backstop wrote:Dontwo - you ask why the air car is not a replacement for fossil fuels.
The answer is that it sponsors the transport and use of fossil fuels to make electricity for transmission to power sockets to run compressors to supply compressed air.
We are at least decades away from any prospect of having sufficient sustainable energy-supply-on-demand to provide the additional power needed for mass transport by air-cars. Notably this would involve meeting a massive new peak-load as commuters arrived home and plugged in.
Sustainably produced biofuels do offer a real prospect for transport usage, but it would plainly be most efficient to use them via on-board fuel cells to power electric motors for direct drive, and not via air compressors and engines.
In reality most nations are finding it increasingly difficult to avoid power cuts: the idea of massively expanding power supplies to meet transport needs is simply a non-starter, as is the air car on anything more than a novelty scale.
regards,
Backstop
backstop wrote:Dontwo - There seems little point in posting responses to your uninformed questions if you're simply going to ignore their content in favour of your preconceptions.
On the offchance that you're not simply trying to maintain a denial of the gravity of peak oil, I'd point out that an Air Car is a machine that consumes and dissipates energy.
It is not an alternative energy supply.
Its gross overall energy inefficiency means that it requires a greater energy supply than a petrol SI-ICE engine.
It is sheer nonsense as a solution to peak oil.
If that isn't simple enough for you then I can't help you.
regards,
Backstop
backstop wrote:Dontwo - There seems little point in posting responses to your uninformed questions if you're simply going to ignore their content in favour of your preconceptions.
On the offchance that you're not simply trying to maintain a denial of the gravity of peak oil, I'd point out that an Air Car is a machine that consumes and dissipates energy.
It is not an alternative energy supply.
Its gross overall energy inefficiency means that it requires a greater energy supply than a petrol SI-ICE engine.
It is sheer nonsense as a solution to peak oil.
If that isn't simple enough for you then I can't help you.
regards,
Backstop
DvidBrent wrote:As I see it, the lack of oil poses 4 problems :
1. Oil is still used in some countries to produce electricity.
2. Some people in some countries use it to heat their house. (Ie. Germany)
3. Virtually all transportation uses oil as its energy source.
4. Oil is the raw material for a variety of products. (e.g plastics, allopathic medicine, fertillizers)
In my opinion no. 1 can be, and in many countries are being replaced as I type this. In fact, in the UK we have only coal, nuclear, hydro and wind as our source of electricity as I am aware. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.
No. 2 is easy to fix.
3. At first I thought this was the problem. (More later)
4. These products I often view as non-essential although some beneficial (plastics are nice). The benefits of other oil based products are subjective.
I am against the use of fertilizers anyway. And I disagree, for the most part, with drug based medicine. It's back to the 1940s lol.
So, let's look at no. 3 (which is without a doubt the real problem)
If there were no viable alternatives, the world economy would definitely collapse. The biggest problem will be airtravel. Shipping will take a lot longer too (sail). Globalisation will cease to exist. As far as I am aware there are no substitues for the airplane. (biodiesel perhaps?????????)
However, you are right about the air car. This seems our best bet yet. That and biodiesel. The problem of biodiesel is that a great portion of the world's land surface will be needed to grow the crop which is used to make the fuel. (But it still might be an option. I'm not well-enough informed about this)
Sure electric cars may be the option in the future. But to me all these web sites showing electric cars are drawings. It seems they couldn't russel one up in a couple of years for me to buy at my local dealer. Again I may be wrong. I suspect that car companies dropped the electric car (which competed with the oil-driven car early this century) because more money can be made from selling a fuel.
The air car can be bought soon, ealry next year if I'm not mistaken.
http://www.theaircar.com/
National transportation will be a problem until the petrol refuelling stations
install air pumps. I don't know how far they are with this. In the meantime nobody will be able to travel in excess of 30 miles from their home. So the economy will go local until the pumps arrive.
That's it really.
PS. If you are looking for something more on the fringe with regards to energy production, look at this web site :
http://pesn.com/2004/06/30/6900029Peren ... eticMotor/
frankthetank wrote:air car cost 2.50 of electricity to drive 50 miles at 70 mph... wonder how far a battery car could drive on that much electricity @ 70mph????
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests