to understand the differences.
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVDL-biz-H2-and-FCEV-discussion-tp4670639p4670712.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
Hi Martin,
Nice post. See below.
On Jul 31, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Martin WINLOW via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'll lay my cards on the table and say that I am distinctly anti H2 - *as a
short to medium-term serious contender for the replacement of petrol and
diesel-powered
racing discussions - banned.
Peri
-- Original Message --
From: EVDL Administrator via EV ev@lists.evdl.org
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Sent: 29-Jul-14 10:30:22 AM
Subject: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
The original EVDL charter, written by our founder Clyde Visser back
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:
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
, should not take it out on other evdl member
because they either want take-over/destroy the evdl's EV-focus, or are too
lazy to go elsewhere.
{brucedp.150m.com}
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVDL-biz-H2-and-FCEV-discussion
On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Chris Tromley via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote:
When FCEVs appear to be on a
similar energy-footprint basis (i.e. energy-viable) as EVs we can revisit
the issue.
How would you define this very specific criteria?
Comparable to those charging on the national average
.
{brucedp.150m.com}
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVDL-biz-H2-and-FCEV-discussion-tp4670639p4670647.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
The original EVDL charter, written by our founder Clyde Visser back in the
internet's dim past (1991) says, the energy storage device [for an EV] ...
can [be a] ... fuel cell ...
But not too far into this long history of the EVDL - I think about 1995 or
so - we had a pretty detailed discussion
of EV racing discussions - banned.
Peri
-- Original Message --
From: EVDL Administrator via EV ev@lists.evdl.org
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Sent: 29-Jul-14 10:30:22 AM
Subject: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
The original EVDL charter, written by our founder Clyde Visser back
I think H2FC discussions are just fine. You all can write poetry about
flowers and I might like to see that, too. I am just as interested in the
people who like EVs as the biz of EVs.
I go by subject line whether I read postings, and then author. If I look
inside the posting and i don't find
Speaking as a newbie to the list (last November), I've been surprised
by the levels of invective levelled at H2. There have been a lot of
assumptions that it cannot possibly ever be efficiently produced
without a bad carbon footprint, and lots (my perception) of ad hominem
attacks. I'd like to
not take it out on other evdl member
because they either want take-over/destroy the evdl's EV-focus, or are too
lazy to go elsewhere.
{brucedp.150m.com}
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVDL-biz-H2-and-FCEV-discussion
13 matches
Mail list logo
