AutoblogGreen

"Does this make more sense than hydrogen?"

Yes. Using hydrogen to power a car is insanely stupid. This technology is about two orders of magnitude simpler, and at least an order of magnitude more economical. A complete airmotor car can be built for about half the cost of the fool cell in a hydrogen car -- for starters.

"After all, hydrogen is just a carrier of energy, as is the tank of compressed air."

The energy in hydrogen is not in the compression, so the comparison is not meaningful.

"Hydrogen must be compressed and carried in special containers, as does the air."

Another completely meaningless comparison. In addition to be compressed, hydrogen must also be manufactured, and the only economical large-scale manufacturing of hydrogen currently available commercially is via reduction of natural gas (a fossil fuel) in a very wasteful and polluting process -- and THEN compressed. Actually, it's worse than that; the only (relatively) safe/economical way to transport hydrogen is in liquid form, so there are at least four energy-wasting (and polluting) steps required to get it from the source to the consumer.

On-site electrolysis is even more energy-inefficient. You can get about 10 times more use from the electricity if you don't first waste it producing hydrogen.

While still hazardous, compressed air is an order of magnitude less so than compressed hydrogen.

The small and light air-motors are especially appealing, but I would like to see some (independent) cost comparisons with EV. It could be that this technology has a lower TCO, although an airmotor is more complex than an electric motor. It is definitely "thinking outside the box."

Airmotors used in tools are known for their reliability and long life, which is why they are so popular with mechanics.

One of the things I like best about this technology was that there was no mention of government subsidies, or any other Politically Correct nonsense.

Reply

Special compressor required - the air is compressed to 300 bar (4,500 psi) which is way more than the 200 psi max for standard air compressors. Compressing air produces waste heat, and at these high pressures a lot of energy is wasted as heat. Don't know at the moment if it is more or less efficient than Hydrogen (I'm sure there are some who could figure it out) but I am absolutely certain the air engine costs much less than a fuel cell.

Range and performance is limited, although there is a hybrid version that burns fuel with the compressed air for much greater range.

Reply

keep bringing on the news about the air car.. its hard to find info on it luckily discovery channel brought it to the public...


maybe someone can shed some light on the propetual motion free energy thing they were talkin about.. a car that constantly refeuls its air supply.. is it impossible? i think so

Reply

The air car is a fabulous idea.
No batteries to weigh it down, manufacture, or dispose of. No new infrastructure needed as with hydrogen. One might jump to the conclusion that electricity is a more efficient way to store energy
but I've seen no proof of this. Someone should do that research.

Reply

What makes the air car feasible is the fact that the vehicle is extremely light. Making cars lighter is what we should be really working toward, not the gimmicky hybrid and fuel cell nonsense.

This same car could be powered by a small 2 cylinder diesel engine with a 2 gallon fuel tank, and it would likely outperform and outdistance the air car. No new infrastructure required, just make the darn cars lighter!

Reply

fred I agree with you on lightness,I own a two cylinder 600cc car that weighs 1325 lbs that gets 53 mpg and thats a 70 year old design!We need to simplify and use energy recapture on braking and basically change our lifestyles to achieve whats needed.George mentions no batteries to dispose of, George the batteries in hybrids are recycled not disposed,you will even find this with lead acids. Also the pack in my hybrid weighs 48 lbs so are really not that heavy.
The air car is a good idea with a limited range but an on board fueled compressor would be better utilized driving the car directly rather than through the losses of supplying air to the tanks. Better to lighten the load by omitting the compressor/engine/fuel/exhaust system and relying on a stationary unit maybe fueled by natural gas or solar if poss.I wonder how the air motor is lubricated and if this impacts emissions.
A rotary motor as a wheel hub would be neat since only the tank/storage unit would then encroach on interior space.

Reply

You might be interested in the following forum:

http://futurefeeder.com/index.php/archives/2005/01/21/air-powered-car-its-cheap/

Reply

The bottom line with whichever future redesign of our vehicles & their powersource, is that we got to get off fuel all together. How can anyone rationalize PAYING forever for the energy source to power their vehicle?! I cannot understand why we as a species (ingenous & nigh resource) have some programmed-in notion that energy should cost something. The compressed air car is the best chance we have to get off the SLAVERY of nonrenewable, mass poluting fuels, which unstable countries dirput world economies. OPEC, a mafia-cartel of oil producers who just tell the world in a nutshell, "Oil is worth $60 a barrel & we'll cut back production to make supply vs demand reach that". The designers need to integrate in an air compressor naturally to continuously be refueling itself, Solar Power panels in the roof (comsumers will still need AUX power beyond what's create for the compressor to run their GPS/CD/radio/etc)...

