Please tell me where I claimed that?
All I said was that the introduction of H2 will increase the overall CO2
production due to the added inefficiencies, besides it being an
and risky experiment - likely to waste many millions of taxpayer money
California alone, while the simple use of natural gas in vehicles will
achieve a lower overall CO2 consumption and much lower risk and capital
Since you are bent on going the H2 route, there must be a reason that
you are willing to fight this uphill battle, some interest that would
not be
served by the more logical choice for natural gas vehicles.
If my drive to avoid wasting (my) taxpayer money on this experiment is
questionable in your eyes, then I will just let that statement reflect
you without further comment.

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: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:29 AM
To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min
for7 credits

And BEVs are not zero emission vehicles either?

You can not pick and take us into the weeds ( where I suspect your
"facts" are as questionable as the rest of your higher level drivel),
but BEVs are not zero emission from a GHG standpoint.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 28, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Cor van de Water via EV
<> wrote:
> Because then Mark can't claim that he has zero-emissions vehicles,
> so he wants to convert to H2 (and lose a significant part of the
> and that inefficient H2 will then qualify for the highest subsidies by
> California as "zero emissions".
> All the while *increasing* the CO2 emissions, compared to using the
> natural gas directly in the vehicle (which would not fit the arbitrary
> requirement
> of "zero emissions" but which would bring the total system emissions
> down significantly - without excessive costs for a H2
> *that* is what I hinted at earlier and that Mark does not want to
> hear...
> He even continues to claim that his solution is better, like a good
> lobbyist
> but without even hinting at *how* that solution is better.
> The only thing I have seen till now is the claim "zero emissions".
> If you read the previous few sentences again, you'll understand what a
> canard that claim is in this respect.
> BTW,
> In most European countries it is normal to find Natural gas (called
> at most gas stations, as around 10% of all vehicles run on that fuel,
> mostly the highest-mileage vehicles as the fuel is very cheap but the
> installation in the car is taxed the highest (yearly tax) so you only
> come out ahead if you drive enough (say, more than 30,000 a year)
> between 10-30k mi per year you would usually be better off with Diesel
> as fuel and below 10k mi per year the low vehicle tax and high fuel
> on regular gas (petrol) will make that the best option. This is for
> passenger vehicles - semi trucks always use Diesel.
> Since natural gas is not always available in all regions and
> and because it is easy - often required - to run occasionally on
> gas to protect the engine, the installation is always "dual-tank": a
> cylinder plus a liquid "petrol" tank. The gas cylinder typically holds
> LPG enough for about 200 miles range, sometimes less. That is another
> reason to have an additional petrol tank. If the gas cylinder holds 30
> liters of liquefied gas and the price is around 0.50 Euros per liter,
> then this is indeed $20 for a
> fill up, but understand that this is maybe half or one third the price
> per mile of regular petrol. 100 Euro gives you approx a full 60-liter
> (15 gal)
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA 

Reply via email to