So IF viable it would a lot more finacially reasonable than electric. One must remember the markets in India and China will be looking for alternative much more than us...due to the differences in financial stature ie we can afford a petro life, while it's a roadblock for their economy.
The below video is fairly interesting.
Video Air Car
The videos about MDI's design, plus an air engine with what seems to have a higher efficiency.
The interesting claim about the fuel efficiency (for MDI's design) is that they think a hybrid car w/ one tank of gas....could get from Los Angeles to New York. Quite a claim, but if true...well, that could be quite an alternative. I figure they'll have to play-up to India first, as we seem to adore our big cars.
If it could operate with compressed flatulence, the this could be a Fromula 1 car in the hands of Algore.
Big deal. My car uses air in its engine. I even filter it.
As great as this appears to be, the energy to compress the air will come from where, exactly? If it comes from the electric utility, it mostly will come from burning additional coal.
Air powered = coal powered.
The energy, no matter what its final form (air pressure) has to come from somewhere. And in the end, that source of origin is fossil fuel (except for solar cells.) This is just replacing a battery with an air tank.
bookmark
I don't know. For $2 a tank, I would consider it. Watch the video - 2000 miles with a small amount of gas for a compressor, on a single tank.
Sure would help our depends on the Middle East.
I still think air powered along with other alternative fuels will make up the mosaic of fuels that will be offered at refueling stations across America.
Or, people may fall in love with refueling air tanks or electric vehicles at home and in the future choose that of car.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing at all.
If this takes off, I wonder what state governments will do for tax revenue? You can compress at home and never visit a gas station again - at least for driving around town.
Interesting. Especially the rotary motor.
stop posting stuff from the Onion....Wait, you're serious!
I am skeptical of the claims. I don't see how sufficient
energy can be safely stored in a reasonably sized compressed air tank to propel any vehicle for 8 hours. It is inconceivable that sufficient energy could be transfered
in only two minutes from a gas station compressed air hose.
I've always hoped I could find a nice pair of a "Tatas" in my garage...
Bet it is really cute with the Weebles in it.
It would actually be dandy for me...
As long as one of my labs doesn't carry it off to chew on it.
The new French car ... "Le Fart" car! With attachments for your nail gun and die grinder!
And for those who own the Toyota Prius (and other electric P.T. Barnum machines)... I hope your happy about destroying Subdury Ontario with your nickel batteries.
http://omidr.typepad.com/torque/2007/03/toyotas_prius_i.html
I wonder how many miles one could get from using compressed natural gas with the effluent feeding an internal combustion engine.
Let's see.
The energy to compress the air will come from some sort of power plant. The Carnot equation limits a coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plant to around 33% efficiency. The remaining 66% of the energy that the power plant uses has to be dumped into the air or water as waste heat.
There are additional system losses as the electrical power is sent through the power grid to the filling station. The electric motors that drive the compressors can't be 100 percent efficient. Also, when you compress air it heats up. If the air is allowed to cool down then a lot of energy is lost right there. Some will be reclaimed if you warm the engine with ambient air while the engine runs but you'll only get back a a small portion of the energy that was dumped as heat during compression of the air.
All told the losses will likely give you an end to end energy efficiency substantially lower than the 24 percent of a typical car engine . With a high compression narrow rpm optimized engine you can have 33 to 36 percent.
Compressed air CAN'T be more energy efficient overall than burning liquid fuel in an internal combustion engine. If the $2/fillup cost figure is accurate then they are based on using a source of energy that costs much less per therm than gasoline. Maybe taxes are a big part of the cost difference they claim. The affected governments will quickly correct that problem is they start losing revenue.
As a energy storage medium for a hybrid compressed air may make more economic sense than batteries even though batteries are nearly 100% efficient in terms of elecricity in / electricity out. Other energy storage systems that may have potential are kinetic energy in spinning flywheels, hydraulic accumulators and lithium heat storage.
Does the AirCar use regenerative braking and pump air back into the tank when slowing down?
The biggest problem with them is you don't want to be in a wreck in one.
They're essentially aluminum tubing frames covered in fiber and foam.
http://www.theaircar.com/tecno.html#Car
The cars weigh 750 kg. My 2001 Sonoma weighs about 1700 kg.
I'm actually on their waiting list, but it would never be anything but a commuter/short errand car for me and it would never see a highway.
"90 cubic meters of compressed air stored in fiber tanks"
In a car?????
How much energy is in that 90 cubic meters? The same as in a regular tank of gas?
Compressing air is very inefficient. The kitty-car sounds like an early April Fool's joke.