A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Analysis of the Hydrogen Conference Paper

NREL/CP-540-37903 Infrastructure Needed to March 2005 

Enable Commercial 

Introduction of HydrogenFueled Vehicles 

Preprint 

M. Melendez and A. Milbrandt 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

To be presented at the National Hydrogen Association 

Annual Hydrogen Conference 2005 

Washington, DC

March 29–April 1, 2005

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
NOTICE 

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a 

contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US 

Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge 

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov 

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov 

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste 
ANALYSIS OF THE HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE �

NEEDED TO ENABLE COMMERCIAL INTRODUCTION OF �

HYDROGEN-FUELED VEHICLES 

M. Melendez1, A. Milbrandt1 

1. Introduction 

In 2002, President George W. Bush launched the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which 

envisions a future hydrogen economy for the United States. A hydrogen economy 

would increase U.S. energy security, environmental quality, energy efficiency, 

and economic competitiveness. Transitioning to a hydrogen economy, however, 

presents numerous technological, institutional, and economic barriers. These 

barriers apply not only to the development of fuel cell vehicles and stationary fuel 

cells, but also to the development of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure. The 

President asked the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to lead the efforts to 

overcome these barriers. 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) works closely with DOE to 

evaluate the current status and future potential of hydrogen and fuel cell 

technologies. NREL’s capabilities include fuel cell and vehicle modeling and 

analysis, policy analysis, and technology validation expertise. Using these 

capabilities, NREL has contributed to identifying and addressing barriers to the 

hydrogen economy. One specific barrier discussed in DOE’s Hydrogen, Fuel 

Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multi-Year Research, Development 

and Demonstration Plan is the development of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure 

[1]. The goal of this study was to investigate the barriers to developing a 

hydrogen fueling infrastructure and identify and quantify potential solutions for 

overcoming the barriers. 

As hydrogen-fueled vehicles are first introduced, they will be few in number. This 

makes building a large number of hydrogen fueling stations difficult, because 

stations likely will not be economically viable without an adequate number of 

vehicles to create demand for fuel. Conversely, without adequate fueling options, 

consumers will be reluctant to purchase hydrogen-fueled vehicles. This is 

commonly known as the “chicken and egg” problem: which comes first? More 

importantly, how do you bring both into existence simultaneously? 

2. Objective 

This project was designed to address the “chicken and egg” problem by 

identifying a minimum infrastructure that could support the introduction of 

hydrogen-fueled vehicles. The objective was to determine the location and 

number of hydrogen stations nationwide that would make hydrogen fueling 

available at regular intervals along the most commonly traveled interstate roads, 

thus making interstate and cross-country travel possible. This approach to fueling 

1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

1
station distribution is intended to lay the foundation for widespread commercial 

introduction of hydrogen-fueled vehicles and to provide a broad look at the scope 

of infrastructure necessary to bring this new technology to the marketplace. 

3. Project Organization and Assumptions 

The project was organized as follows: 

Phase I: Develop an Initial Hydrogen Fueling Station Network 

1) Identify existing hydrogen production facilities and alternative fuel 

stations 

2) Identify highway traffic volumes throughout the U.S. interstate system 

3) Select specific north-south and east-west routes as a focus for the project 

4) Incorporate existing hydrogen production facilities, hydrogen and natural 

gas fueling stations, traffic volume, and county population data �

5) Place stations on the interstate network �

Phase II: Analyze Infrastructure Design and Cost 

6) Categorize stations by predicted vehicle and hydrogen throughput 

7) Estimate total costs for construction of the network 

8) Identify federal government partners to improve economics and facilitate 

construction of infrastructure �

9) Identify longer-term hydrogen distribution potential �

Numerous assumptions were made during the analysis. Following is a list of these 

basic assumptions, which are described in further detail in each task description: 

•� The analysis focused on a transition period, the 2020/2030 timeframe, 

during which the purpose is to provide a “backbone” of hydrogen fueling 

stations to facilitate interstate travel for early adopters of hydrogen fuel 

cell technology. 

•� Hydrogen-fueled vehicles were assumed to have a range of 300 miles 

(DOE 2008 technical objective). 

•� Traffic volumes were assumed to be consistent from today through the 

2020/2030 timeframe. 

•� The focus was on light-duty vehicles driven by the general public. 

•� Cost assumptions were for station construction and did not include �

hydrogen fuel costs or acquisition costs for property. �

•� Infrastructure was designed to tie into existing infrastructure where 

possible. If natural gas stations were nearby, the station design would 

include onsite reforming. Where a central production facility was nearby, 

a pipeline from that facility would supply the hydrogen. 

•� Drivers were assumed to be willing to travel up to 3 miles from the �

interstate exit to use a hydrogen fueling station. �

2�
4. Phase I: Develop an Initial Hydrogen Fueling Station Network 

Phase I (tasks 1–5) focused on identifying station locations that support interstate 

travel while taking advantage of local resources and being accessible to the largest 

number of people. Key resources, population densities, and traffic volumes were 

identified and spatially categorized using a geographic information system (GIS). 

A GIS is a computer-based information system used to create, manipulate, and 

analyze geographic information. A GIS dataset consists of two elements: a 

graphic representation (map) and associated tabular information (data tables) for 

each graphic element. All information in a GIS is linked to a spatial reference 

used to store and access data, i.e., each point on a map can be queried to view its 

associated information. This combination of geographic and tabular forms enables 

analysis and characterization of different phenomena that occupy the same 

geographic space. Many government and planning organizations use GIS for 

transportation-related projects, such as determining existing and projected traffic 

and managing road maintenance. 

