Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
yesplease wrote:Whatever they lack in energy efficiency due to compressing air, they make up in cost.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
JRP3 wrote:I really hate all these air car BS stories, it's so friggin obvious how lame this is. physics would be needed to make air cars viable.
yesplease wrote:Compare the cost of a small ICE drivetrain and storage tank to an electric drivetrain and periodic battery pack replacement. Batteries are just too expensive to compete with something like this unless the cost/mile comes down significantly.
threadbear wrote:JRP3 wrote:I really hate all these air car BS stories, it's so friggin obvious how lame this is. physics would be needed to make air cars viable.
Really. It's more apparent to me, that the arguments against any and all technologies that compete with gasoline are the lame ones. If it's such a lousy idea, why are major corporations overseas going to be implementing this technology?
Did you even read the Oil Drum interview?
threadbear wrote:Why do I get the impression some of you people just make sh** up as you go along? Your objections are whiny and you're not backing them up with anything, other than dismissing, out of hand, every alternative proposed. What's the matter, the future doesn't look grim enough for you already?
WisJim wrote:Industry uses LOTS of compressed air to power things. Factories don't worry about the weight of compressed air tanks, either. But, it is often considered that a typical compressed air system is less than 20% efficient. The compressed air to run a 1 hp air motor can take 7 or 8 horsepower, and that is in a large efficient system.
As has been mentioned many times, using compressed air as a motive force is not energy efficient.
Compressed air costs:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/i ... d_air1.pdf
threadbear wrote:
And this is something that r&d can't easily get around? If it is so inefficient why is it being proposed to be developed en masse?
EnergyUnlimited wrote:Electric vehicle will fall fool of expensive battery technology.
There are some plans to bring EV called Volt within 3 years from now on, but price estimate is now in range $30-40k, at least according to one article which I recently have red.
On the top of this price tag it is likely that batteries will rather be leased then sold.
All this suggest that large scale production is unlikely.
On the other hand air car has far better prospect because of low price of components and easy mass production.
If we mass produce Lithium batteries supply starts becoming a problem at current prices, so any advantage from large format mass production would likely be wiped out due to supply issues. The only format I know of that wouldn't have this problem would be lead acid, and even then, we would need greater energy capacity than what we have now at reduced cost.JRP3 wrote:Secondly you're trying to compare mass marketed ICE vehicles with small volume EV's. Mass produce Lithium batteries which will last the life of the vehicle and maybe beyond and your argument completely falls apart.
Because batteries are expensive and electricity is cheap.threadbear wrote:If it is so inefficient why is it being proposed to be developed en masse?
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
I don't see how use could stay the same. An air car has only decent range in the city due to reduced energy requirements. Any more than that and it would have to switch over to a liquid fuel, so there's no way we would see a 60-70% increase in electricity production because there's no way air cars could travel that distance on compressed air.EnergyUnlimited wrote:It was claimed on this forum that turning transport electric would require increasing of electricity production by 20%, assuming EV.
So in the case of air car it would be necessary to increase electricity production by 60-70%.
That is assuming full global conversion and current level of car use.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
yesplease wrote:I don't see how use could stay the same. An air car has only decent range in the city due to reduced energy requirements. Any more than that and it would have to switch over to a liquid fuel, so there's no way we would see a 60-70% increase in electricity production because there's no way air cars could travel that distance on compressed air.
JRP3 wrote:Further, batteries will not be leased unless they retain value beyond the life of the vehicle, which may be possible, (Altairnano), but is not so at this time.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests