[Clouseau2]

Everything I've read suggest that the AirCar numbers are all theoretical. Real models only have a range of a few kilometers ...

[frankthetank]

Don't look now, but the French might be buying on to the air car phenonom...

[quote] Pricey Oil Could Be Boon For European Car

PARIS (AP) - Record-high oil prices might seem like bad news for the auto industry. But one European manufacturer plans to make a type of car unaffected by $50-a-barrel crude - cars that run on compressed air.

“It’s safe, doesn’t pollute, doesn’t explode, it’s not poisonous and it’s not expensive,â€

[frankthetank]

adding to this. If a car is run on batteries, you need a lot of material to produce those batteries, and they don't hold much energy.

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????

[backstop]

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

[dontworryaboutpeakoil]

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

I don't think it's impossible to replace fossil fuels to generate electricity. France uses primarily Nuclear power to produce most of it's energy needs.

What is more pressing at this moment is finding a fuel that is as versatile as oil for transportation. The Air Car seems like a suitable replacement.

[backstop]

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

[dontworryaboutpeakoil]

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

Is there any reason to be rude?

Besides, you're wrong. Air cars are already in service in Mexico, and S. Africa.

Mexico is buying these as taxis.
http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/news102600a.htm

So is S Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/988265.stm

More articles.
http://www.technologyreview.com/article ... 091902.asp

[dontworryaboutpeakoil]

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

Is there any reason to be rude?

Besides, you're wrong. Air cars are already in service in Mexico, and S. Africa.

Mexico is buying these as taxis.
http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/news102600a.htm

So is S Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/988265.stm

More articles.
http://www.technologyreview.com/article ... 091902.asp

[backstop]

Dontwo - I'd no more intention of being rude than you have in again ignoring the information you've been given.

If you want to imagine that a highly inefficient new form of transport will resolve peak oil, rather than just yielding some novelty sales, that is your affair.

regards,

Backstop

[khebab]

Problem is compressed air is one of the one worst energy carrier you can possibly find. Even in a perfect system you can only reach an efficiency of only 0.52 (see http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/THER204A-web/enrgyeff.pdf for a proof). This is your top efficiency before taking into account motor efficiency, compressor mechanical efficiency and air tool efficiency, and so on. So far the air car is a mere proof of concept and performances at quite low (see http://www.theaircar.com/Mines_reports.html). I don't known what is the real efficiency of a petrol based engine if you take into account all the cost associated with oil extraction, transportation and processing.

[frankthetank]

What about batteries? efficiency? Suppose it might depend on Lead vs Ni VS Lion....

Maybe horses will be the way to go...i like cowboy hats..

[DvidBrent]

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/

[DvidBrent]

Sorry this is the fringe web site :
http://www.perendev-power.com

[dontworryaboutpeakoil]

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/

Yep, I totally agree with your conclusions. Finding a replacement for fossil fueled automobiles is our #1 problem. Electricity can be produced using non-oil fuels, and we can heat our homes using Geo Thermal energy.

I think we can create Oil using TMD in sufficient quantities for air travel. The main problem is finding an alternative to the masses of gasoline burning cars and trucks.



When you have an Air Car that can be refueled in 3 minutes, I think the argument that compressed air is inefficient is terribly wrong. What is more efficient that compressed air? The electricity that it takes to refill an air tank in 3 minutes is not that much. It's got to be pennies per mile.

I wish that I could see Air Cars in use TODAY. Instead of hybrids, automobile companies should be offering these Air Cars. They are pretty cheap too. Only about 10k for an economy model.

[DvidBrent]

I don't know much about geothermal, but a lot of people these days have electric water heaters, don't they? So , to sum it up it looks like.

1. Coal to oil process for airplanes (synthetic oil)

2. aircars

3. hybrid air / oil cars amd then later probably hybrid air / biodiesel cars

4. bio diesel (this one will probably be for the bigger trucks)

Biodiesel is here and now. (In Germany, you can sometimes smell them on the street).The air car is just about here and now.
The hybrids are in the pipeline (unfortunately)

Coal to oil is what the Chinese use now. The Germans used that process a lot during the 2nd world war too. It's not ideal though.

[MarkR]

While the air car is a practical technology, that alone doesn't make it the most appropriate next step.

While air is more practical than battery/fuel cell or whatever other 'next-gen' oil-free technology you can come up with, it makes up for this with reduced efficiency.

While a shortage of oil may make air cars economically efficient (especially given the very low cost of off-peak electricity), that doesn't automatically make them more energy efficient. There are good reasons why society will have to consider energy efficiency over and above cost efficiency before long - the greenhouse effect is just one of these.

I have to voice some doubts over the figures for energy consumption that MDI quote. They claim their 90 cubic metres of air at 300 bars will be sufficient for 200-300 km. That would be truely impressive as those air tanks contain energy equivalent to 0.5 gallons of gasoline! (about 15 kWh).

They also propose electrical charging in 4 hours - but with current industrial compressors boasting efficiencies of about 25% - you'll be needing a 100A circuit (at 220 V) to plug it into - that'll put quite a strain on a domestic supply. Using these figures I estimate total primary fuel consumption at 3.5-5 gallons oil equivalent. Impressive indeed, and arguably an improvement on conventional gasoline engines - but I'm afraid that I can't believe this figure.

Their figures (above) are extrapolations from their prototypes - on their web site they explain their test figures came from a 7.5 km drive - their additional refinements, including multi-stage expansion engine (essentially their key technology !!!), regenerative braking, engine cut-out, larger tanks, etc. are supposed to make up the difference.

Despite my doubts over their energy efficieny, I'm suspect that air vehicles may find a niche in the near future - perhaps, as an alternative to diesel/petrol engined vehicles for transport in crowded city centres (e.g. European cities), which are suffering terribly from air pollution.

[Aaron]

Still kickin around air cars I see...

This should be an easy one to debunk.

Re-read BackStops comments...

[DvidBrent]

well, we'll see what they are like next year won't we?
I actually think they will be a viable option for personal transport.
I only hope that there will be enough biodiesel for the trucks. They are more important. If they don't deliver, then the stores will be empty and you will starve.


What is guaranteed, however, is that whatever is produced will not be the cheapest because the corporate boys always need the money to flow in at least the same amounts and preferably higher than before. I bet you'll find that what options will be available will all be around the same price so that nobody "loses money" much like petrol and biodiesel now in Germany.

[Bytesmiths]

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????

I'd de interested to know where you got those numbers. Everything I've seen indicates much lower efficiency.

Compressing air transforms a large part of its energy into heat. (Don't believe me -- just put your hand on the output of a compressor!)

You'd need some way to re-capture that heat, and it is low-grade heat, which is difficult to make use of.

I'm sorry, but until proven otherwise, I think the "air car" is just yet another "put the pollution elswhere" scheme, and not a very efficient one, at that.

[frankthetank]

The article i posted **claims** that on a tank you can go 50 miles @ 70mph...and a recharge would cost 2.50 in France...

I don't know...I have my doubts...Once I see some independent reviews I'll form a better opinion.