4.1. Identify existing hydrogen production facilities and alternative fuel 

stations 

Data on existing hydrogen production facilities were obtained from the Chemical 

Economics Handbook [2]. Facilities were divided into four categories: 

•� Producers of liquid hydrogen 

•� Producers of gaseous hydrogen: hydrogen produced for resale to external 

customers 

•� Producers of captive hydrogen: hydrogen produced for internal use 

•� Producers of byproduct hydrogen: hydrogen recovered from a 

manufacturing process and sold to gaseous hydrogen producers, purified, 

and sold to external customers, or vented as waste. 

The facilities were entered into the GIS at a city/state level. In some cases, exact 

street addresses could be identified, and those were used to make the locations 

more precise. A map of existing facilities nationwide was generated (Figure 1). 

3�
Figure 1. Hydrogen Facilities in the United States (Original Record 1997 contains 

1997 data; Original Record, updated adds 1999 data; New Record adds 2001 data) 

Data on compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and 

hydrogen fueling stations were gathered from the Alternative Fuels Data Center 

[3], the California Hydrogen Highway Network Initiative [4], and the Online Fuel 

Cell Information Resource [5]. These datasets were processed using the GIS, and 

a map of existing alternative fuel stations was generated (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Existing Alternative Fuel Stations 

4.2. Identify highway traffic volumes throughout the U.S. interstate system 

Several sources of data were evaluated, including individual state traffic data, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics data, and U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data. After careful review of 

the data for various interstate segments, it was determined that the most reliable 

data were from the FHWA [6]. In addition, these data are frequently used for 

4�
FHWA and DOT planning purposes and are the accepted source for such data 

nationwide. 

The FHWA data were entered into the GIS, and a map of the annual average daily 

traffic (AADT) was generated (Figure 3). The traffic volume (vehicles per day) is 

measured for the highway segment, in both directions, representing an average 

24-hour day in a year. 

Figure 3. Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2002 

4.3. Select specific north-south and east-west routes as a focus for the project 

Once the traffic volume data were entered and validated, the data were analyzed 

to determine where traffic flow was greatest along highways. A flow of 20,000 

vehicles per day appeared suitable as a base for this analysis (Figure 4). A flow 

above 25,000-30,000 vehicles only selected a small number of discontinuous 

interstate sections, and a flow of 10,000-15,000 vehicles did not adequately 

narrow the number of main traffic corridors selected. 

5�
Figure 4. Interstate Traffic of More Than 20,000 Vehicles per Day 

Figure 4 defines Interstates 5, 95, 75, and 65 as very well traveled throughout. 

This figure also defines three major regions based on AADT: east (heavy, mostly 

urban traffic), central west of the Mississippi River (light, mostly rural traffic), 

and Pacific west (heavy, urban traffic). 

The need for infrastructure is based on a number of factors, including driving 

patterns or traffic flow (east-west and north-south), geographic coverage of all 

regions of the country, and continuity. Considering these factors, a proposed 

interstate network for the hydrogen infrastructure analysis was developed (Figure 

5). The network is meant to ensure a convenient route and fueling stations 

between major population centers (e.g., from Chicago to San Francisco). The 

routes in the central region were chosen for connectivity between the east and 

Pacific west regions and locally heavy interstate traffic. 

Figure 5. Proposed Interstate Routes for Hydrogen Infrastructure Analysis 

6�
4.4. Incorporate existing hydrogen production facilities, hydrogen and 

natural gas fueling stations, traffic volume, and county population data 

Coordinating the hydrogen infrastructure with existing natural gas fueling sites is 

important because these locations have significant experience dealing with the 

permitting and logistic issues related to gaseous fuels. Additionally, these 

locations are likely to have several local fleets and customers accustomed to using 

gaseous fuels and may be likely early adopters of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. For 

the purpose of this analysis, only existing alternative fueling stations within 3 

miles of interstates in the proposed network (Figure 5) were included. Other 

interstate and U.S. highways intersecting the proposed interstates are important to 

this analysis because of the additional traffic they bring to the intersecting point. 

This assumes that a fueling station located at an intersection would provide 

service to more people than a station not at an intersection. 

Population data from the U.S. Census Bureau were incorporated. An assumption 

was made that the greater the population, the more potential customers for a 

hydrogen station, leading to greater hydrogen demand and a higher likelihood that 

the station could be economically self sustaining. Figure 6 shows a map with the 

selected interstates, existing alternative fueling stations within 3 miles of these 

interstates, hydrogen production facilities, and counties with population over 

50,000 people highlighted in brown. This provides a national overview of the 

proposed infrastructure and the number of major metropolitan areas and resources 

it overlaps. 

Figure 6. Hydrogen Transition Analysis Base Map 

4.5. Place stations on the interstate network 

Because of an assumed vehicle range of about 300 miles, station placement was 

set to a maximum of 100 miles between stations. This allows drivers on a crosscountry trip a level of comfort in the event that one of the stations on their route is 

closed. After a network was selected and traffic volumes and routes were 

7�
examined, several key north-south/east-west routes west of the Mississippi River 

were identified. In the east, the network was not as clearly defined. Overall there 

is a greater interstate volume in the east, and these routes do not display clear 

north-south/east-west patterns. This could indicate that the interstates are used 

extensively for short trips, such as daily commuting, rather than more linear crosscountry travel. For this reason, the station placement in the east, and in urban 

areas with traffic volumes greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, was selected to be 

approximately 50 miles to accommodate more drivers on these short trips. 

Considering all the factors collected, stations were placed along the selected 

interstate routes. This was done somewhat subjectively: each station site was 

manually selected based on proximity to existing infrastructure (hydrogen 

infrastructure, natural gas fueling stations, and intersection with other roads), 

daily traffic, and local population. Therefore, stations are not exactly 50 miles 

apart in the east region or 100 miles apart in the rural central and Pacific west 

regions. Rather, stations were placed to ensure that they were not further than 50 

or 100 miles apart, respectively, and to attempt to minimize cost and maximize 

potential use and coverage. Table 1 summarizes the proposed stations by 

interstate. Figure 7 shows proposed station locations. 

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Hydrogen Stations Along Major Interstates 

Interstate Mileage Number 

of 

Stations* 

Existing 

Natural 

Gas 

Stations* 

Existing 

Hydrogen 

Stations* 

Sites Near 

Hydrogen 

Production 

Facilities* 

New Stations 

Needed* 

5 1,381 20 10 0 2 8 

10 2,460 29 1 2 5 21 

15 1,434 17 5 0 3 9 

20 1,539 18 1 0 2 15 

25 1,063 13 3 0 1 9 

35 1,568 18 4 0 2 12 

40 2,555 28 5 0 0 23 

64 938 7 0 0 2 5 

65 887 11 1 0 1 9 

70 2,153 23 3 0 0 20 

75 1,786 19 6 0 1 12 

79 343 5 3 0 1 1 

80 2,900 33 6 0 4 23 

81 855 9 0 0 0 9 

89 191 3 1 0 0 2 

90 3,021 35 7 0 2 26 

94 1,585 16 6 0 0 10 

95 1,920 30 13 0 1 16 

Total Mileage 28,580 

Total Stations 284 58 2 22 202 

*Stations intersected by multiple interstates are counted multiple times; e.g., a station intersected by two 

interstates is counted twice. Therefore, totaling the number of stations shown in the rows for each interstate 

gives a larger number than the number of stations in the total stations row. The total stations row shows the 

correct number of total stations. 

8�
Figure 7. Proposed Hydrogen Fueling Stations Along Major Interstates 

5. Phase II: Analyze Infrastructure Design and Cost 

Phase II (tasks 6–9) focused on assigning design specifications to the proposed 

initial hydrogen stations and identifying costs associated with the stations. 

Strategies that may facilitate the transition to hydrogen-based transportation were 

also identified. 

5.1. Categorize stations by predicted vehicle and hydrogen throughput 

Once a reasonable set of backbone station locations was identified, potential 

future use could be estimated. The vehicle penetration rates for the scenario used 

in this analysis, called the “Go Your Own Way (GYOW)” scenario, are shown in 

Table 2. The GYOW scenario was created to support the Joint DOE/NRCan 

Study of North American Transportation Energy Futures [7]. This scenario 

models the rate of penetration of fuel cell vehicles under conditions of a fast pace 

of innovation and a high level of environmental responsiveness in the market. 

The model predicts that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would be introduced in 2018 

and represent 50% of the vehicles on the road by 2050. 

Table 2. Estimates of Vehicle Penetration (Go Your Own Way Scenario) 

Year Light-Duty Fuel Cell Vehicle 

Stock (Millions) 

Total Light-Duty 

Vehicle Stock 

(Millions) 

Fuel Cell Vehicles as 

Percent of Stock 

2020 3 274 1.1% 

2030 59 306 19.4% 

2040 140 328 42.8% 

2050 175 353 49.5% 

Once the number of hydrogen vehicles on the road was estimated it could be used 

to predict the total hydrogen demand for each station. The following assumptions 

were made with regard to estimating hydrogen demand: 

9 
1.�Ninety-one percent of all vehicle-miles traveled are done so in passenger 

vehicles. The figures for AADT represent all vehicle types passing 

through a certain stretch of interstate. To determine the number of fuel cell 

vehicles passing through the same stretch, the percentage of AADT that 

are vehicles that potentially could be fuel cell vehicles (passenger 

vehicles) must first be estimated [8]. 

2.�Fifty percent of all passenger vehicles in 2020 and 35% of all passenger 

vehicles in 2030 that pass a hydrogen station will use that station. Because 

there are fewer stations in 2020, drivers have fewer station options and 

therefore use the stations they pass at a higher rate than in 2030 or further 

into the future, as the number of stations begins to increase. 

3.�Each vehicle fill-up is 5 kg of hydrogen. 

5.2. Estimate total costs for construction of the network 

Once the hydrogen demand at each station was established based on predicted 

2020 vehicle penetration, station configurations were selected for each station. 

The station configurations and costs were taken from a University of CaliforniaDavis (UC-Davis) study [9]. Table 3 shows these station types. Table 4 shows the 

decision matrix for each station configuration based on its predicted use or 

hydrogen demand. When stations required more hydrogen production than the 

station design selected, a whole number multiplier was put on the UC-Davis cost 

estimate, e.g., when a mobile refueler capable of 10 kg/day was selected at a site 

that needed 25 kg/day, the cost of three 10-kg/day stations was used as long as 

this cost was less than the cost of the next larger station that would satisfy the 25 

kg/day need. To improve these cost estimates, future work could include more 

detailed cost estimates for stations. Using this methodology, the overall 

infrastructure cost is approximately $837 million, based on 2020 demand for 

hydrogen. 

