air car

Seems a little odd because you still need to expend energy compressing that oxygen there. Sure, there's no pollution from the car, but there's going to be pollution involved in the compression of the air.

It seems to me like what you have here isn't a solution as much as a visod that removes the emissions and price directly from our car and relocates it elsewhere. If everyone suddenly switched to an air care, there would still be huge amounts of energy required to compress all that air, and that energy would create pollution. We'd even have less ability to pollute less since we wouldn't be able to buy a car that had lower emissions...we'd have to frequent air fillups that compressed air with lower emissions, and what are the chances of everyone having easy access to those?

 

Yeah, changing the fuel a car runs on does nothing to decrease pollution, be it air, gasoline, hydrogen, whatever. What matters is what the original energy source for the creation of the fuel was. Which is why I think it's hilarious and sad that all these car companies are working on hydrogen fuel cells while research for renewable energy sources is so lacking.

I would find it very ironic if finally the car companies replaced gasoline with hydrogen fuel cells, only to find that when we ran out of oil there was no way to produce the hydrogen anymore.....

 

Well, hydrogen is beneficial from a standpoint of stretching our resources further because oil wouldn't have to be used as the source of energy to produce it.

A great problem with cars is that the oil that drives them is starting to run short, and even by the most conservative estimates, oil is going to run out far before other sources of energy.

There is currently a proposal for a nuclear plant, for example, that will also serve as a place to create the hydrogen for fuel cells.

So, if we want to end reliance on oil, certainly, switching from gas to almost anything is a good move...but without renewable energy sources, we're just switching to another system that will inevitably run out, and on top of that we're not stopping pollution in most cases. (Of course if nuclear plants were used to generate the energy for cars in whatever form, be it hydrogen or air compression, that would be one currently-existing and widspread system that could greatly reduce pollution ).

 

well you people obviously have not looked over the link very closely...

some quotes from the site...

This represents a true revolution in automobiles - it is the first time that a car has produced minus pollution, i.e. it elimates and reduces existing pollution rather than emitting dirt and harmful gases. The exhaust pipe on the MDI cars produces clean air, which is cold on exit (between -15º and 0º) and is harmless to human life. With this system the air that comes out of the car is cleaner than the air that went in.

i wish we would have had several of them vehicles around here this summer... i can picture me sitting in a lawn chair sipping ice tea while being bathed in the exhaust of my air car on one of those hot summer days...

 

This car is cool.
Some features according to the wesite:
www.theaircar.com

There is only one electrical wire feed for the whole car. All items in the car are always getting electric power. When you turn something on lets say from the dash, a radio frequency is sent out to a micro receiver in the "gadget" you are turning on, and this turns on the gadget. This feature saves about 10 pounds.

Another feature is it has a built in air compressor so you can refill the air tanks from any 220 volt plug, though using that compressor would take up to 3 hours to fill-up. But the company says that the gas compressors that gas stations have for their hydraulic lifts would have the capacity to fill those tanks in less than 4 minutes.

At about 40 MPH the range for the thing is 300KM or about 120 miles. At it's max speed of about 75 mph, it's range is about 65 miles.

And guess what, they have a version with a gasoline engine in it. The gasoline engine then works to propel the car when it has to, or refill the air tanks when it can. So doesn't this make it a "hybrid".

The car also has heating and air conditioning that makes use of the properties of gas expansion and compression that make corresponding heat and cold. So it takes no extra energy to make heat or cold.

The engine requires very pure air. Thus it has air filters to purefy environmental air. Then that very pure air comes out the exhaust. So not only does the car not pollute, it cleans the air as it goes. Every once in awhile, you have to change the filters and the filters are re-usable.

the car body right now is fiberglass and is glued together. They say this is now the way planes are built. They are looking into using hemp to make the bodies. Hemp is a weed so the body would be "organic". And the air tanks are the same tanks made for LNG, so they are extremely rugged and not apt to explode in a car accident.

Now, if somebody could make a solar electric generator that could be kept at home that could generate enough electricity, someone could be 100% self sufficient and 100% non polluting.

The company also is making an electirc generator that gets put into a river to use the river flow for energy generation.

The car may be for sale by the end of next year in France for about 8 to 10 thousand Euros.

 

Emitting cold air is pollution...it's simply temperature-related pollution. Just as there is thermal pollution of water, so there would be cold pollution of air. Imagine all cars emitting that cold air...there would absolutely be a change in temperature that could easily be considered pollution.

Also, the whole concept that the air the car produces is clear is just a way to cover the fact that the very source of that energy is pollution! The air has to be compressed somehow, and that somehow would be a polluting plant for almost any American. To suggest that the air the car expells is cleaner is to say that the car throws out plesant air one place and toss on all the polluted air at the source of the energy.

Essentially, with this car, the pollution is the same...you're still getting 2, but instead of it being 2+0, it's 0+2. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic...

 

i often wonder why we as human beings are so skeptical of new ideas and technology. over adversity to change is inherent in everything we do.

i thought that the Prius community would be a group of people who didnt dismiss new things simply because they dont understand them.

here we have several people debunking this technology that has advanced so far down the developement cycle that is will have a marketable product in less than a years time if not already.

but still people complain that it doesnt work. it hurts us more than helps us despite claims to the contrary. however as adament as we are in our assertions that this "aircar" is a waste of anyone's time when for the most part, we are not qualified or trained in any of the disciplines needed to make such a judgement.

even after published costs are less than a penny per kilometer, we still insist that this technology is no cleaner or better than anything. even when we have a NEGATIVE POLUTION SOLUTION, we still feel the need to nitpick at some perceived shortcoming although, in reality we have no real knowledge of what we speak.

now there is much to be said about believing everything you read, and in the case of penis enlargement, instant weight loss pills, or overnight training programs, caution is the order of the day.

but not all is a scam. closed mind thinking has destroyed countless brilliant innovations that could have changed the world for the better, but was not given a chance.

 

LeVautRien You stated that cold air out the exhaust is still pollution. We have millions of cars that are putting out hot air, and you complain about a few cars that might put out cold air?

Are you really serious or are you trying to make a joke?

And in any case, according to the web site, one part of the engine produces heat, and another part of the engine produces the cold. But overall, the affect on the environment is close to a wash.




And you also pointed out that the energy needed to compress the air is still a bad thing presumably because fossil fuels will be used to do that.

But one of the arguments for this car is that you can make the energy for the compression of the air in lots of different ways, including wind power and solar power and even the power from rivers. This car gives one options that the ICE cannot.

And the site also points out that even if you do use fossil fuels, you can do it in ways that pollute less and you can produce the energy far away from cities. Giant fossil fuel generators are more efficient than thousands of ICEs. That's just a fact.

Now getting rid of fossil fuel electric plants is certainly better, but that's not on the list of options. It's certainly on my list of options, and probably yours, but we don't make the decisions.

 

George Bush, in his infinite wisdom, has proposed a hefty, though not gigantic program to research hydrogen. Sadly, his plan calls on making hydrogen from natural gas. This is the cheapest way to go and it's also the most foolish. It would only be a temporary measure because we would still run out of natural gas just about the same way and time as we run out of oil. So his proposal is simply another gift to industry on the backs of the American taxpayer. But since he is the President, this is where the bulk of hydrogen research will be in the next few years.

So there goes your idea on hydrogen being beneficial because oil would not have to be used. (Natural gas is not oil, I know that. But they are both fossil fuels and the timeline for their being gone is about the same.)

You seem to be thinking of making hydrogen from water. But that process takes tons of electricity.
And there are chemical processes that produce hydrogen too, but they all also take tons of electricity to make the chemicals. So the key isn't hydrogen per se, it's how do you make hydrogen cheaply and cleanly and in a way that is sustainable.

So again, solar power, wind power, and river power or ocean tide power are really the only ways. Anything else is just temporary.

Hydrogen is really only a cool way to store power. Like better batteries. They are really not the solution to the need to create the power in the first place.

Fusion and fission may be the answer. But when I consider those options I include in that choice the cost of 1000+ year storage of the by-products. And when you add those costs, it seems to me that those are not realistic choices. And if you don't include those costs in your choice to go nuclear, then you are not being fair to the future.

And part of the reason I bought a Prius is my concern for the future.



(By the way, I've been waiting since April 23rd for my Prius #9. I found out recently that it's gonna be tan colored and it will be any day now. My 2003 Impreza RS is for sale.)

 

Did not know that the favored way under the current adminstration is using natural gas for hydrogen production, and while I wouldn't call natural gas oil either, the two are as closely linked as fossil fuels can be...so it's like switching from a turkey to a chicken.

I didn't see how the hydrogen would be produced at that nuclear plant, but it makes sense that it would be electric.

If all hydrogen were to be made from a source that was let's say, nuclear, this would help reduce oil dependancy, but then what about the increased demand for nuclear fuel? How much of that stuff is remaining in the ground? I really have no clue.

I am personally a big fan of nuclear, though it certainly isn't a perfect technology. It's the best we have for this time and this current attitude (renewable would be better, but the attitude is a problem there), in my own little opinion.

 

I think the air car is a wonderful idea (although the body style is...ugly)! Two thumbs up to the guy that invented it and will be making it available to the Spanish (I think that's who I read is getting it) public next year (when do we get it?!)! Now if only he could extend the "mpg" range. But hey, not a bad start; perhaps the second generation will improve the range. Yay for progress!!! :clap: Very tempted to put my name on the list of interested people....but who do you take it to when it needs repairs?? I wonder if it will be as popular as our beloved Prii have become?

 

Definately not as popular as a Prius, there's just no way, seeing as it doesn't integrate all too well with current infastructure.

