Hydrogen Fuel Cell Grenadier testing about to start

I proudly volunteer to take care of the testing in California, city and desert driving being a speciality.....

I even have a hydrogen filling station a few blocks from the house.

It’ll probably be available before diesel version

I can't see that adopting the FCEV technology will be that successful for the Grenadier. I would think I'm not alone in favouring Hydrogen Internal Combustion. Less weight, easier packaging in existing platforms and a more authentic driving experience. JCB are developing this technology for plant and the truck manufacturers can't be too far behind.

@JOB you re right. I ve discussed this with a friend of mine owning a jeep grand cherokee (also diesel powered) there is some conversion kit in development he told me to turn diesel engines in hydrogen powered engines.

Living in a family with half of them mechanical engineers worked Bosch and other suppliers to the automotive industry and optical engineering such as Rodenstock (glasses / eye)
There is a term - called efficiency.
What is the cost of creating a car, operating it, what is the content of energy per volume of fuel, what storage, how much energy is needed create the store and what amount is successfully turned in to the needed amount of motion, temperature, electric power etc.
Still diesel and gas/petrol is unmatched.
The engine however is rather complex and noisy.
The e-engine is simple - needs far less maintenance - and power to weight ratio is much better.
But not considered what a combustion engine delivers as side effect is heat, servos, driving compressors for A/C , powerSteering, and much more.
Any electric vehicle must do this with additional electric parts and featers sucking from battery..
No matter if FC or purely battery - a battery has a comparable low energy density and high weight and charging time.. - The FC System if pure Hydrogen needs a special storage. H Atoms are so small they decarbonize steel and disappear through metal. So perhaps Methanol Direct Fuel Cell instead? Need still some secure fuel tank - but proven in Top Fuel Class
However a little bit lower risk than gaseous Hydrogen.
The complexity of a Diesel versus the complexity of a E Power-Generation from Hydrogen Storage - to FC array - to both buffer battery and electrical consumers. Does it match?
A Hydrogen combustion engine still has the risk - of quite explosive hydrogen. But at least it is a conversion option if the story reported to me is true.

So to me both are not real alternatives to classic diesel or petrol/gas powered engine (considering OffRoad - and travelling long distance)
Pure Battery powered e-cars are nonsense in most cases. No one mentions child labour, immense use of potable water for Lithium, etc and recycling? (Reminds me on windgenerator rotor blades - no one knows on proper recycling instead they do landfill.

FC cars make sense if powered by Methanol Direct Fuel Cell in some normal cars - - as long as there is a reliable source of methanol.
(not in near future for offroading and overlanding) - FC will bind an IG owners to countries with sufficent infrastructure in the intended area of operation.

Storing Methanol in high volumes is dangerous compared to diesel that is far more difficult to burn) And probably quite difficult to acquire when travelling to certain countries with low infrastructure.

To me the only sensible replacement of Diesel / petrol from Natural crude oil may be E-Fuel Diesel/petrol - if that can be produced for an acceptable price.
Ineos must however develop some alternative fuel vehicle to meet or at least indicate to governments that they re willing to go that "lower CO2" fairy tale
I consider the technology as immature anyway. As long as e vehicles turn in to combustion vehicles involuntarily ;-) ..

As long as our big d*cks of industry and politics and NGO like WEF use their private jets, high volume cars and super yachts - burning tons of fuel - I give a damn.

> As long as our big d*cks of industry and politics and NGO like WEF use their private jets, high volume cars and super yachts

The EU has exempted private jets and yachts from the CO2 penalty.

Surprise surprise ...

emax said:

> As long as our big d*cks of industry and politics and NGO like WEF use their private jets, high volume cars and super yachts

The EU has exempted private jets and yachts from the CO2 penalty.

Surprise surprise ...

Click to expand...

@emax Well, our grenadiers are not exactly small-volume vehicles either.

I know @emax I know. Exactly why I wrote this in my post. Most of our fellows here aren't aware of this. - So they elect always the same parties. Wonder why prices rise, Many smaller / energy consuming companies are going out of business.. and believe mainstream media of course. Could tell you a lot on this - but doesn't belong here. Perhaps we meet one day in person if you re not afraid.

rovie said:

@emax Well, our grenadiers are not exactly small-volume vehicles either.

Click to expand...

Not comparable. When they had one of their we-rescue-the-planet-parties (the 26th UN Climate Change Conference / COP26) they produced 15'000 tons of CO2 with their private jets.

That's the equivalent of 100 million kilometers with an average car ...

One-hundred-million-kilometers !!!

Bill Gates, when asked about private jetting around the world, answered: "That's only my little private, dirty pleasure."

A humans output of CO2 by breathing is about 2000kg/a. This are 6600 km with the gasoline-version of the IG.
Please don´t get me wrong, I´m trying to leave the planet for my children as I´ve recieved it from my parents as good as possible (no holiday-flights, going by feet/bike to work).
But like mentioned above, there are a lot of adjusting screws for saving the planet which are recently not adjusted. This is driving me nuts!

One of the largest container ships - e.h. Maersk - produces more CO2 and dirt in one year as all cars including large ones on the planet together in their whole operating time
As next - CO2 is a fertilizer. - This is a long discussion - I assume we re repeating ourselves.

@McPharmer II - I work from home, what I can do by walk I do. However I dont like the bike in my area , and I do not use public ground transport aslong as they insist on masks.
- but I take aircraft whenever I want to /need to.
My spouse did work for LH in the past / beginning of her career. (Non flying IT ) - I know quite some background of processes on airports airliners.
BTW Modern airliners are very fuel efficient and a very safe way of travelling.
If you really want to do something for the planet - use your equipment as long as possible, consider repairing before renew, (consider a vehicle that can simply repaired .. *grin*)
avoid stuff that need to be transported on long distance, avoid fast fashion, support local farmers and fair trade. Avoid lots of packaging that gets disposed elsewhere or into our oceans. CO2 is irrelevant. 450ppm is of no concern. Our ancestors had to live with far higher concentrations.
Climate changes - and we are short warmth period in an ice age.

emax said:

Bill Gates, when asked about private jetting around the world, answered: "That's only my little private, dirty pleasure."

View attachment 7796202

Click to expand...

Lets not forget the private yachts, but thats for another time with a glass of whiskey....

klarie said:

If you really want to do something for the planet - use your equipment as long as possible, consider repairing before renew

Click to expand...

I had to learn this painfully at a time when money was a big issue: a family with five children and my father built a house for us.

And I still do: instead of buying new, find the problem and solve it if possible. My car is 22 years old. So compared to our neighbors, we have saved three new cars in that time that did not need to be built.

klarie said:

One of the largest container ships - e.h. Maersk - produces more CO2 and dirt in one year as all cars including large ones on the planet together in their whole operating time
As next - CO2 is a fertilizer. - This is a long discussion - I assume we re repeating ourselves.

@McPharmer II - I work from home, what I can do by walk I do. However I dont like the bike in my area , and I do not use public ground transport aslong as they insist on masks.
- but I take aircraft whenever I want to /need to.
My spouse did work for LH in the past / beginning of her career. (Non flying IT ) - I know quite some background of processes on airports airliners.
BTW Modern airliners are very fuel efficient and a very safe way of travelling.
If you really want to do something for the planet - use your equipment as long as possible, consider repairing before renew, (consider a vehicle that can simply repaired .. *grin*)
avoid stuff that need to be transported on long distance, avoid fast fashion, support local farmers and fair trade. Avoid lots of packaging that gets disposed elsewhere or into our oceans. CO2 is irrelevant. 450ppm is of no concern. Our ancestors had to live with far higher concentrations.
Climate changes - and we are short warmth period in an ice age.

Click to expand...

That's why I still drive my series. Next year we will celebrate the 60th anniversary.

klarie said:

One of the largest container ships - e.h. Maersk - produces more CO2 and dirt in one year as all cars including large ones on the planet together in their whole operating time

Click to expand...

I just checked because it seemed not logical to me. Although those ships consume up to more than 14000 litres a hour it is not that bad as you described it my calculations bring the co2 level to an equal of roughly 50.000 Grenadiers with 20.000 annual km. But maybe I miscalculated.
What are your sources?

@bemax try to find it - think it was 2-3 years ago. (I know that they were obliged to replace / modify some of the ships but it was mostly because of sulphurous components to be eliminated in exhaust in bunker C marine fuel.

I try to find my source and publish it. (I am not claiming to be correct or perfect - " I am only human after all" .. or what was this song called)

klarie said:

@bemax try to find it - think it was 2-3 years ago. (I know that they were obliged to replace / modify some of the ships but it was mostly because of sulphurous components to be eliminated in exhaust in bunker C marine fuel.

Click to expand...

I recall reading this article a while ago:

"Shipping’s dirty secret: how ‘scrubbers’ clean the air – while contaminating the seac

@bemax you re right. Mea culpa. The sources were originally quoted from NABU - a German NGO in Environmental Protection. - The source I used was using the NABU study but converted sulphur to CO2 either by intention or simply by stupidity. My fault was not to check the true source of origin.

However - The regulation since 2020 permits only marine fuel with less than 0.5% sulphur- previously 3.5% (Ground transport 0.001%) but that is not CO2 - so I am wrong and you are right.

- but still - the Containerships emit still quite a lot (powernwz CH - German language) 2.6 % of total, like airtraffic, and all ground transport 18%
Data around 2020.

I wonder if Ineos' programme will be piggybacking off Iveco, given they seen a little ahead with utilising the Hyundai fuel cell, Carraro axles, body on frame, ladder chassis, etc.

The details are interesting:

"The working eDAILY FCEV prototype is equipped with Hyundai’s 90 kW hydrogen fuel cell system and 140 kW e-motor. Six tanks offer a combined storage capacity of 12 kg of hydrogen.

The GVW 7.2 ton prototype has been tested in Europe, confirming a driving range of 350 km, maximum payload of 3 tons and a refueling time within 15 minutes.

While eDAILY BEV, also launched today at the IAA, is best suited for short journeys, eDAILY FCEV will be an ideal option for longer deliveries where high payload and long range is necessary. "