Table 3. Standard Station Configurations and their Construction Costs 

Station Type Cost per Station Abbreviation 

 Steam Methane Reformer, 100 kg/day $1,052,921 SMR100

 Steam Methane Reformer, 1,000 kg/day $5,078,145 SMR1000 

 Electrolyzer, grid, 30 kg/day $555,863 EL30G 

 Electrolyzer, grid, 100 kg/day $945,703 EL100G 

 Electrolyzer, renewable, 30 kg/day $667,402 ER30R 

 Mobile Refueler, 10 kg/day $248,897 MR10 

 Delivered Liquid Hydrogen, 1,000 kg/day $2,617,395 DLH21000 

 Pipeline Station, 100 kg/day $578,678 PIPE 

10�
Table 4. Assumptions for Assigning Station Configuration Based on Existing 

Infrastructure and Hydrogen Demand 

Existing Infrastructure Hydrogen Volume (kg/day) Station Type 

CNG <30 MR10 

LNG <30 MR10 

Hydrogen Facility <30 PIPE 

Hydrogen <30 No Change 

None <30 EL30G 

CNG 30-100 SMR100 

LNG 30-100 SMR100 

Hydrogen Facility 30-100 PIPE 

Hydrogen 30-100 No Change 

None 30-100 EL100G 

CNG 100-1,000 SMR1000 

LNG 100-1,000 SMR1000 

Hydrogen Facility 100-1,000 PIPE 

Hydrogen 100-1,000 No Change 

None 100-1,000 DLH21000 

CNG >1,000 SMR1000 

LNG >1,000 SMR1000 

Hydrogen Facility >1,000 PIPE 

Hydrogen >1,000 No Change 

None >1,000 DLH21000 

5.3. Identify federal government partners to improve economics and 

facilitate construction of infrastructure 

Because of high costs of infrastructure, especially during the transition period 

during which technologies are new and volumes are low, there is incentive to look 

for innovative ways to reduce costs and increase infrastructure use. One possible 

way is to focus on locating infrastructure at existing federal facilities. An 

Executive Order could encourage the concept of co-generation at federal 

facilities; i.e., these facilities could generate hydrogen onsite and use it in 

stationary fuel cells as a power source. Facilities also could be designed to permit 

vehicle fueling for local federal fleets and the general public. 

Data on federal property were obtained from the Federal Energy Management 

Program and mapped in relation to the proposed network of stations. About 80% 

of the proposed hydrogen fueling stations have at least one civilian federal facility 

within 10 miles (Figure 8). 

11�
Figure 8. Civilian Federal Facilities within 10 Miles of a Proposed Hydrogen 

Fueling Station 

This shows that, given the right incentives, federal facilities could provide a good 

starting point for a transitional hydrogen infrastructure because they offer broad 

geographic coverage. In particular, federal agencies that have been proactive with 

the introduction of other alternative fuels into their fleets may have an interest in 

pursuing hydrogen for not only their fleet, but also for co-generation and public 

fueling. Figure 9 shows U.S. Postal Service (USPS) facilities. The USPS is a good 

candidate for the co-generation option in the near term because it operates its own 

fleet, which could use hydrogen, and is dispersed widely across the country. 

Figure 9. Proposed Hydrogen Fueling Stations in Relation to U.S. Postal Service 

Facilities 

12�
5.4. Identify longer-term hydrogen distribution potential 

Although the analysis shown in this report is primarily a transition analysis, using 

GIS to show multiple characteristics graphically also is applicable to evaluating 

longer-term, full-scale hydrogen infrastructure. One possible way to support a 

broader infrastructure, after the technology is mature and upwards of 75% of the 

vehicle stock is hydrogen fueled, is to use existing gasoline and diesel depots for 

centralized hydrogen production, storage, and distribution. These would be 

excellent candidates because, as the transition from petroleum to hydrogen occurs, 

the petroleum facilities will become underutilized, making them available for the 

construction of hydrogen facilities. The locations of individual petroleum depots 

were acquired from MAPSearch, a PennWell Company. A gasoline terminal 

stores and transfers petroleum products (gasoline and distillate) received from the 

pipeline or rail cars and distributes them to regional markets via tank truck. 

Assuming these depots could distribute hydrogen to stations up to 30 miles away, 

fairly broad coverage could be attained from this strategy. Figure 10 shows a map 

of the U.S. coverage within 30 miles of existing gasoline/diesel depots, with the 

proposed infrastructure superimposed. This shows that about 60% of the proposed 

facilities could be supplied with hydrogen from a centralized facility in the long 

term. 

Figure 10. Areas Within 30 Miles of a Petroleum Depot and Proposed Hydrogen 

Fueling Stations 

6. Results and Conclusions 

Overall, 284 stations were identified that could make up a potential transitional 

national hydrogen fueling infrastructure backbone, with a total construction cost 

of $837 million if constructed to meet the needs of 2020. This is based on the 

aggressive assumptions of a 50% fuel cell vehicle stock by 2050, and 

approximately 1% in 2020 and 20% in 2030. Section 9 shows the complete list of 

station locations selected. 

13�
The construction cost of $837 million is an initial cost for the early hydrogen 

network. Because the infrastructure is based on anticipated station use, many of 

the stations could be economically self sustaining in the near term (2020–2030). 

This depends on how evenly the fuel cell vehicles are distributed geographically. 

Most likely, they would be concentrated in key urban areas, making those stations 

economically viable, whereas rural stations that do not serve as many vehicles 

may need additional financial support until sufficient vehicles are operating in 

their region. 

One way to help the economic viability of stations is to incorporate co-generation. 

In particular, using co-generation (hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles and powerproducing stationary fuel cells) at federal facilities could reduce the federal 

government’s overall fossil fuel consumption and environmental impacts while 

helping facilitate interstate travel in fuel cell vehicles for the driving public. 

7. Future Work

Below are suggestions for potential future work that would build on this project: 

Incorporate DOE analysis: Incorporate DOE’s H2A forecourt and delivery cost 

analysis to improve infrastructure analysis and design and ensure consistency with 

DOE hydrogen program assumptions. 

Expand current station network: Identify key metropolitan areas based on a 

series of factors (e.g., Clean Cities participation and success, population 

demographics, locally available energy resources, and completed and ongoing 

metropolitan area infrastructure analysis) that will expand the network beyond the 

limited interstate focus to have a broader reach of consumers. 

Identify co-generation options for federal facilities: Identify which specific 

federal facilities would be good candidates for the installation of co-generation so 

that hydrogen can be used in stationary fuel cells while providing a vehicle 

fueling location. Specify the co-generation equipment, costs, and potential 

impacts on the transition. Focus on key federal facilities/agencies that have been 

proactive with the use of alternative fuels or energy efficiency in the past. 

Improve estimates for utilization rates at each station: Identify the number of 

vehicles visiting each station and their hydrogen demand based on vehicle 

penetration estimates (using the VISION model), population demographics, traffic 

data, and experience from conventional fuel stations. Predict hydrogen demand at 

each station for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and for hydrogen-natural gas blends in 

natural gas vehicles. 

Tailor stations based on location and available local resources: Tailor several 

types of stations to the needs and resources of specific station locations. These 

stations could be designed based on factors including predicted use and available 

14�
resources (e.g., renewable energy sources, natural gas pipelines, and centralized 

hydrogen production facilities). 

Estimate station costs and perform break-even analysis: For each station, 

identify the construction and operating costs. Use estimates of use and hydrogen 

fuel costs from DOE’s H2A effort to predict when stations will become self 

sustaining and to evaluate the impacts of hydrogen-natural gas blends as a 

transition strategy to reduce break-even time. 

Evaluate situations for which government financial assistance would be most 

beneficial: Analyze various scenarios and identify key partners and projects that 

would make the best use of funding for aiding in the transition to hydrogen, such 

as funding key refueling stations in partnership with the USPS, or selecting 

primary and secondary metropolitan areas and/or routes that have the greatest 

impacts on transition. 

8. References 

1. U.S. Department of Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program 

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan, U.S. Department of Energy, 

DOE/GO-102003-1741, 2005. 

2. SRI Consulting: Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, 1997, updated 1999 and 

2001. 

3. U.S. Department of Energy: Alternative Fueling Station Locator, Alternative Fuels Data Center, 

www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/infrastructure/locator.html, Web site accessed 2004. 

4. State of California: California Hydrogen Highway Network Initiative, 

http://hydrogenhighway.ca.gov, Web site accessed 2004. 

5. Fuel Cells 2000: The Online Fuel Cell Information Resource, www.fuelcells.org, Web site 

accessed 2004. 

6. U.S. Federal Highway Administration: Traffic Data in GIS Format, U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration, 2000. 

7. Philip Patterson, David Greene, Elyse Steiner, et al.: Joint DOE/NRCan Study of North 

American Transportation Energy Futures, U.S. Department of Energy, 

www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/ba/analysis/pdfs/final_2050_pres.pdf, May 2003. 

8. Stacy C. Davis, Susan W. Diegel: Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 23, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, 2003. 

9. Jonathan Weinert: DRAFT Economic Analysis of the Proposed Hydrogen Highway Network, 

University of California – Davis, 2004. 

9. Station Details 

Location State Interstate Existing Infrastructure AADT Utilization 2020 Demand 2020 Station Type Cost 

Buffalo WY 90, 25 None 4,884 24 119 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Moorcroft WY 90 None 5,317 26 129 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Cassa WY 25 None 6,340 31 154 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Lyman WY 80 None 11,427 56 278 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Elk Mountain WY 80 None 11,520 56 280 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Table Rock WY 80 None 11,838 58 288 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Casper WY 25 Natural Gas 10,849 53 264 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Cheyenne WY 80, 25 Hydrogen Facility 13,918 68 338 PIPE $583,141 

Lewisburg WV 64 None 13,455 65 327 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Clarksburg WV 79 Natural Gas 29,789 145 724 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Charleston WV 64, 79 Hydrogen Facility 54,101 263 1,315 PIPE $583,141 

French Island WI 90 None 22,313 108 542 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Northfield WI 94 None 23,044 112 560 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Portage WI 90, 94 None 31,641 154 769 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

15 
Milwaukee WI 94 Natural Gas 116,131 564 2,822 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Milton WI 90 Hydrogen Facility 48,695 237 1,184 PIPE $583,141 

Ritzville WA 90 None 13,821 67 336 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Ellensburg WA 90 None 18,971 92 461 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Olympia WA 5 Natural Gas 96,347 468 2,342 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Seattle WA 5, 90 Natural Gas 186,593 907 4,535 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Bellingham WA 5 Hydrogen Facility 43,333 211 1,053 PIPE $583,141 

Kalama WA 5 Hydrogen Facility 54,977 267 1,336 PIPE $583,141 

South Burlington VT 89 Natural Gas 34,050 166 828 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Emporia VA 95 None 31,248 152 759 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Kent VA 81 None 34,770 169 845 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Staunton VA 64, 81 None 42,873 208 1,042 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Richmond VA 64, 95 None 84,164 409 2,046 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Fredericksburg VA 95 None 118,314 575 2,876 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Emery UT 70 None 5,027 24 122 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Wendover UT 80 None 6,802 33 165 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Thompson Springs UT 70 None 6,829 33 166 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Cove Fort UT 15 None 9,934 48 241 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Levan UT 15 None 14,918 73 363 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Tremonton UT 15 None 15,280 74 371 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Salt Lake City UT 15, 80 Natural Gas 93,521 455 2,273 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Cedar City UT 15 Hydrogen Facility 19,967 97 485 PIPE $583,141 

Bakersfield TX 10 None 4,689 23 114 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Sonora TX 10 None 5,903 29 143 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Kent TX 10, 20 None 7,565 37 184 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Mountain Home TX 10 None 8,249 40 200 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Finlay TX 10 None 9,535 46 232 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Westbrook TX 20 None 12,345 60 300 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Baird TX 20 None 17,606 86 428 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Schulenburg TX 10 None 20,703 101 503 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Owentown TX 20 None 25,802 125 627 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Laredo TX 35 None 33,660 164 818 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Amarillo TX 40 None 42,700 208 1,038 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Hudson Oaks TX 20 None 42,917 209 1,043 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Hillsboro TX 35 None 43,425 211 1,055 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Denton TX 35 None 49,227 239 1,196 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Temple TX 35 None 54,508 265 1,325 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Baytown TX 10 None 57,627 280 1,401 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Beaumont TX 10 None 69,980 340 1,701 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Katy TX 10 None 71,663 348 1,742 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Lawson TX 20 None 94,438 459 2,295 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

