[timer]

Yes, he begins engineer-quantifying but confuses acceleration(W<P)with momentum(W=P). 90% of the energy of a moving CxHx vehicle is waste heat(through tail pipe, radiator, transmission friction, wheel bearings, rolling wheel drag), ony 10% goes to compressing air in front, rarifying it behind. Thus the gum drop/fish shape pioneered by the VW bug is what's used here.

Still though, this compressed air car has to compete in the marketplace, and you have to look at the TOTAL system, ie, where the original energy COMES from, plus price to buy and maintain. Hydrogen economy proponents always mumble when you ask them THAT.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Still though, this compressed air car has to compete in the marketplace, and you have to look at the TOTAL system, ie, where the original energy COMES from, plus price to buy and maintain."

It is important to consider the total system. The objects of the system are also important.

To compete on price in the marketprice, the distance/dollar (both capital and operating costs) is the most important consideration.

If you're trying to preserve oil and gas as well, then using electricity from coal fired plants would probably be a solution.

If reducing CO2 emissions is the object, that probably rules out coal-fired generators (unless the CO2 is sequestered). Nuclear power would probably be the answer.

There have been discussions on other threads, about line-losses for electrical transmission. The losses seem to be quite high in some places. I suspect that those areas have relatively low-voltage transmission lines. Here, in B.C. line losses are only about 7% -- and that's for transmission over hundreds of miles.

Although there have been a lot of exaggerated claims for hydrogen-powered, or battery-electric cars -- electric power for transport has a lot of potential. It's too early to tell what the best storage medium for that electrical energy will be. Contenders include: compressed air; hydraulics; hydrogen; chemical batteries, flywheels, and capacitors.