Compressed Air Vehicles

[Terry_Lasater]

Zero Pollution Motors (http://zeropollutionmotors.us/)

[armisiano]

That's incredible. Here's hoping it's a success.

[Barry_Green]

Interesting. I knew Tata had announced an air car, but I had no idea that we'd be getting compressed-air cars over here. That thing's the Red of cars. No noise, no pollution, no hassles, no grease or dirt, an oil change every 30,000 miles, and you can plug it in at night to charge from its onboard compressor, or you can refill it from a pumping station that has a compressed-air pump.

I used to think hydrogen was the fuel of the future, but dang -- compressed air could be the fuel of now. The big question, pollution-wise, is where the electricity comes from to compress the air. Seems like compressed air would be incredibly adaptable to wind power or water power. Price seems quite high for a minicar ($17,800) but... hey, at least this is seriously thinking outside the box and if the technology works, it'd be absolutely heaven-sent for heavily-polluted, crowded places (especially China and India... absolutely perfect for there.)

[ConspiracyPenguin]

Pretty cool, I am not "anti-alternative fuel" but if I am going to drive something that takes anything other than gas, it must meet my list of grueling requirements. Unfortunately, one of them is that it must look like a real car. Although, I do like where this is going, but for now I'm sticking with my '79 Trans Am.

[Barry_Green]

I'm still wanting a '77 or '78 Bandit Edition Trans Am.

Dug a little more into the Air Car, and it's not looking as ready-for-prime-time as I thought. Up until the Tata deal was announced, it was looking awfully iffy. Maybe Tata has given them the secure footing they needed to finish the product -- it did debut at the NA auto show -- and maybe it'll come out. But some googling has me now wondering if it's really going to hit here within a couple of years.

[ugafan]

cool concept, but it may not be able to meet our safety standards.

[ddp]

Didn't Tata just buy Jaguar? A compressed air Jag would be bad arse.....

[JasonFox]

Didn't Tata just buy Jaguar? A compressed air Jag would be bad arse.....

First words that came to mind: farting kitty.

[David Jimerson]

I'm deeply skeptical of any "alternative fuel" which requires electricity to work so long as the vast majority of electricity is supplied by fossil fuels, especially oil.

Oil>electricity>air>go.

Oil>go.

Where each ">" represents a cycle of efficiency loss.

Which one makes more sense?

Now, if all electricity is supplied by hydro, solar, wind, and/or nuclear, then maybe. If not, you're just puffing more smoke into the air for less usefulness.

[mjjason]

I'm deeply skeptical of any "alternative fuel" which requires electricity to work so long as the vast majority of electricity is supplied by fossil fuels, especially oil.

Oil>electricity>air>go.

Oil>go.

Where each ">" represents a cycle of efficiency loss.

Which one makes more sense?

Now, if all electricity is supplied by hydro, solar, wind, and/or nuclear, then maybe. If not, you're just puffing more smoke into the air for less usefulness.
I agree with this 100%. Also, alot of these "alternate fuels" cost the customer as much, if not more, than gas in the long run through increased prices distributed to other areas of our lives as opposed to just at the pump. Look at Ethanol for example, more energy is required to make a gallon of ethanol than pure gas. Plus the add on effects due to the increased price of corn affects our produce and livestock. So we end up paying more for food and the same or slightly more for gas.

The best alternate fuel will be one that helps us travel longer on less fuel as opposed to just being a different type of fuel. The X-prize idea, which it looks like this compressed-air car is competing in, is the best alternate fuel project around as it challenges efficiency and usage of fuel as opposed to source of fuel.

[MattinSTL]

I'm deeply skeptical of any "alternative fuel" which requires electricity to work so long as the vast majority of electricity is supplied by fossil fuels, especially oil.

Oil>electricity>air>go.

Oil>go.

Where each ">" represents a cycle of efficiency loss.

Which one makes more sense?

Now, if all electricity is supplied by hydro, solar, wind, and/or nuclear, then maybe. If not, you're just puffing more smoke into the air for less usefulness.

When I was 15 I talked to my high school science teacher about water burning engines... and he laughed and said I was trying to reinvent the steam engine. Now we have BMW with the hydrogen car and I'm thinking the same thing I said when I was 15. If Oxygen burns and Hydrogen explodes then why can't you ionize water ahead of a combustion chamber and then introduce the oxygen on the downstroke, ignite it (same as it works now) then with a second valve introduce the hydrogen to the now fired chamber so that you get the combustion on the compression stroke to continue the process... it's pretty much the same process as now... but develop a pre-ionizer to separate the water into it's combustible/incombustible components... then do you know what the byproduct is of the explosion? Kinetic energy and water. Same as I told you when I was 15 Mr. Hendrix!!!