San Antonio TX 10, 35 None 101,158 492 2,459 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Austin TX 35 Natural Gas 164,744 801 4,004 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Odessa TX 20 Hydrogen Facility 17,784 86 432 PIPE $583,141 

Kingsport TN 81 None 33,117 161 805 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Jackson TN 40 None 35,088 171 853 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Cookeville TN 40 None 36,172 176 879 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Baneberry TN 81, 40 None 40,713 198 990 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Memphis TN 40 None 65,608 319 1,595 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Oak Ridge TN 40, 75 None 69,752 339 1,695 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Chattanooga TN 75 None 86,470 420 2,102 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Berry Hill TN 40, 65 None 101,543 494 2,468 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Stamford SD 90 None 6,175 30 150 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Kimball SD 90 None 6,918 34 168 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Rapid City SD 90 None 21,281 103 517 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Crooks SD 90 None 22,453 109 546 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Santee SC 95 None 31,493 153 765 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Florence SC 95, 20 None 37,634 183 915 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

North Augusta SC 20 None 47,306 230 1,150 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

West Columbia SC 20 None 63,404 308 1,541 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Cranston RI 95 Natural Gas 119,178 579 2,897 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Milton PA 80 None 11,395 55 277 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

DuBois PA 80 None 11,974 58 291 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Erie PA 90, 79 None 15,378 75 374 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Hazleton PA 80, 81 None 15,724 76 382 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

16�
Somerset PA 70 None 33,196 161 807 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Harrisburg PA 81 None 35,705 174 868 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Newportville Terrace PA 95 None 45,625 222 1,109 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Grove City PA 80, 79 Natural Gas 11,463 56 279 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Washington PA 70, 79 Natural Gas 19,204 93 467 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Albany OR 5 None 55,966 272 1,360 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Roseburg OR 5 Natural Gas 36,681 178 892 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Medford OR 5 Natural Gas 38,611 188 938 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Tualatin OR 5 Natural Gas 114,034 554 2,772 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Perry OK 35 None 15,792 77 384 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Henryetta OK 40 None 16,709 81 406 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Sayre OK 40 None 18,854 92 458 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Oklahoma City OK 40, 35 Natural Gas 83,221 405 2,023 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Ardmore OK 35 Hydrogen Facility 28,736 140 698 PIPE $583,141 

Cambridge OH 70 None 27,396 133 666 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Windham OH 80 None 33,814 164 822 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Elyria OH 90, 80 None 39,010 190 948 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Rossford OH 90, 80, 75 None 65,908 320 1,602 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Vandalia OH 70, 75 None 69,135 336 1,680 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Columbus OH 70 None 98,070 477 2,384 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Geneva OH 90 Natural Gas 31,771 154 772 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Cincinnati OH 75 Natural Gas 112,366 546 2,731 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Lima OH 75 Hydrogen Facility 43,055 209 1,046 PIPE $583,141 

Saint Johnsville NY 90 None 23,765 116 578 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Binghamton NY 81 None 32,179 156 782 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Victor NY 90 None 43,441 211 1,056 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Syracuse NY 90, 81 None 48,590 236 1,181 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Buffalo NY 90 Natural Gas 70,968 345 1,725 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Albany NY 90 Natural Gas 71,753 349 1,744 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Golconda NV 80 None 6,695 33 163 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Woolsey NV 80 None 7,557 37 184 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Elko NV 80 None 9,010 44 219 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Reno NV 80 Natural Gas 68,568 333 1,667 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Las Vegas NV 15 Natural Gas 135,290 658 3,288 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Springer NM 25 None 5,514 27 134 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Williamsburg NM 25 None 5,961 29 145 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Socorro NM 25 None 10,782 52 262 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

San Jon NM 40 None 12,211 59 297 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Wilna NM 10 None 13,356 65 325 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Santa Rosa NM 40 None 14,794 72 360 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Gallup NM 40 None 19,005 92 462 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Las Cruces NM 10, 25 None 21,452 104 521 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Las Vegas NM 25 Natural Gas 6,626 32 161 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Albuquerque NM 25, 40 Natural Gas 98,316 478 2,390 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Netcong NJ 80 None 65,451 318 1,591 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Fords NJ 95 None 119,002 578 2,892 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Lebanon NH 89 None 23,742 115 577 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Concord NH 89 None 43,888 213 1,067 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Portsmouth NH 95 Natural Gas 66,774 325 1,623 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Sidney NE 80 None 7,776 38 189 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

North Platte NE 80 None 16,855 82 410 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Elm Creek NE 80 None 17,623 86 428 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

York NE 80 None 23,479 114 571 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Dickinson ND 94 None 5,316 26 129 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Jamestown ND 94 None 6,970 34 169 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Bismarck ND 94 None 15,318 74 372 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Fargo ND 94 None 26,448 129 643 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Smith Creek NC 40 None 24,200 118 588 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Rocky Mount NC 95 None 32,667 159 794 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Benson NC 95, 40 None 38,655 188 939 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Lumberton NC 95 None 39,933 194 971 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Statesville NC 40 None 46,536 226 1,131 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Ashville NC 40 None 54,426 265 1,323 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Durham NC 40 Natural Gas 62,571 304 1,521 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Greensboro NC 40 Natural Gas 86,902 422 2,112 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

