.

      You should not expect $10/kg H2 in Australia until you see your residential electric bills fall by at least half. Or a massive breakthrough in production methods. Or subsidization. Probably subsidization, if we’re being honest.

      1. What makes you assume that ‘green’ hydrogen production will be grid connected? So far the talk about such plants from memory is that they will generally be self sufficient with regard to electricity. Buggered if I know whether that will all work but at least someone is trying something to break an unsustainable status quo.

        Especially since Oz imports most of its liquid fuel and all of its diesel.

  13. That’s fine, I only get my hydrogen from artisanal sources. My car can really taste the minerals in the organic Tahitian vintages. I believe it goes by the trade name Tahitian Treat. I would say “Ask your local Shell service station”. But the Dutch are afraid of creating more water.

    1. As an enthusiastic EV owner, dopes were breaking their fingers sending me that clickbait last week. To which I asked two questions:
      – what energy source are you using to create the hydrogen?
      – how does the existing distribution system for for hydrogen compare to electricity, which last I checked, already is distributed to virtually every home and business in America?

  15. Sell me one for $5K and I will swap a Toyota 5S engine in there. It will last forever if I can find a few geniuses to help make all the electronics work with each other.

  16. If you bought a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in the last 2 years or so then you did no research. The forums have been filled with complaints about stations being out of hydrogen constantly. A hydrogen fuel cell is just an electric car with extra steps.

    1. A hydrogen fuel cell is just an electric car with extra steps.

      And that’s why they were destined to fail. Hydrogen as an energy storage medium does have significantly higher energy density than a battery, but the added complexity and reduced efficiency negate that advantage in all but the most density-sensitive applications.

      1. “Hydrogen as an energy storage medium does have significantly higher energy density than a battery”

        Depends on whether you’re talking by weight or by volume.

        And TBF you should factor in the weight and volume of the H2 tanks, the battery and the FC/ICE+generator and electronics vs JUST the battery and the electronics of a BEV, else someone arguing the case for BEV could consider the battery a “tank” and only the rest mass of the electrical energy contained in that “tank” as relevant.

        5.3 kg of hydrogen to go 402 miles in a Mirai might sound impressive but that’s nothing compared to 3.7 micrograms of rest mass electrical energy to do the same in a base Lucid Air.

        1. You’re right that is the real comparison and it’s annoying that most sources cite the energy density of the hydrogen fuel versus the battery itself. Some quick looking on Wikipedia and Toyota press releases suggest to me the combined weight of the storage tanks, fuel cell stack, and inverter is about 330 lbs in the Mirai. A Model 3 battery (depending on size) is in the ballpark of 1000 lbs.

          With that in mind, the fuel cell/tank and hydrogen of a Mirai nets about 1.18 miles range per lb. Even with the most generous ballparks, a Model 3 nets 0.34 miles range per lb of battery. A Bolt has a 947 lb battery and a 259 mile range or 0.27 miles per lb. Mind you, I think BEVs are still a better choice for most applications because they present better net efficiency and reduced battery size/improved charging infrastructure would only make that better. But in cases – like heavy long haul trucking – where catenary electrification isn’t practical – the improved powertrain density might be worth the efficiency and complexity tradeoff.

          1. Good work. Now consider the volume of all that as well as the packaging. 5.3 kg of 10k psi hydrogen needs 35 gallons of cylindrical storage volume so 35 gallons + the tank walls, pumps, etc. The FC/ICE+generator+battery adds to that.

            Until there is a major advance in zeolite storage those tanks won’t be getting any easier to squeeze in. No word on their useful lifespan either and I can’t imagine those will be cheap to replace.

            Batteries are heavier (for now) but they can be packaged more efficiently and lower in the car.

            1. And that works into the complexity drawback I mentioned against FCEVs. The vast majority of electrified vehicles will benefit from being pure BEV. Maximizing energy density is of less importance with passenger (and many commercial) vehicles when compared to simplicity and efficiency – especially as batteries get lighter and charging gets better.

