On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Cor van de Water via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: > > Mark Abramowitz, > I finally did what I should have done when I heard you avoid > the real topics about Hydrogen: I looked up your profile, because > somehow your name sounded familiar from earlier discussions about > this topic. > > You are board member of SCAQMD > (Board Consultant to Governor's Appointee, Dr. Joseph K. Lyou) > and at the same time you are the president of the.... >>>> California Hydrogen Business Council <<< >
No, I am not a board member of the SCAQMD, though I am a former member and chairman of their Hearing Board. And yes, I've already posted on this list that I am Board president of the CHBC, though I am a volunteer. > That clarifies a lot. Their own words: > " Our members implement and use technology and services that are taking > the hydrogen economy into the mainstream.Our goals are to: > * Promote growth of the hydrogen business economy > * Provide hydrogen business information > * Create a forum that facilitates strategic alliances > * Encourage customers to adopt hydrogen products in their businesses > * Provide access to regulatory bodies > * Assist members with education and information" > I didn't write them, but those seem to be typical goals of an association. > Nowhere does it indicate that you should make sure that Hydrogen is > a viable solution, you are simply pushing it at any cost and if the > future is doomed because Hydrogen is worse than what we have today > then that is no concern. Check the EV associations. Or any others. You'll not find that there either. It would be pretty silly, particularly since it is a viable solution, and many are betting their livelihood on their judgement that it is. By the way, I am and have been part of pro-BEV groups, and have pushed for that technology, too (not to mention donating hard earned dollars to pro-EV groups. Have you?). But you left that out, as well as the fact that I make recommendations to spend millions on BEVs and BEV technology development. Feeling silly? > Thank you, I have had enough. Can I get off this train? I'm sick. > > Oh, by the way, just in case you did not get it: > David Roden asked you your involvement with this subject. > You never mentioned that you are president of the Californian > organisation promoting Hydrogen. I call that a lie. Fine, call me a liar, even though I did - at least twice, recently on this list. But I'll bet you'll feel better if you say the word "physics" three times while clicking your heels. Sheesh! > > I see that you have a BA from UCLA in Ecosystems. > So, I take it that you *do* understand Physics and that you were active > here on the EVDL to try to gain traction for Hydrogen and cover up > your background, hoping that we would not find out why you avoid some > subjects and continue to make unsustainable claims. > > It is clear now, unfortunately that has always been the case in the > Hydrogen "business model" because the Physics do not work out, so > the truth must not be known or understood. > Unfortunately you met the wrong crowd here. > > Goodbye. > > Cor van de Water > Chief Scientist > Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com > Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info > Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Cor van de > Water via EV > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:21 PM > To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List > Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions) > >> 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. > > 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. > >> 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 http://www.proxim.com > Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info > Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
