Air driven car

[Napoleon]

Interesting, especially in light of the threads on air driven starters here recently.

http://www.cleveland.com/autonews/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business/1048163407285010.xml

[RacinM3]

Hmm, interesting.

What about a chemical reaction that "creates" air? Sort of like the reaction that takes place when a large raft or airplane emergency slide is instantly filled.

Could something like that be a source for fuel?

[datachicane]

Hmmm, this quote from the article is total BS:

"Compared with batteries, however, air offers advantages. It's nontoxic and neither dangerous nor explosive. Typically a compressed air tank fails by splitting open with a noisy but otherwise benign leak."

Anyone who's been around scuba equipment as seen photos of shops and vehicles completely destroyed by tank failures. Here's a quote from a dive publication about such a blast:

"The explosion was roughly equivalent to several sticks of dynamite. According to one scuba tank inspection expert, "The explosive potential in a fully charged 80cf aluminum SCUBA cylinder is approximately 1,300,000 foot pounds -- enough to lift a typical fire department hook-and-ladder truck over 60 feet in the air!"

It may well be a great idea, but I wouldn't claim much of a safety advantage over gasoline or batteries...

[JLMannin]

And what of the energy required to compress the air? If it's electricity, then coal must be burned to generate the electricity. How effecient is the compression of air? What is the overall energy cost?

The same "pollution free" argument was offered up for hydrogen as a fuel source. Unless you use all hydro, solar, or wind power to provide the electricity to perform the electrolysis of water, the resulting fuel is most certainly not "pollution free". At best, you are transferring the source of the pollution from the tail pipe to the powerplant smoke stack.

[JoeBob]

Originally posted by JLMannin
The same "pollution free" argument was offered up for hydrogen as a fuel source. Unless you use all hydro, solar, or wind power to provide the electricity to perform the electrolysis of water, the resulting fuel is most certainly not "pollution free". At best, you are transferring the source of the pollution from the tail pipe to the powerplant smoke stack.

True. However, it is easier to "clean up" one power plant than it would be to "clean up" 10,000 cars.

[JLMannin]

Unles, of course, that power plant was grandfathered and not subject to the "best available technology" standard.

Actually, I was focussing more on the net energy consumed, as these "alternate energy sourses" actually consume more fossil fuels than they displace.

John