I also agree we should limit discussion of FCEVs. There will certainly be leaks on the list about major new advances. When FCEVs appear to be on a similar energy-footprint basis (i.e. energy-viable) as EVs we can revisit the issue.
To respond to one poster's observation about the invective seen in FCEV discussions, please realize this is one of the most open-minded, yet grounded-in-reality groups I've seen. We can all agree that struggling technologies need to be given room to grow. It's pretty easy to show that FCEVs have a LOT of growing to do. What gets our backs up is claims that FCEVs are needed now when the tech is clearly not there yet, or worse, that they're ready now. They're not. I hope they become so soon, because then there will be no need for invective. Chris On Jul 30, 2014 7:55 AM, "Tom Keenan via EV" <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: > My vote is to retain the rules as is. As noted previously, the endless > production horizon blather of FCEV and H2 is available elsewhere, and > generates much more heat than light here. > > Tom Keenan > _______________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA ( > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140730/72e5bc62/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
