So are you going to compress the air with coal or gasoline or what?
It takes energy to compress the gas. You are merely replacing emissions at the exhaust pipe with emissions at the smokestack.
There are approximately 2 million vehicles in Alberta. The province has approximately 55 plants where coal, NG, biogas or biomass is burned for thermal generation of electricity. There are approximately 150 units within these plants. Of these, approximately 35 are not NG, ie: coal, biogas, biomass. As of November 2013, 5.69GW of the 14GW installed generation is coal with 38.3GWh of 72.9GWh generated in 2012 being coal generation. (Link) Only 2GW of the 14GW installed is hydro or wind. Hydo is used for 'peaking', when prices top out, as we do not have a 7 year supply of 'fuel' behind our dams, as BC does.
Why is it, that the two newest units, Genesee 3 and Keephills 3 combined, produce over 900 MW? It is called 'economies of scale'. Economies of scale also applies to pollution control. Per unit of energy produced, the pollution is less in a new coal-fired generating plant versus the tailpipe of a car because of the use of electrostatic precipitators, bag-houses, cyclonic separators, wet scrubbers, flue gas desulphurisation, etc. in the plant. Are you willing to pay an extra $10,000-$15,000 per vehicle to get emissions to the level of a coal plant? (At least the emission levels of new plants in Alberta.) Stack emissions are monitored in real time and are linked to the regulators, so there can be no funny business, when it comes to emissions. Excursions beyond allowable limits result in investigations and fines. How much easier is it to monitor and control the emissions emanating from 55 thermal plants, versus 2 million vehicles? Would you prefer the black box in your car to report to the EPA each time that yu needed to tune it up?
BTW, can you explain how a full CNG tank at 3,000 PSI is less dangerous than a compressed air tank at 4,000 PSI? You did not explain this when you replied. I would like to understand this.