I *did* read that "old news" that you posted some time back.
That vision paper for California clearly states that all types
of low and zero emissions solutions are needed.

So, the only reason that you are focusing and pushing the
ZEV mandate can mean that you do not care about the best
solution for California, but you are after your own business interest.

Nothing wrong with the businens interest, only that it directly
conflicts with some statements about objectives that you claim you have.
Unnecessarily increasing CO2 generation does not give me the idea 
that you are after "Clean Air", since CO2 is a pollutant and has
strong consequences that we are already starting to suffer from in
every increasing levels.

Since the California visoin includes low emission vehicles,
a natural gas powered car would be a very good fit in that vision
and a Hybrid electric-natural gas would be even better.

The only reason that *you* are now the one claiming "can't, can't,
satisfy the regulations is because you are now helping to create a
ZEV mandate that causes this blockade.
I fear that in turn, you now must face a lawsuit to change your course
of action since you have now become the new obstruction.

I hope you consider this well and occasionally look in the mirror
to see if you can still see yourself in the eye and tell that you
are doing what is best for the environment.
I am afraid that I already know the answer.

Cor van de Water
Chief Scientist
Proxim Wireless Corporation
Email: Private:
Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Abramowitz [] 
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:14 PM
To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)

Sorry, got interrupted and accidentally sent it.

On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Cor van de Water via EV <>

>> Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you.
> But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason
> that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion
> that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is
> worse than just using the source energy (that what is used
> to generate the Hydrogen in the first place).
> Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache.
> (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element)
> So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen.

I will ignore the condescending comments.

If you are saying that using natural gas directly in an ICE as opposed
to converting it to Hydrogen is a more efficient use, I would tell you
that you are missing my point. I will take the blame for not
communicating well enough.

The purpose of the ZEV mandate is to transform the fleet to *Zero*
emission vehicles. We have public health standards that mandate these
reductions. There is no method that I am currently aware of that can
directly use natural gas (in an automobile) without combusting the fuel.
Right there you have lost the design objective. Emissions are no longer

> Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people
> who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies,
> there is only one bright future - everything will be converted
> over to Hydrogen soon.

I'll ignore the condescending and insulting comments you've just made
about the physicists and other scientists working on this.

>> Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers.
> Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of.
> That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list,
> because there are plenty people here who do not have an "opinion"
> about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who
> *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor
> they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition.
> It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss
> the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying
> that you do not want to discuss that topic.
> Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV and you
> prefer to avoid that subject, or you are truly unaware of the
> hot air balloon that is being passed around and which will cost the
> Californian taxpaers many millions of dollars without resuting in
> anything that will actually help to improve clean air.
> All the more troubling that you, 30 year clean air activist, 
> are pursuing this non-option with so much vigor!!!
> For the record - I have no vested interest in or outside Hydrogen.
> I just have a BEV as daily driver and I am passionate about
> energy efficiency, because the best way to clean up pollution
> is to avoid creating it in the first place. And my background
> allows me to understand laws of Physics, which often leads me to
> clash with opinions that are based on anything but reality.
> In case I came across as argumentative, please excuse me, I am
> passionate about these subjects but I am always open to discuss
> the data and the Physics of possible solutions to evaluate what
> would be the best possible solution and which one does not fly.
> I have heard too many fantasies about Hydrogen Fuel Cell that it
> sometimes gets me on my soapbox.
> If you do not want to discuss data or Physics of FCV then I will
> take that you have a reason to hide the truth about Hydrogen's
> dark side and possibly you have a vested interest - I have seen
> those. But I have also seen Fuel Cell development councils that
> cancel the meetings on Hydrogen Fuel Cell, because they saw the
> light that it was just a hype, misleading governments worldwide
> to try and generate grants without chance of ever producing an
> energy efficient solution that would make a business case work.
> I applaud people who are flexibel and transparent enough to take
> new input and realize that they must change something, because
> what they were doing was not good.
> I, for one, hope that we can avoid strugging through H2 as loser
> and immediately go for a viable option as future.
> Cor van de Water
> Chief Scientist
> Proxim Wireless Corporation
> Email: Private:
> Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626
>>>> Most often that's 
>>>> natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an

>>>> equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas).  
>>> The process produces less than  the petroleum we're trying to
> it with.
>> Citation needed.
>>> And the tailpipe emissions (the main driver for the regs) are zero.
>> If the anti-BEV crowd can flog the old canard that BEVs just transfer

>> emissions to powerplant stacks, then they should also note that FCVs 
>> transfer emissions to the hydrogen production plants.  Do they?
>> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
>> EVDL Administrator
>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>> EVDL Information:
>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
>> Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not 
>> reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my 
>> email address from the webpage .
>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> _______________________________________________
> For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
> (
> _______________________________________________
> For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA 

Reply via email to