Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
Hi MW. I think your post hits the EV vs FC issues square on the head. I am a lurker, mostly, and crave information about the future of personal transportation. When I talk with others about what's out there, I find it most useful to understand the difference between EV, FC and ICE. The efficency differences, the Government attitude (support) and perspective of businesses (big oil, auto industry, utility companies) all factor into the overall effect of why and what is happening. This Forum is my main source of unfiltered information. I do understand that the Forum's original participants are mostly folks who build Ev's and need to share ideas of how best to do that. I think I see more folks interested in the likes of Tesla and others bringing ev's to the masses (me!). Bottom line? I like it all and hope that the discussion continues to be broad based - including enough on FC 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. ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
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 vehicles*. OK. I have no massive problem with research continuing into fuel cells whether powered by H2 or anything else. OK. However, what I and many others object to, is the use of vast sums of public money being spent by Big Oil to continue their virtual monopoly on what is essentially a basic human right to travel without relying on flakey or non-existant public transport. Big Oil currently has a monopoly because few of us have the means to produce our own 'oil'. Ok. I mostly get that. In fact, having spent part of my career battling direct emissions by BO (small oil, too), and indirect emissions as you articulate, and pressing for alt transportation, I could have easily written that a number of years ago. If allowed to, BO will continue to run this monopoly by being the sole providers of H2 as, again, it is effectively impossible for individuals to 'roll their own'. This is where I think you need to reevaluate. BO is not part of any monopoly of H2 suppliers. H2 is mostly NOT from BO. Most H2 right now come from industrial gas companies, who are not related to BO. When CARB went to pass a rule requiring BO to put in fueling infrastructure for H2, one company even said something along the lines of why should we pay to speed our own demise. As I've recently pointed out here, you should take a look at who is getting funding from the state to put in H2 fueling infrastructure. In fact, look at who has applied. You will see no BO names there. Lastly, take a look at the membership of both the CA Fuel Cell Partnership and the California Hydrogen Business Council (where I am currently board president). You won't see any BO names either. BO used to be part of the Partnership, but dropped out years ago. So please look at the facts on BO involvement. You'll see a few things here and there, Shell ownership of the Torrance station, which actually gets their H2 from a different (none BO) company. But fact is, they have little, if any, involvement. Electric vehicles, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter. Today it is quite possible for an individual to generate all the electricity s/he could need - including that for an EV - on the roof of their own house (assuming it is big enough). This idea scares the Hell out of Big Oil for obvious reasons. Not much of the energy comes that way, though you are right, it could. Almost none of the infrastructure being paid for by public funds is produced that way either. As far as H2, most is not produced that way either. And while it currently isn't economically feasible (by most measures) to do so, it is also possible. There is at least one unit on the market that can do this, at least one other that is in development, with more to come as technology improves and costs drop. But this is certainly longer term, and as you say, today we can do that with BEVs. But as far as the renewable aspect of the fuel, there has been a real groundswell in the industry that is demanding renewable H2. The OEMs are saying that their customers want it. They are saying that their customers want clean vehicles, and renewable fuels are part if that. And I am also seeing a recognition among the industrial gas companies that recognize that to be successful, they will need to provide renewable hydrogen. That is my principle problem with H2FCVs. Understood, but the main premise of your reason is not correct factually. But it does not stop there. There are many other very good reasons why H2FCVs are a 'bad idea' and the very next one on my list is the fact that the efficiency of the whole system is dreadful when compared to BEVs - barely better than ICEVs. I'll let others name the rest of the list - or you could research it yourself... Start with the fact that Southern California is talking about installing just a dozen H2 refuelling stations at a combined cost of some $6m and then consider that there are some 120 thousand gas stations in the US... On the other hand, consider that every single home in the land has at least one EV 'refuelling station' in it already in the form of a standard mains receptacle... Though this almost argues for putting *no* funding into BEV infrastructure, if every house has a station already. I disagree with that, but that's only my opinion. Clearly, there are pros and cons with every technology, H2 and BEVs included. That's why there is no silver bullet. To my mind, spending the, frankly, obscene amounts of public money that providing even a barely adequate H2 refuelling infrastructure would cost rather than one the one hundredth of that amount that
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
Unless you demand purity, IMO the future (actually being done currently, too) are hybrid versions of both, depending on application and state of the technology at that particular time. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Peri Hartman via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Let me ask the question slightly differently. Would there be an advantage to EVDL members to include FCEV along with BEV discussions on the same list? Would this advantage outweight any disadvantages? In my opinion, the advantages are worth it. While current technology shows that batteries are a more efficient medium than hydrogen, I think it's worthwhile to keep informed about progress and new understandings. I, personally, would rather do this on one list (or forum, etc.) than multiple. On the other hand, if the bandwidth degenerates into feuds, we may have to go the route 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 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 about discussion of FCEVs and H2. We even took a vote, and folks decided that we'd minimize FCEV and H2 discussion. Was that a mistake? Is it a mistake to continue on that road? The folks who say that H2 is the way forward surely think so. Well, if it is, we're still making it today. (Hint, hint.) You know, one of the huge advantages of the internet is that, unlike broadcast spectrum, it's effectively just about infinite. Unlike newspapers and magazines, it's dirt-cheap to make your voice heard, at least so far. There's room for lots more internet discussion forums like this one. Somewhere there has to be a place where H2 and FCEV enthusiasts can congregate. If not, it's almost trivial to start one. Thus I will refer y'all to the EVDL conventions: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Please read point 2f. Thanks, David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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 http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ 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) ___ 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) ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
discussions on the evdl has exploded since the automakers have gone into production. I look at these 'forced' current h2 fcv discussions on the evdl, as an 'invasion of the body snatchers'. That is, it is like the pro-h2 fcv guys want to take over and dominate the evdl (here we go again!). Anyone who has had pent up frustrations of not being able to discuss items defined as OT on the evdl, 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-tp4670639p4670647.html Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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) ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] 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 grid? worst state? Best state?Comparable to what kind of battery? Or is this just on an auto basis? Do you take into account energy used in production of the the power train? Disposal? Would some *batteries* be verboten? Since this is energy based only, I guess that direct or indirect emissions of criteria, greenhouse, or toxic emissions don't count. ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
other topics decided by evdl members as OT that need to be limited. - The current evdl charter does not ban such OT discussions in passing, just limit them to be taken off-line/elsewhere quickly. People do occasionally drive too-close or over the white-line, but with a few honks from other drivers know to stay in their lane. It is less about absolute-conformity ( nicht-EV verboten! ), but more about being focused with the EV-task at hand. This flexibility allows for the occasional stray into OT land, but the known evdl guidelines keeps most evdl discussions on-EV-topic, and not allowed to disintegrate evdl discussions into a disruptive-troll's cesspool. If you all will notice, the amount of h2/fcv discussions on the evdl has exploded since the automakers have gone into production. I look at these 'forced' current h2 fcv discussions on the evdl, as an 'invasion of the body snatchers'. That is, it is like the pro-h2 fcv guys want to take over and dominate the evdl (here we go again!). Anyone who has had pent up frustrations of not being able to discuss items defined as OT on the evdl, 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-tp4670639p4670647.html Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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) ___ 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/20140730/1849ffb9/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)
[EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
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 about discussion of FCEVs and H2. We even took a vote, and folks decided that we'd minimize FCEV and H2 discussion. Was that a mistake? Is it a mistake to continue on that road? The folks who say that H2 is the way forward surely think so. Well, if it is, we're still making it today. (Hint, hint.) You know, one of the huge advantages of the internet is that, unlike broadcast spectrum, it's effectively just about infinite. Unlike newspapers and magazines, it's dirt-cheap to make your voice heard, at least so far. There's room for lots more internet discussion forums like this one. Somewhere there has to be a place where H2 and FCEV enthusiasts can congregate. If not, it's almost trivial to start one. Thus I will refer y'all to the EVDL conventions: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Please read point 2f. Thanks, David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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 http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