[milksac]

Now, if all electricity is supplied by hydro, solar, wind, and/or nuclear, then maybe. If not, you're just puffing more smoke into the air for less usefulness.
Step One: Move to France.
Step Two: Buy an electric car.

[David Jimerson]

When I was 15 I talked to my high school science teacher about water burning engines... and he laughed and said I was trying to reinvent the steam engine. Now we have BMW with the hydrogen car and I'm thinking the same thing I said when I was 15. If Oxygen burns and Hydrogen explodes then why can't you ionize water ahead of a combustion chamber and then introduce the oxygen on the downstroke, ignite it (same as it works now) then with a second valve introduce the hydrogen to the now fired chamber so that you get the combustion on the compression stroke to continue the process... it's pretty much the same process as now... but develop a pre-ionizer to separate the water into it's combustible/incombustible components... then do you know what the byproduct is of the explosion? Kinetic energy and water. Same as I told you when I was 15 Mr. Hendrix!!!

Still takes electricity to separate them.

[jeremytuttle]

Alternative Fuel vehicles are just a lesser of two evils and atleast a step in the right direction.

If that "Air" car get's 100+ miles to the gallon, that hopefully means it will require a lot less power (oil burning) to make that car go 100 miles than a normal gas burning car.

I really liked the Tesla Car. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster) It supposedly costed a few dollars to charge but went 200+ miles on a charge. The only thing I don't like about electric cars is the 3 1/2 hour charge time.

[David Jimerson]

If that "Air" car get's 100+ miles to the gallon, that hopefully means it will require a lot less power (oil burning) to make that car go 100 miles than a normal gas burning car.

If you compare apples to apples, it can't. You cannot take the energy in a barrel of oil, run it through a series of intermediary steps, and have MORE energy on the other end of it. You'll always have less. Always. Thermodynamics demands it.

The "air engine" in that car would have to be SCADS more efficient with the energy in the compressed air than a comparable HP gas engine the same car in order for there to be total energy savings. Suffice it to say I have my doubts.

[jeremytuttle]

I agree it's pretty close to apples to apples but maybe one apple is ripe. I'm not sure about the air car but wikipedia has a formula for the Tesla Car that accounts for the "Power Grid" and old power plants it wouldn't get much better than gas milage than a Civic or something but any new power plant it would get about 65 mpg, that is twice an average car


Wikipedia, "Recharging with electricity generated by newer, 58% efficiency CCGT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGT) power plants,[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#cite_note-DOE_Top_Power_Project-38) changes the factor to 21,763 Wh/gal[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#cite_note-petroleum-equivalency-37) in the above equation and yields a fuel efficiency of 65 mpg–U.S. (3.62 L/100 km / 78.1 mpg–imp)."

So assuming power plants get more efficient and more people buy eletric cars it will make a difference in oil consumption... like I said, lesser of two evils but at least it is a start.

What they really need to get on is more efficient solar panels that are 1/4 the size and better smaller batteries so a "normal" car can be solar powered without looking like glass cockroach. Even this has it's problems (cloudy days depend on how well the battery lasts) but the sun is the best source of power, for another billion years at least.

[filmguy123]

that has a lot of potential and is most likely where the future is largely headed. When they can achieve 120mph+ speeds, look like real cars, increase safety, etc.

Watching all the videos, there's a lot of potential in ideas. We might see a hybrid CAT, Hydrogen, Electric, Gasoline car in some 10 years with insane range and efficiency.

[MattinSTL]

Still takes electricity to separate them.

The question is HOW MUCH and where to get it? There's no such thing as free perpetual motion... it's got to start somewhere, perhaps a battery powered source that's recharged via brakes? Like the electric cars use now? Scientific design starts out with proof of concept... efficiency comes later.

I'm sure that cars will have to store some potential energy in them. The question is if we can figure out an alternative that "works".

Apart from the geological argument... in 1998 gas hit a low of .69 in Saint Louis and it's about 3.30 now... even with price fluctuations in previous years and current, gas is up over 400% on average, and they only expect it to go higher... I hope that the free marketplace will solve the problem. :beer: