Comments on: Drive on air.

Drive on air.

chrisroberts — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:08:34 -0800

Drive on air. A new engine design that not only runs on air, but cleans it too.

By: malphigian

malphigian — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:16:44 -0800

Of course, it has an extremely dangerous"fuel tank". A 1500 PSI scuba tank can create a nasty explosion if ruptured, this thing is 4500 PSI. (This info from the Ars Technica thread on this article.)

By: Salmonberry

Salmonberry — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:25:03 -0800

Dangerous, shmangerous. The inventor is French, the people who live on cheese, alcohol and cigarettes. What's an explosion or two? If this does find a way to become a commercially-viable (ie, non-exploding) car, that would be fantastic.

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:31:16 -0800

I'm getting very tired of waiting for some of these prototype cars (fuel cell, air, etc.) to come from the testing stage to the pragmatic and available stage. Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited about the prospects for the future, but I'm starting to grow very impatient. Does anyone know of a practical time line for the next big breakthrough (assuming GM doesn't start fire-bombing whoever does it)?

By: wanderingmind

wanderingmind — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:33:18 -0800

Let's hybridize one of these with a Zero Blaster and get a car that leaves little fog rings in the air behind it!

By: yesster

yesster — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:34:40 -0800

i'm tired of cars like this getting called "zero emissions" when the factory that produces the electricity which charges the pumps that compress the air has bucketloads of emissions

By: malphigian

malphigian — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:40:52 -0800

yesster: The vehicle itself is zero emissions, but thats just not the same thing as saying "has no impact on the environment". Solar, Wind, Water, Geothermal, and Nuclear power sources are all without emissions (all with varying other downsides), and the other types of power plants (coal,etc) are much more efficient than IC engines. Certainly all of it makes an impact, I believe the point is this is a significant reduction in that impact.

By: sheauga

sheauga — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:47:36 -0800

Timeline for Cleveland: pending funding, within 2-3 years "The new facility will refuel natural gas, hydrogen, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, utilizing on-site natural gas. " (Unless you're in CA, you'll have to hustle to catch Cleveland ...)

By: Pressed Rat

Pressed Rat — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:48:41 -0800

Salmonberry Pass the Gauloises & Pernod, s'il vous plait...

By: zanpo

zanpo — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:55:09 -0800

Negre, who was interviewed through an interpreter, explains that, in the tanks, the air is both cooled to minus 100 degrees Centigrade and compressed to 4,500 pounds per square inch.

Great, now we'll have global cooling!

By: Tacodog

Tacodog — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:05:54 -0800

Brody: [with gun aimed at shark] Smile you son of a bitch!

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:18:18 -0800

A car that eliminates the need for oil? Clearly, this is an act of war on the part of France. :P

By: Nothing

Nothing — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:21:10 -0800

4500 psi should be more than safe with modern tank design--the hydrogen fuel cell people are thinking of jumping to 10,000 psi, and due to some public misconceptions about hydrogen, and the genuine dangers of that kind of pressure, they have to be damn sure thy can prove it's safe before doing something like that. Basically, with this car, the compressed air tank is acting as a battery--storing energy that the car gets from electricity, hopefully very efficiently. Unfortunately the most I could find (admittedly after a quick search, I'm busy today) about the efficiency of the car was the following quote: "He says the energy efficiency levels of his vehicles compared favourably with those of petrol, diesel and electric engines." That really doesn't mean much, as a gasoline engine runs at about 20% efficiency. This is an interesting idea as compared to fuel cells. Both work as energy storage, but the compressed air engine does not require nearly the manufacturing energy that a fuel cell takes. On the other hand, I think a fuel cell can extract more of the available energy from its fuel, and there is the possibility for biological sources of hydrogen, which would allow us to use organic waste to generate it.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:35:08 -0800

Quick, what country has a lot of air? We'll need to declare war on them pretty soon.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:24 -0800

Car pulls into gas station. Driver: Uh, sir you have air? Station Attendant: Yes sir in the back and it will cost you 50cents. Attendant: Hey you need gas? Driver: No, I have a new car, an AirCarGo. Attendant to owner: You may want to change the price of air. Owner: Charge for air, it's free, take a breathe. Attendant: So was water, you want an Evian. Owner: Na I'll use the hose out back. PS, didn't the martian rovers used recently use air or something?

By: gametone

gametone — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:55:24 -0800

Yeah, that high compression is scary, but I still think Hydrogen has good potential for portable clean energy storage. It came up in this thread about Ford pulling the plug on their Electric car. I was very disappointed in that technologyreview.com article. It didn't deal with any of the obvious technical or safety issues. That's an MIT publication? Sheesh! It read more like a company brochure. Thanks malphigian for the balance of the Ars Technica link. And they say it's noisy. Plus can you imagine what kind of noise the compressor makes for the home fill-up option. I bet it will make your neighbors long for the days when you only had a leaf blowers, and lawn mower. Well maybe it's not as loud or lethal as I imagine.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:17:52 -0800

So would a back fire be a belch?. Blurp, excuse me, the car, it has gas.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:23:35 -0800

Car pulls in to a mechanic's shop. Car: blurb, hiccup, burp Driver: Sir, I need my car fixed. Mechanic: What seems to be the trouble with the car. Driver: It has gas. Mechanic: That's a problem, what can I do? Driver: Burp it for me. So would a back fire be a belch then?

By: yesster

yesster — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:25:03 -0800

I wasn't exactly claiming it was false advertising to call this car "zero emissions." I'm just saying it is kinda like calling chocolate brownies "FAT FREE," -- it is true, but misleading. Eliminate all the fat you want - eating a whole box of brownies ain't gonna lose you weight; and moving emissions from the car to the power plant isn't clean energy.

By: badstone

badstone — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:50:21 -0800

and moving emissions from the car to the power plant isn't clean energy. Right, regardless of your energy storage mechanism - chemical cell, hydrogen, compressed air, fly wheels, etc... - you need to charge it up. Nonetheless, I'm all in favor of getting those (battery powered) things on the road. That way, as soon as clean energy happens, we can reap the benefits more quickly by upgrading or replacing a few plants than by waiting for all the millions of drivers out there to get around to buying a newer (and probably more expensive) car.

By: kindall

kindall — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:18:48 -0800

By: f00b4r

f00b4r — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:41:03 -0800

Sure this car isn't "emmision free" since the plant surely generates emmisions, however... same goes for gas. Only with gas cars the car also generates emmisions.

By: 40 Watt

40 Watt — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:48:50 -0800

the plant only generates emissions if it's an emissions-generating plant. As mentioned earlier in this thread, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. produce no emissions of their own.

By: sklero

sklero — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:29:15 -0800

Sounds great. Sign me up.

By: Wet Spot

Wet Spot — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:21:09 -0800

The major problem with this scheme is: if you run out of air on the highway -- and at the pressures being used, a slow leak is almost inevitable -- how are you going to fetch a gallon of "fuel" from the nearest air station? Insert a rubber hose into the relevant orifice and head for Taco Bell. Then you can affix a bumper sticker, just like the buses: "Powered by clean, natural gas."

By: epimorph

epimorph — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:38:43 -0800

The major problem with this scheme is: if you run out of air on the highway -- and at the pressures being used, a slow leak is almost inevitable -- how are you going to fetch a gallon of "fuel" from the nearest air station? That's assuming that you survive the experience of venturing out on the highway, because at 55 mph you're likely to get run over by traffic.

By: firestorm

firestorm — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:46:34 -0800

eh hehehe. I thought, however, that compressed air cars existed already. I believe Mexico already has a "fleet" of several hundred. I'll have to look it up.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:56:31 -0800

firestorm, you're probably thinking of compressed natural gas -- which is one of the more successful alternative fuels out there. The logistics difficulties mean it's only an appropriate choice for businesses that have fleets of many identical vehicles which cover a limited range, like metropolitan bus systems, or maintenance vehicles for utilities. For right now, the only viable choice for your basic residential consumer is a hybrid -- some of them are quite decent, even if they don't meet the ideal of zero emissions. Hmm, though, darned if you aren't right -- but it's the same guy, you know, Guy, Guy Negre. Apparently the contracts were in place 2 years ago but he's only now nearing production. If anyplace needs "eco-taxis", though, it's Mexico City! Up to date information on MDI's production; MDI's official site {in English}. If the MIT article sounds peppy, it's probably because it was based in part on a prospectus they've been sending around. Also, he claims that the tanks used are designed for methane gas, and made of fiberglass, so they will "crack longitudinally" rather than explode as metallic tanks do.

By: skyline

skyline — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 11:29:04 -0800

As mentioned earlier in this thread, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. produce no emissions of their own. Excepting the emissions from building these plants. The manufacture of solar panels, for example, requires a lot of energy and produces arsenic, cadmium and gallium.

By: skallas

skallas — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:22:24 -0800

yesster: and moving emissions from the car to the power plant isn't clean energy. The car is zero emissions and its perfectly safe to call it that in the context of how we normally describe portable powerplants. Your point would make sense if and only if the EPA changed the MPG rating for cars to include the real cost of extraction, transport, and processing of oil into gasoline. If x amount of energy was spent doing all this then the cars MPG value should drop accordingly. Might as well toss in what it costs to run a gas station, advertising, etc. Not to mention a commercial powerplant is much cleaner than any portable IC engine per joule.

By: skallas

skallas — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:23:57 -0800

skyline: Excepting the emissions from building these plants. The manufacture of solar panels, for example, requires a lot of energy and produces arsenic, cadmium and gallium. Again, why are we holding these other technologies to a standard we don't hold oil to? Yes, the making of stuff takes stuff and effort. Yet, I don't hear this argument when it comes to GM or Shell. Funny how that works.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:39:19 -0800

the making of stuff takes stuff and effort Damn entropy. Damn it to hell!

By: skyline

skyline — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:27:15 -0800

Yet, I don't hear this argument when it comes to GM or Shell. Funny how that works. That's because no one is touting oil as a magical solution for energy. If these technologies can work effectively, then great. I'm just sick of hearing about these "clean" technologies that no one is implementing for, apparently, some conspiratorial purpose. (How were two factual sentences enough for you to decide I'm pro-oil, skallas?)

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:14:38 -0800

even as we speak a cadre' of trained killers from halliburton are entering the country. as for the press articles, winston will be working late tonight.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 19:38:18 -0800

If one wanted to make a city smell nice, could one fill the tanks with air that had just a hint of lilac? Better still, maybe food vendors could sponsor these cars, and pay the owners to have them distribute the scent of, say, McDonald's french fries, or buttered popcorn (which always sucks me in at the movie theater)? Imagine a car that took in stale city air and pushed chocolate truffle smell out its tailpipe! Mmm-mmm!

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:52:45 -0800

Transferring energy production from the vehicle itself to a commercial power plant solves two problems. First, the concentration of production allows for concentration of efficiency, conservation, and pollution mitigation. Second, the production takes place away from city centers, where the vast majority of vehicle pollution is found. When Ford ran those ads about cleaner engines "for my mountains", it was a bit silly, because the primary reason to seek cleaner-burning vehicle engines is to reduce pollution in urban areas, for human health. Finally, the commercial power plant may itself get its energy from a clean or renewable source. Nothing is perfect, and there are trade-offs for every choice. But there are plenty of good, solid reasons to look at ways to use the commerical power grid to run vehicles.