I would still like to see some figures on the amount of energy required to put air in the tanks. My personal feeling is...considering that the energy source cannot be pollution-controlled, and considering that near the lower-end of pressure in the tank, a bunch of that energy you spent compressing isn't any good for motion, a Prius...well you're almost certainly looking at more pollution than a Prius and probably more energy expended than a Prius as well.

Do remember that it would take a few cycles of that air tank to reach the range of one Prius tank.

 

Nuclear power plants make more nuclear fuel than they use to make heat. The problem is that it is "dirty" and cannot be used in new power plants without being "processed". And that processing takes a lot of technology and money. Unfortunately, the process that makes power plant grade uranium can be often be used to make weapons grade uranium. And if that fuel is not processed for re-use, then it has to be stored far away from humans. And even if it is processed, there is still waste that has to be stored far away from humans.

So we never have to worry about running out of fuel for our nuclear power plants. It just can't happen.

The nuclear process in power plants only makes heat. That heat is then used to heat water that then is used to turn turbines to make electricity.

That electricity is then sent out to the electrical grid.

The electricity could easily be used to make hydrogen. But the storage and transport and distribution of hydrogen would all have to be worked out.

In order to move to a nuclear/hydrogen/electricity based economy would take mega billions in investments. Not only would we need the engines for all the cars, but safe storage tanks or fuel cells, and an entire distribution system.

This is unbelievably impractical to expect any President of the US or CEO in Industry to start. Oil would probably have to reach $100 a barrel and we common people would be so hard pressed to buy gas the last thing we would be willing to do is pay the massive taxes necesary to go down that path.

Change will only come by small adjustments and changes to the current system. That's why I think the Prius is so great. The hybrid will increase the study of better batteries and it will make entrepreneurs look closer at electricity. But more important than that, it will mean that more money will go to those entrepreneurs. There will be more R&D and that will be a good thing.

This air car is also a cool development that can only help.

As batteries get smaller and smaller, there were will be more evolution into things electric. The next step will be better ways to make electricity.

Now I'm not automatically against nuclear. But I AM against ignoring the waste storage issues and I find it unfair that the nuclear industry can make power plants and sell the electricity, but the storage problem for the nuclear waste these plants produce gets paid for by taxpayers. It's just not fair to the taxpayers.

But if you plugged in the cost of 1000 years of storage of nuclear waste into the day to day cost of the electricity that nuclear plants produce, then the cost of that electicity would be thousands of dollars more than it is. So instead, it's ignored.

This is just not right.

 

*nod* Yes, all quite true. But I still think that they're on to something with that car. They may have a few kinks to work out, but in the end who knows what they might end up with a few generations down the line?

 

LeVautRien
…seeing as it doesn't integrate all too well with current infrastructure.
[color=#] [/color]

The air car actually will integrate quite well. For one, it can be plugged in and get the tanks filled in 4 hours. Second, many many many gas stations have hydraulic lifts for working on cars. The compressor for those lifts can easily be adapted to put air in these cars.


LeVautRien
I would still like to see some figures on the amount of energy required to put air in the tanks.
[color=#] [/color]
Go to the web site at the top of this post. At current electric rates in France, it cost less than 3 Euros to fill the air tank. That’s about $3. $3 to go about 70 to 120 miles is damn good and clearly it would use less fossil fuel than any Prius ever built.


LeVautRien
...considering that the energy source cannot be pollution-controlled, ...well you're almost certainly looking at more pollution than a Prius and probably more energy expended than a Prius as well.
[color=#] [/color]
Impossible. At $3 for 80 to 120 miles, it has got to pollute phenomenally less than a Prius. And if you are careful where you get your electricity to fill your air tank then you have at least the possibility of having more control over the pollution.


LeVautRien
Do remember that it would take a few cycles of that air tank to reach the range of one Prius tank.
This one you are right on. But then it’s a city car. If you had a solar or wind power on your roof and plugged your car in every night, and drove less than 100 miles per day, this would be a great car.

 

You folks are joking, right? This is a gag.

They quote "the Spanish national newspaper" El Periodico. "Periodico" means newspaper in Spanish, but there is no national newspaper by that name in Spain. It would be like calling a newspaper here "The Newspaper."

What energy source is going to propel that much mass for a penny a kilometer? Sounds to me like they scooped The Onion on this one.

 

Daniel:

why are you always so close minded?

in post after post, you have taken upon yourself to shoot down everyones post on a wide variety of topics.

 

I too did an internet search and I went to the web site for this company and read almost every page because I found it so fascinating.

I found a few sites that pooh poohed the practicality of the car, but nowhere did I find it to be a hoax. Many of the sites were in French so they had to be translated.

As for the company's site itself, the various drawings of prototypes and the descriptions and problems they overcame, as well as the pictures of prototypes driving through the streets of French cities would all indicate an extremely well done hoax, if it was a hoax.

And if I got burned by a hoax, so did Wired Magazine:
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,...n_story_related

And the BBC:
http://www.topgear.com/content/features/st...ies/air_car/01/

So it looks pretty real to me.