This is different...

ig-88

New member
Oct 28, 2006
4,728
4
0
Awesome.

I want one. I love how it has plenty of cargo space. It almost looks like a minivan.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,520
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Interesting idea
but I need 400 miles per tank or stations positioned along the highway open 24/7
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,647
0
36
I have a few questions/concerns with the article...

"For one thing, it costs only about $3.00 to fill up the tank."

Is that the cost to compress the air or what they figure the air supplier would be charging? Something tells me the suppliers would be charging a fair bit to recoup their investment in the pump system.

"For another, the car has no emissions. In fact, the air coming out is significantly cleaner than the air in most cities."

That would only be correct if the compressor had filters to remove crap from the air it is compressing. Unless you are talking SCUBA-tank quality air I fail to see how the air would become markedly improved as most compressors have little more than a dust filter to the best of my knowledge.

"compressed in ultra-strong tanks"

Exactly what kind of pressures/quantities are we talking here? What happens in an accident if one of these tanks gets ruptured? I remember from my SCUBA course that the 80 CF tanks had about the equivalent energy as 3 sticks of dynamite. Somehow I think there would be a little bit more energy involved here as I doubt one SCUBA tank would send a car 120 miles at 70mph.

Interesting concept though.
 

C Dick

Banned
Feb 2, 2002
4,215
2
0
Ontario
By definition, the energy in the compressed air tank has to be as much as in a tank of gasoline = a lot. You would need something like a fuel cell in a race car, that kept the compressed air from all shooting out at once if the tank was ruptured in a collision.

I read that 300 litres of air at 300 bar contains the same energy as 1.4 litres of gasoline. So to replace a 70 litres tank with a 300 litre air tank you would need to have 15,000 atmospheres pressure! But they are only using 300. So evidently the air cars they are talking about are 500Kg deathtraps with 15 horsepower, not real cars.
 

Terbevore

Member
Sep 3, 2004
146
0
16
Physics: The Conservation of Energy......

C Dick said:
By definition, the energy in the compressed air tank has to be as much as in a tank of gasoline = a lot. You would need something like a fuel cell in a race car, that kept the compressed air from all shooting out at once if the tank was ruptured in a collision.

I read that 300 litres of air at 300 bar contains the same energy as 1.4 litres of gasoline. So to replace a 70 litres tank with a 300 litre air tank you would need to have 15,000 atmospheres pressure! But they are only using 300. So evidently the air cars they are talking about are 500Kg deathtraps with 15 horsepower, not real cars.
I will not argue any of the above datas. However, one must remember that whatever the power output of the car, the energy has to come from somewhere. If you fill up a tank with compressed air, it takes energy to do so. In a perfect world, the energy in should equal energy out, but like the hydrogen myth, usually you get less on the output side due to less than perfect efficiencies in engines due to friction and heat loss. Most compressors either use an electric motor or a fossil-fueled engine to drive a compressor. Both of these power sources have an environmental impact. Sadly, there is no free lunch.........
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,936
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Terbevore said:
Both of these power sources have an environmental impact. Sadly, there is no free lunch.........
Yes, but there are better odds of filtering and containing the emissions when they are centralized around a power plant. There's an economy of scale in emissions filtration just as in anything else.

So even if all you are doing is moving the emissions from the car to the factory that might well be a huge improvement.
 

nominis

***
Dec 27, 2005
495
0
0
It's fantastic ! The articles though are from '04 and '05, I wonder where they are now in the production phase ... yes it uses energy to create compressed air but no one ever talks about the energy used to create gasoline as well - with gas you are creating emissions when you burn it in your engine AND also when you drill it, refine it, transport it and refine it some more.
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,647
0
36
nominis said:
yes it uses energy to create compressed air but no one ever talks about the energy used to create gasoline as well - with gas you are creating emissions when you burn it in your engine AND also when you drill it, refine it, transport it and refine it some more.
True, but even assuming the compressor is run by electricity, Ontario only gets about 22% of it's electricity from hydroelectric plants. Which means you are using either nuclear, coal or natural gas to produce the electricity and all of that uses energy to create the fuel too.

Since there is an energy loss every time you convert from one type of energy to another, one could wonder if compressed air power would have a bigger footprint than gas power

compressed air from:

Nuclear power

Dig it up, refine it, ship it, use it (and store the residue somewhere), run the compressor, run the car

Coal/nat-gas: same as nuclear w/o the long-term waste, but with more air pollution


gas car:

drill it, refine it, ship it, use it.

Not saying that it does (since I don't know how much loss is incurred at each step) but I do remember reading somewhere that when you looked at the full effect on the environment of the new "green cars" (from start of construction over the expected lifespan of the vehicle) they turned out to be more polluting than an equivalent gas vehicle. (mainly due to the batteries I believe).

Of course, as has been mentioned above, it may make more sense to remove the pollution from the vehicles so that it can be more efficiently dealt with at the power plant. This would also have the benefit of improving air quality in the cities (unless the city was near the power plant I guess :) )
 

nominis

***
Dec 27, 2005
495
0
0
I wonder if anybody's done a study on the comparative pollution footprints of the different vehicles ....
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,647
0
36
Here's the article I remember.....

March 7, 2007

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,647
0
36

DATYdude

Puttin' in Face Time
Oct 8, 2003
3,758
0
36
I've been looking at this for 5 years www.theaircar.com and the process of getting it to market has been extremely slow. The way the main man, Guy Negre has conceived of a local production and marketing model, is part of what's slowing things down, plus regulatory approvals, and the fact that he has trouble raising money because he won't give up control of the company.

It seems that there have been technical problems too because the original concept didn't include a hybrid air-gas technology. We'll see whether they ever get to market. I'll be among first to buy one if/when.
 

C Dick

Banned
Feb 2, 2002
4,215
2
0
Ontario
fuji said:
Yes, but there are better odds of filtering and containing the emissions when they are centralized around a power plant. There's an economy of scale in emissions filtration just as in anything else.

So even if all you are doing is moving the emissions from the car to the factory that might well be a huge improvement.
My understanding is the 2/3 of the power made by Ontario Hydro is radiated as heat from the power lines, and 1/3 is transmitted to end-users. I am not sure that is true, but I could believe it, in which case they would have to be generating power very efficiently to be better than a gasoline car.

I think that the assumption is that ultimately Hydro will come from 100% clean sources, whatever combination of hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tides, nuclear, etc. Things that do not require burning fossil fuels. At that point, it will be better to have cars not burn fuels either, and the question will be how best to store the energy in the car, and transfer it to the car from the utility. It could be batteries, fuel cells, centrifugal, compressed air, etc. My money would be on batteries, not compressed air.
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,647
0
36
C Dick said:
My understanding is the 2/3 of the power made by Ontario Hydro is radiated as heat from the power lines, and 1/3 is transmitted to end-users. I am not sure that is true, but I could believe it, in which case they would have to be generating power very efficiently to be better than a gasoline car.

I think that the assumption is that ultimately Hydro will come from 100% clean sources, whatever combination of hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tides, nuclear, etc. Things that do not require burning fossil fuels. At that point, it will be better to have cars not burn fuels either, and the question will be how best to store the energy in the car, and transfer it to the car from the utility. It could be batteries, fuel cells, centrifugal, compressed air, etc. My money would be on batteries, not compressed air.
I question what your definition of 100% clean is.

hydro dams change fish habitats and flood surrounding lands
Solar and wind will cover large amounts of land - bit of an eyesore
tides - again you're messing around with the fish again
nuclear - can't imagine how this is considered 100% clean given the mining, refining and storage of residual material.

everything comes with a cost attached to it.
 

C Dick

Banned
Feb 2, 2002
4,215
2
0
Ontario
Moraff said:
I question what your definition of 100% clean is.

hydro dams change fish habitats and flood surrounding lands
Solar and wind will cover large amounts of land - bit of an eyesore
tides - again you're messing around with the fish again
nuclear - can't imagine how this is considered 100% clean given the mining, refining and storage of residual material.

everything comes with a cost attached to it.
Yes, perhaps 100% is somewhat of a stretch. But compared to burning fossil fuels, any of those options are vastly superior. The earth can deal with a large amount of carbon emissions, just perhaps not quite as much as we are making. But if all our power, including car power and everything, came from the sources I mentioned, the earth could handle it just fine, and be sustainable.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,551
10
38
C Dick said:
My understanding is the 2/3 of the power made by Ontario Hydro is radiated as heat from the power lines, and 1/3 is transmitted to end-users. I am not sure that is true, but I could believe it, in which case they would have to be generating power very efficiently to be better than a gasoline car.

I think that the assumption is that ultimately Hydro will come from 100% clean sources, whatever combination of hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tides, nuclear, etc. Things that do not require burning fossil fuels. At that point, it will be better to have cars not burn fuels either, and the question will be how best to store the energy in the car, and transfer it to the car from the utility. It could be batteries, fuel cells, centrifugal, compressed air, etc. My money would be on batteries, not compressed air.
Hydro One has been taking actually metered readings and then inflating them using a line loss multiplier of 1.092 to effectively add 9.2 per cent above and beyond actual consumption. so it appears that the line loss is approximately 9.2% not 66.6%.
 
Toronto Escorts