Cygna Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Air-Powered Car Coming to U.S. in 2009 to 2010 at Sub-$18,000, Could Hit 1000-Mile RangeWikipedia - Compressed-air carPopular Mechanics - World's First Air-Powered Car: Zero Emissions by Next SummerMDI - The Air CarThe Air Powered Car - AutoExtra InsightTimmahy and I were discussing automobile miles-per-gallon yesterday, and ironically after work I saw a show on the History channel about an air-powered car. Now supposedly, this 75 horse power car will attain an 800 - 1,000 mile range, at 100miles per gallon of compressed air. It would only cost $2 to fill up at a compressed-air station at any normal gas-station, or you could even plug this car into the wall and the built-in air-compressor will take 4 hours to refill the carbon-fiber(incredibly strong; can withstand small gunfire) tanks. I don't know about you, but for me this idea is completely amazing if it works. I spend $50 at the gas-pump weekly, and those are on good weeks when I don't have any dates(or bad weeks--however you look at it). Best of all, the car is cheap(unlike Hybrids), ranging from $7,000 to $17,000. This is by far a very juicy subject. Read, learn, and discuss.Oh, did I mention it's zero-emissions? If this idea works, we may just be able to save Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keno Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 As awesome as it may be it will probably take a long time for people to start using them and there's probably alot of large companies that would want it gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphre Iredell Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The one major downfall in ANY alternate method of vehicle propulsion is that it still requires an amount of grid electricity to do so. So no matter what, you're still using electricity harnessed by whatever means available, whether coal, fusion, etc. And that is exactly the reason other methods like Hydrogen fuel cells have been more successful. Especially when the end result is perfectly viable and being reinstated as a fuel, as well as possibly providing electricity back to the grid as has been shown.A good example of success in these alternate methods is the Hynor in Norway, an entire highway with only hydrogen fueling stations that are powered by solar energy. Though this is all History channel stuff so I'm guessing most have heard by now XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygna Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 The amount of energy required to compress the volume of air that would fill up the air-tank of an air car is most likely less than the amount of energy required to pump 15 gallons of gasoline into my car.So technically, there is no "downfall" unless you consider technology as a whole a downfall. According to the law of Conservation of Energy, in order to convert energy you must already have energy. Based off this, there is no way to avoid using energy for propulsion--you'll use energy no matter what you do to move. So, the goal to aim for, is using the least amount of the most readily available energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphre Iredell Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 No, I am comparing all the varying forms of alternate methods of vehicle propulsion, as mentioned. I've also not seen any data regarding how much it would take to run a compressor, nor how compressed it would have to be (as in, whether or not a standard garage compressor could do the job, or if it was way above that psi rating). Either way, you're still using grid electricity to run it, where others don't, or hydrogen can even provide electricity back (as with other methods of supplying your own electricity). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmahy Widget Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Cyphre Iredell wrote:The one major downfall in ANY alternate method of vehicle propulsion is that it still requires an amount of grid electricity to do so. So no matter what, you're still using electricity harnessed by whatever means available, whether coal, fusion, etc. And that is exactly the reason other methods like Hydrogen fuel cells have been more successful. Especially when the end result is perfectly viable and being reinstated as a fuel, as well as possibly providing electricity back to the grid as has been shown.You're neglecting the fact that many (if not all) commercial power companies are beginning to provide renewable energy in addition to fossil-fuel and nuclear power. So this "grid" energy (which you don't even need if you set up your own wind turbine / solar panels / geothermal generator / etc.), is not necessarily dependent on the fossil fuels you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunau Sodwind Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 What we should do is just kill every one, then we won't have an energy crisis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygna Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 Johann Wilberg wrote:I hope we find a way with electricity or water or something.We did find a propulsion method with both water and electricity. There are electric cars, and there are new versions of cars that run on water. Why would you use either of those when you can literally run on air, though? Last time I checked, there was a shortage of clean/purified water, not a shortage of air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmahy Widget Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Lol. Cars can run on water. They separate the hydrogen from the oxygen... They're called hydrogen fuel-cell cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