Let me ask the question slightly differently. Would there be an advantage to EVDL members to include FCEV along with BEV discussions on the same list? Would this advantage outweight any disadvantages? In my opinion, the advantages are worth it. While current technology shows that batteries are a more efficient medium than hydrogen, I think it's worthwhile to keep informed about progress and new understandings. I, personally, would rather do this on one list (or forum, etc.) than multiple. On the other hand, if the bandwidth degenerates into feuds, we may have to go the route 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 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 about discussion of FCEVs and H2. We even took a vote, and folks decided that we'd minimize FCEV and H2 discussion. Was that a mistake? Is it a mistake to continue on that road? The folks who say that H2 is the way forward surely think so. Well, if it is, we're still making it today. (Hint, hint.) You know, one of the huge advantages of the internet is that, unlike broadcast spectrum, it's effectively just about infinite. Unlike newspapers and magazines, it's dirt-cheap to make your voice heard, at least so far. There's room for lots more internet discussion forums like this one. Somewhere there has to be a place where H2 and FCEV enthusiasts can congregate. If not, it's almost trivial to start one. Thus I will refer y'all to the EVDL conventions: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Please read point 2f. Thanks, David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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 http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ 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) ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
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 myself intrigued I delete it. I don't consider that a troubling act. There is no way all the messages can be exactly what I want so I am flexible. At this time I am only slightly interested in H2FCs. Less so than I am interested in EV stuff. I think H2 is not a great idea, but that is a bias I should be wary about. On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, EVDL Administrator via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: 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 about discussion of FCEVs and H2. We even took a vote, and folks decided that we'd minimize FCEV and H2 discussion. Was that a mistake? Is it a mistake to continue on that road? The folks who say that H2 is the way forward surely think so. Well, if it is, we're still making it today. (Hint, hint.) You know, one of the huge advantages of the internet is that, unlike broadcast spectrum, it's effectively just about infinite. Unlike newspapers and magazines, it's dirt-cheap to make your voice heard, at least so far. There's room for lots more internet discussion forums like this one. Somewhere there has to be a place where H2 and FCEV enthusiasts can congregate. If not, it's almost trivial to start one. Thus I will refer y'all to the EVDL conventions: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Please read point 2f. Thanks, David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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 http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ 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) -- Put this question to yourself: should I use everyone else to attain happiness, or should I help others gain happiness? *Dalai Lama * Tell me what it is you plan to do With your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver, The summer day. To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. Thomas A. Edison http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed125362.html A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought. *Warren Buffet* Michael E. Ross (919) 550-2430 Land (919) 576-0824 https://www.google.com/voice/b/0?pli=1#phones Google Phone (919) 631-1451 Cell (919) 513-0418 Desk michael.e.r...@gmail.com michael.e.r...@gmail.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140729/0968e1d8/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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
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 think that if we can find ways to efficiently and cleanly produce new battery technologies, we could have our minds open to the possibility of clean H2 generation, separating the issue that in practice right now most H2 generation is very dirty from the question of different forms of chemically storing electrical energy in the long run. Change to allow H2 discussion, or continue to ban it, but the derogatory language about it gets tiresome and I'll bet it turns off more people than just me. When looking for problems to police, if you want to police H2 discussions, I would suggest to include in the policing derogatory comments about the technology and people as well as promotion and technical discussion thereof. Complaining only about the promotion and letting the derogatory comments slide is kind of a one-sided enforcement of the rules. My 2¢, do what you like, I'm hardly a major contributor here. ☺ On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, EVDL Administrator via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: 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 about discussion of FCEVs and H2. We even took a vote, and folks decided that we'd minimize FCEV and H2 discussion. Was that a mistake? Is it a mistake to continue on that road? The folks who say that H2 is the way forward surely think so. Well, if it is, we're still making it today. (Hint, hint.) You know, one of the huge advantages of the internet is that, unlike broadcast spectrum, it's effectively just about infinite. Unlike newspapers and magazines, it's dirt-cheap to make your voice heard, at least so far. There's room for lots more internet discussion forums like this one. Somewhere there has to be a place where H2 and FCEV enthusiasts can congregate. If not, it's almost trivial to start one. Thus I will refer y'all to the EVDL conventions: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Please read point 2f. Thanks, David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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 http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ 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) ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] EVDL biz: H2 and FCEV discussion
://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. ___ 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)