I envision a responsible individual & family energy future where your car stores the energy bombared upon it all day while you're in school, work, etc, & then not only uses some to recompress the air car's tanks, but the excess could then be brought home, plugged into an outlet & fed into the HOME & thus back into the grid (wind & air farms can sometimes receive small checks from the electric company for their energy excess which they can then sell to another) if consumers are MAKING more energy than using they can bring down the cost to all. We got to figure this out & quickly. We're destroying our planet & all the life along with it. Pretty damned arrogant & entirely too careless.

Reply

The compressed air car is is a major step towards ending our oil addiction.

With advancements in solar technology, we could eventually see a compressed air/solar hybrid, where all the vehichle's body surfaces are strong ultralight solar panel composites, capable of capturing light energy whenever it is present, so that the car could continually be 'topping' itself off. Utilizing solar energy, and weather permitting, most routine fill-ups would become an automatic function which the car could manage on it's own, consequently saving time and worry for the driver.

Of course, you would still want the capability of
'plugging-in' to refuel, when heavy driving exhausts your compressed air supply and weather conditions are poor for solar refueling.

Reply

Don't kill the fuel cell yet! I agree that air power is novel and worthy of pursuit. However, I feel the same way about fuel cells. Even compressed air requires energy to produce. The energy will likely come from the electric grid. The fuel most likely used to generate that electricity in the U.S. is coal. There is a human health benefit given that urban traffic combined with urban life yields high toxic concentrations with high exposure. Hence, clean cars of any sort would have an urban health benefit. Take the time to compare urban to rural health statistics and you will see what I mean.

Two new discoveries have the potential to benefit the fuel cell option. The first is a new catalytic type on-board reformer that turns liquid fuels to hydrogen. This allows the vehicle to operate on diesel, gasoline, or methanol. No toxic emissions and a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. The CO2 reduction is a direct result of the efficiency difference between fuel cells and internal combustion engines.

The second discovery is even more promising. It turns out that salt water is more easily separated into hydrogen and oxygen than plain old water. Radiating the ionic bond of sodium causes enough excitement to break the H-O bond of the water molecule. The electrolysis of water without sodium has a net loss of energy based upon the laws of thermodynamics. However, the sodium acts as a catalyst of sorts and yields a net energy gain. In other words, like the reformer previously mentioned, an on-board saltwater to hydrogen reformer would allow for a dense and easily deliverable liquid fuel. A saltwater reformer would be the holy grail of fuel cell discoveries. Salt water covers two-thirds of the planet and is nonflammable. Ionic solutions other than sodium may offer even greater energy gains.

Stories about the two discoveries above are available on Motor Trends Technologue web area.

The competition of clean-car technologies is a good thing. Let all of the clean or cleaner energy solutions play out. The consumer always wins when companies and technologies compete. I just hope clean car technologies hit the street before China and India explode with new car purchases.

Reply

this talk on running engines on air is fantastic,
a thought on being even more green is to produce compressed air at home via a windmill (if you're in a windy area) or via exercise equipment (if the whole family works out lots), bypassing the electrical process and putting the compressed air into storage tanks at time of creation

Reply

Hidden secrets that politicians don't want you to know about hydrogen: because of inefficiencies it takes 140 kilowatt-hours of energy from a power plant to produce 17 kilowatts of energy from a hydrogen power cell in a car. It's a net increase of greenhouse gasses to make this energy. That doesn't sound good to me. First we need to let technology increase the efficiency of solar powered electrical generation. When this happens (in about a decade) a 100x100 mile generation plant in the CA or AZ desert will give us most of the electrical energy our country needs (however, I'll bet that "environmentalists" will oppose this use of the desert--just watch. This will mitigate the use of coal and natural gas in current generation plants. Let nano-technology do its thing. It'll work a whole lot better than buying carbon offsets like Al Gore!

Reply