17�
Red Rock MT 15 None 3,121 15 76 EL100G $923,039 

Wolf Creek MT 15 None 3,640 18 88 EL100G $923,039 

Forsyth MT 94 None 3,717 18 90 EL100G $923,039 

Lodge Grass MT 90 None 3,820 19 93 EL100G $923,039 

Haugan MT 90 None 7,015 34 170 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Livingston MT 90 None 15,040 73 366 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Missoula MT 90 None 15,584 76 379 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Glendive MT 94 Natural Gas 3,698 18 90 SMR100 $1,047,927 

Butte MT 90, 15 Natural Gas 8,808 43 214 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Great Falls MT 15 Hydrogen Facility 12,345 60 300 PIPE $583,141 

Laurel MT 90 Hydrogen Facility 14,053 68 342 PIPE $583,141 

Gulfport MS 10 None 43,286 210 1,052 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Jackson MS 20 None 66,802 325 1,624 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Bethany MO 35 None 12,660 62 308 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Columbia MO 70 None 44,821 218 1,089 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Wentzville MO 70 None 73,956 359 1,797 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Kansas City MO 35, 70 Natural Gas 86,550 421 2,104 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Jackson MN 90 None 7,467 36 181 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Albert Lee MN 90, 35 None 14,757 72 359 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Sauk Centre MN 94 None 19,529 95 475 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Duluth MN 35 None 35,437 172 861 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Minneapolis MN 94, 35 Natural Gas 124,322 604 3,022 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Marshall MI 94 None 31,923 155 776 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Benton Heights MI 94 None 37,272 181 906 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Kawkawlin MI 75 None 38,146 185 927 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Detroit MI 94, 75 Natural Gas 126,456 615 3,073 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Augusta ME 95 None 23,787 116 578 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Westbrook ME 95 None 47,935 233 1,165 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Hampden Highlands ME 95 Hydrogen Facility 25,723 125 625 PIPE $583,141 

Hagerstown MD 70, 81 None 49,596 241 1,205 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

North Bethesda MD 95 None 169,820 825 4,127 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

White Marsh MD 95 Natural Gas 129,302 629 3,143 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Holyoke MA 90 None 58,529 285 1,423 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Bedford MA 95 Natural Gas 166,699 810 4,052 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Lafayette LA 10 None 43,169 210 1,049 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Monroe LA 20 None 53,738 261 1,306 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Lake Charles LA 10 Hydrogen Facility 43,455 211 1,056 PIPE $583,141 

Shreveport LA 20 Hydrogen Facility 43,792 213 1,064 PIPE $583,141 

New Orleans LA 10 Hydrogen Facility 69,854 340 1,698 PIPE $583,141 

Baton Rouge LA 10 Hydrogen Facility 69,933 340 1,700 PIPE $583,141 

Corbin KY 75 None 36,533 178 888 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Elizabethtown KY 65 None 39,409 192 958 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Bowling Green KY 65 None 46,589 226 1,132 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Lexington-Fayette KY 75, 64 None 46,676 227 1,134 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Louisville KY 64, 65 Hydrogen Facility 76,242 371 1,853 PIPE $583,141 

Oakley KS 70 None 9,302 45 226 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Russel KS 70 None 11,170 54 271 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Emporia KS 35 None 13,248 64 322 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Junction City KS 70 None 19,636 95 477 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Wichita KS 35 None 33,102 161 805 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Elberfeld IN 64 None 18,131 88 441 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Fremont IN 90, 80 None 22,046 107 536 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

South Bend IN 90, 80 None 24,854 121 604 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Battle Ground IN 65 None 42,311 206 1,028 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Indianapolis IN 70, 65 None 95,107 462 2,312 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Terre Haute IN 70 Natural Gas 31,931 155 776 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Gary IN 90,80,65,94 Natural Gas 74,199 361 1,803 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Colona IL 80 None 19,760 96 480 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

La Salle IL 80 None 22,168 108 539 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Effingham IL 70 None 24,664 120 599 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

O'Fallon IL 70 None 33,194 161 807 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Chicago IL 90, 94 Natural Gas 202,647 985 4,925 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Joliet IL 80 Hydrogen Facility 55,195 268 1,341 PIPE $583,141 

Camas ID 15 None 3,082 15 75 EL100G $923,039 

Coeur d'Alene ID 90 None 33,251 162 808 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

18�
Pocatello ID 15 Natural Gas 18,173 88 442 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Dows IA 35 None 14,691 71 357 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Iowa City IA 80 None 37,917 184 922 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Council Bluffs IA 80 Hydrogen Facility 27,551 134 670 PIPE $583,141 

Des Moines IA 80, 35 Hydrogen Facility 66,597 324 1,619 PIPE $583,141 

Greensboro GA 20 None 22,427 109 545 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Pooler GA 95 None 40,503 197 984 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Tifton GA 75 None 40,939 199 995 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Brunswick GA 95 Natural Gas 41,623 202 1,012 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Macon GA 75 Natural Gas 47,571 231 1,156 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Calhoun GA 75 Natural Gas 59,733 290 1,452 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Atlanta GA 75, 20 Natural Gas 183,185 890 4,452 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Caryville FL 10 None 16,424 80 399 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Winfield FL 10, 75 None 28,792 140 700 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Naples FL 75 None 33,857 165 823 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Tallahassee FL 10 None 34,886 170 848 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Ensley FL 10 None 46,676 227 1,134 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Daytona Beach FL 95 None 50,455 245 1,226 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Venice FL 75 None 59,568 290 1,448 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Temple Terrace FL 75 None 102,805 500 2,499 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Fort Pierce FL 95 Natural Gas 44,333 215 1,077 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Rockledge FL 95 Natural Gas 50,731 247 1,233 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Ocala FL 75 Natural Gas 63,811 310 1,551 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Jacksonville FL 95 Natural Gas 104,762 509 2,546 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Palm Beach Gardens FL 95 Natural Gas 121,776 592 2,960 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Dania Beach FL 95 Natural Gas 219,715 1,068 5,340 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Wilmington DE 95 Natural Gas 60,845 296 1,479 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