              The only instances in which FCEVs have a potential is the cases where it makes sense to trade off simplicity and efficiency in order to maximize energy density/minimize weight. Thing heavy trucking where every pound dedicated to the battery is less weight in cargo they can carry.

            2. No word on their useful lifespan either and I can’t imagine those will be cheap to replace.

              Actually, we know something about the lifetime of the high pressure components: Mirais have a label telling their owners not to fill them after a specific date, which is about 15 years after the car was built.

        2. “Hydrogen as an energy storage medium does have significantly higher energy density than a battery”

          Depends on whether you’re talking by weight or by volume.

          Mirai:4,255 to 4,335 lbs

          Model 3 (larger vehicle): 3,862 to 4,034 lbs

          The Model 3 is lighter. Somehow the advantage of the energy density got lost.

          1. I wanted to make that comparison as well but the Model 3 LR only has a range of 341 miles vs the Mirai’s 402. To match that range the Tesla will need a heavier 100kWh battery which will narrow that gap.

            1. Narrow, but not eliminate. Also, the Model 3 has more interior room.

              As for that extra range, it’s going to be used up going off your route to actually finding a hydrogen station.

              1. “Narrow, but not eliminate. Also, the Model 3 has more interior room.”

                Yes. Its also a smaller car.

                “As for that extra range, it’s going to be used up going off your route to actually finding a hydrogen station.”

                Also yes. Even if its not a Tesla a plug is a HELL of a lot easier to find than a hydrogen pump.

    2. Yeah. I don’t feel bad for hydrogen car owners except that lady David interviewed, she seemed nice. Everyone else though, you should have at least understood this to be a distinct possibility when you rolled those dice on “free” fuel.

  17. Hydrogen car owners should start producing their own from solar panels if they want to keep them. They’ll need to buy the equipment to store and dispense it.

    I could see these cars being highly collectable in the future.

    2. The problem with that idea is the panel to wheel efficiency is so low it will take over twice the solar power to get the same benefit as just charging a BEV.

      It might even be cheaper to buy two BEVs and have one charging while the other is driven.

      1. All true. This is why I’m not much of an advocate for H2 powered cars. Then there’s the cost/replacement issue of fuel cell stacks for FCEVs(at least H2 ICE doesn’t have that issue).

        1. But man is H2 ICE inefficient. The tanks to get equivalent to petrol are massive. Its interesting but again will likely not be the answer to passenger vehicles.

    3. While 1gal gasoline = 1kg H2 in terms of energy, a FCEV is way more efficient than an ICE. I was curious, so here’s some numbers:

      Toyota Mirai: 402mi from 5.6kg H2: $201.60 @$36/kg, or $168 @$30/kg
      Generic 30MPG midsize sedan: 13.4gal: $67 @$5/gal
      Hyundai Ioniq 6 (361mi range): 82.4kWh for 402mi: $41.20 @50¢/kWh, or $16.48 @20¢/kWh

      Yikes!

      1. While 1gal gasoline = 1kg H2 in terms of energy, a FCEV is way more efficient than an ICE. I was curious, so here’s some numbers:

        Toyota Mirai: 402mi from 5.6kg H2: $201.60 @$36/kg, or $168 @$30/kg

        Generic 30MPG midsize sedan: 13.4gal: $67 @$5/gal

        Typical 48MPG hybrid midsize sedan: 8.4gal: $41.88 @$5/gal

        Hyundai Ioniq 6 (361mi range): 82.4kWh for 402mi: $41.20 @50¢/kWh (charging station), or $16.48 @20¢/kWh (home)

        (1kg H2 = 33.33kWh, 1gal Gas = 33.37kWh)

        The Mirai is ~2.4x and ~1.5x more energy efficient than non-hybrid and hybrid sedans. However, the Ioniq 6 is 2.26x more energy efficient than the Mirai, 3.4x a hybrid sedan, and 5.42x more than a pure ICE (this is why coal electricity is still better for the environment than ICE).

Leave a Reply