Volkswagen CEO does not believe in Fuel Cells

Glad to hear it. I haven't had any problems to date with my 1999 New Beetle GLS. Its a good thing though to have an extended warranty just in case but what with following up on the 10,000 mile schedule maintenance, the prospect of mechanical breakdowns can be minimized. Some VW's have turned into costly lemons for some people and when you buy a new car sometimes you just get one. Mine was a used car and I ran the Carfax report on it and it had no major problems and the last owner appeared to take good care of it. I don't think its the brand since some people have bought a car from the brand they're perfectly happy with it for years and years and others who've experienced nothing but misery. When all is said and done its a complete mystery why two VW owners like the people on this thread who both own a Jetta have had such completely different ownership experiences with them.

Cmon. I ain't fer regressin inter the stone age, Jethro. I just would like to see a little chart comparing apples to apples instead of hearing over and over, "it's more efficient." It's easy to be suspicious when I can't find anything like that that would make it easy to evaluate the claims that "it's more efficient."

The chart could look like this, for gas vs. fuel cells:

Amount of fuel per mile of use:
Pollution emission per mile:
Unit of fuel production cost excluding energy (materials):
Unit of fuel production energy cost:
Pollution emission per unit production:
Cost savings per mile of use:
Pollution savings per mile of use:
Total costs for infrastructure conversion (conversion to allow SAME fuel access as current system):

Sure, that might be hard to do per unit, but doesn't it make sense to know this before we go whole-hog on any huge project like this conversion? I used to be a big fan of Brazil's program of alcohol vehicle fuel until I saw the huge difference in pollution, and worse, the huge difference in the per unit costs of raw energy produced. I always thought that running cars on alcohol would be a great way to solve the problem of low grain prices and renewable energy, but after seeing a fair comparison I realized it was a bad idea ADM really liked. Gasohol, too.

Dragon

A few years ago Honda said the prime mover for the next 150 years will be the Internal Combustion Engine. Everyone believes on there prowess in regards to such matters but this comment went under everyones radar screen.

They are not fuel cells, they are "Fool Cells" and so is this notion of a Hydrogen Economy.

Here is a technology ready to go, Air Assisted Direct Injection from Orbital Engine of Australia at: http://www.orbeng.com.au

Anyone who says they know what will or will not be anything for the next 150 years is a fool or an idiot. All you have to do is look at the technological breakthroughs in the last decade to realise that.

Fuel Cells have been used since the 1950s and were "discovered" in the 1830s. Navair, Toyota, Honda, Shell, BP, Caterpiller, John Deere, GM, Ford all have working generators, refueling stations and/or vehicles running. The world (meaning US, UK, Germany and Japan) have latched onto this and it is the way we are currently headed. It will take years to build the infrastructure, just like it did for the current fossil fuel units now being used.

Two questions:

1) Could you distinguish fool and idiot for me in this context? I'm not trying to be either--I'm curious if there is a distinction that you draw that I've not heard.

2) Any ideas about my prior post? Anywhere you think might provide a quality rundown on those concerns so I could draw a clearer conclusion?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.