New London CT 95 None 62,557 304 1,520 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

New Haven CT 95 Natural Gas 110,638 538 2,689 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Greenwich CT 95 Natural Gas 120,918 588 2,939 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Flagler CO 70 None 3,569 17 87 EL100G $923,039 

Walsenburg CO 25 None 6,006 29 146 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Grand Junction CO 70 None 14,858 72 361 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Vail CO 70 None 16,286 79 396 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Glenwood Springs CO 70 None 19,612 95 477 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Colorado Springs CO 25 None 35,271 171 857 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Denver CO 25, 70 None 60,084 292 1,460 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Fenner CA 40 None 12,100 59 294 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Kingman CA 40 None 17,477 85 425 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Weed CA 5 None 18,200 88 442 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Blythe CA 10 None 19,840 96 482 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

WIllows CA 5 None 22,250 108 541 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Huron CA 5 None 32,000 156 778 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Buttonwillow CA 5 None 32,667 159 794 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Los Banos CA 5 None 33,750 164 820 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Cima CA 15 None 36,175 176 879 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Gorman CA 5 None 64,667 314 1,572 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Temecula CA 15 None 77,250 376 1,878 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

San Diego CA 5 None 182,633 888 4,439 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Barstow CA 15, 40 Natural Gas 34,422 167 837 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Anderson CA 5 Natural Gas 45,083 219 1,096 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Stockton CA 5 Natural Gas 91,250 444 2,218 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Sacramento CA 5, 80 Natural Gas 122,685 596 2,982 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

San Francisco CA 80 Natural Gas 158,260 769 3,846 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Los Angeles CA 5 Natural Gas 192,750 937 4,685 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Irvine CA 5 Natural Gas 264,000 1,283 6,416 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Ontario CA 15, 10 Hydrogen Facility 177,350 862 4,310 PIPE $583,141 

Rancho Mirage CA 10 Hydrogen 68,167 331 1,657 NC $0 

Williams AZ 40 None 13,981 68 340 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Bowie AZ 10 None 15,350 75 373 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Joseph City AZ 40 None 15,805 77 384 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Littlefield AZ 15 None 19,909 97 484 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Brenda AZ 10 None 23,189 113 564 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Tucson AZ 10 Natural Gas 83,139 404 2,021 SMR1000 $5,137,202 

Phoenix AZ 10 Hydrogen 186,576 907 4,535 NC $0 

19�
Alma AR 40 None 24,655 120 599 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Menifee AR 40 None 35,023 170 851 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

de Valls Bluff AR 40 None 42,274 205 1,027 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Cuba AL 20 None 19,500 95 474 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Evergreen AL 65 None 22,370 109 544 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Heflin AL 20 None 33,479 163 814 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Huntsville AL 65 None 34,160 166 830 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Montgomery AL 65 None 62,512 304 1,519 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Birmingham AL 20, 65 None 83,468 406 2,029 DLH21000 $2,677,362 

Tillmans Corner AL 10 Hydrogen Facility 69,232 337 1,683 PIPE $583,141 

10. Authors 

Margo Melendez analyzes hydrogen transportation at NREL, with an emphasis on 

the transition from today’s vehicle and infrastructure technologies to the hydrogen 

technologies of the future. Previously she led NREL projects promoting the 

transition to alternative fuel transportation. These efforts included government 

regulatory programs, consumer education, engine and infrastructure R&D, and 

transition analysis. Before joining NREL, she worked on environmental 

compliance and regulatory affairs at Ford Motor Company. She holds a B.S. in 

mechanical engineering from the University of Iowa and an M.S. in engineering 

management from the University of Michigan. 

Anelia Milbrandt is a GIS analyst at NREL. Her current research includes GIS 

analysis of the domestic and international availability of renewable energy 

resources, including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydrogen. Before 

joining NREL, she was a GIS specialist for the Minnesota State Legislature, 

providing GIS support during the state’s 2002 redistricting. She holds an M.S. in 

geography from the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. 

20�
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 

March 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Conference Paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Analysis of the Hydrogen Infrastructure Needed to Enable 

Commercial Introduction of Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles: Preprint 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

M. Melendez, and A. Milbrandt 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

NREL/CP-540-37903 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

HY55.2200 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

NREL/CP-540-37903 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) 

Paper for the 2005 National Hydrogen Association conference analyzes the hydrogen infrastructure needed to 

accommodate a transitional hydrogen fuel cell vehicle demand. Overall, 284 stations were identified, with an initial 

total construction cost of $837 million if constructed to meet the needs of 2020. This is based on the aggressive 

assumptions of a 50% fuel cell vehicle stock by 2050, and approximately 1% in 2020 and 20% in 2030. Because the 

infrastructure is based on anticipated station use, many of the stations could be economically self sustaining in the 

near term (2020–2030). This depends on how evenly the fuel cell vehicles are distributed geographically. Most likely, 

they would be concentrated in key urban areas, making those stations economically viable, whereas rural stations 

that do not serve as many vehicles may need financial support until sufficient vehicles are operating in their region. 

One way to help the viability of stations is to incorporate co-generation, in particular co-generation at federal facilities. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

fuel cell; hydrogen; national renewable energy laboratory; hydrogen economy; hydrogen transition; fuel cell vehicles; 

hydrogen infrastructure; hydrogen fueling 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 

F1147-E(12/2004)