digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Revolutionary air car runs on compressed air

rawstory.com — A French company has developed a pollution-free car which runs on compressed air. India's Tata Motors has the car under production and it may be on sale in Europe and India by the end of the year. The air car can be refueled in minutes from an air compressor and can go 200 km on a 1.5 euro fill-up -- roughly 125 miles for $3.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • peaceordeath, on 01/05/2008, -5/+84Well hell, that rules.
    • slythfox, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Yeah. It's pretty awesome. The companies name is MDI. I've never heard of "Tata Motors" before, but this is the MDI car: http://www.theaircar.com/ (MDI's website with the same car picture).
      However, I don't like when such stories were already submitted to digg, I'm sure, and it takes over a year(at least?) for one of them to actually make it.
      • chijim70, on 01/05/2008, -3/+3Yeah this is old news like 30 times over. I think I even submitted one about it one point. Digg is very fickle.
        • Andrewmatt, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Well, I never heard of this. Sorry that I actually have a life.
          • nospinhere, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2So how much energy does it take to compress the air?
          • goldenlotus, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0It seems that it takes less energy than the 1.5 Euros worth of air that will make the car go 200 Km (according to the article & video).
          • nospinhere, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1So the Euro itself converts into energy?
    • browwiw, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7Tata is an up and comer in India. They're in negotiations to buy the Jaguar/Landrover brand from Ford.
      • makkaveli19, on 01/05/2008, -4/+1oh thank gold maybe that will help jag/rover bring their names back. i'm just glad ford hasn't pissed allover aston yet
        • balthisar, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7Are you kidding? Ford saved both of them from dropping off the face of the planet, and actually put some quality into them. The same goes for Aston Martin, which you don't seem to know has already been sold off early last year.
      • goldenlotus, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0Yeah, it would be cool to have a Jag that runs on air !!!
    • Chompy, on 01/05/2008, -1/+25It's awesome, but let's not get crazy. This is not a pollution *free* car, because the energy used to compress the air has to come from somewhere.
      • slythfox, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately, yes. However, how you get the energy to compress the air is something different. Hydrogen car mechanics could be used to provide the energy to compress air.
        • Drakoola, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3But it costs energy to make hydrogen :). Whatever it is, it will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
          Two of my friends have air compressors. I wonder if they could just 'fill up' themselves.
          • Salva, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2the car has a built in compressor. so you can just plug it into your wall socket and it will fill itself up. It only takes about 5-6 hours...

            Saw it on the discovery channel...
          • Mercedes383, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1At one of the factories the company I work for looks after we set up a system that uses the city supplied water pressure to run turbines to generate electricity. The factory uses a lot of water, but must first collect it in massive tanks for dosing and treatment before use so the pressure is only used for filling and not actual work. The turbines is part of a regeneration scheme to recover as much energy as possible to make the factory more efficiant. That sort of thing could be used as an energy source for an air compressor that only has a small duty cycle.
      • ChaosMotor, on 01/05/2008, -3/+9Electrical production by most measures releases less pollutants than gasoline or diesel combustion.
        • slythfox, on 01/05/2008, -3/+5Not true. How is electricity generated? In some places, it's coal, which pollutes heavily.
          • ChaosMotor, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6But a few thousand coal plants with CO2 scrubbers and other pollution controls are /still/ cleaner than millions of individually maintained gas and diesel engines. The inherent variability of emissions controls on millions of small power plants alone means they will on average be less efficient and more polluting.
            Don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist through and through, I believe zero pollution is acceptable, but the fact is that on the scales we are discussing, a set amount of power - even from coal - is less polluting than the same amount from combustion engines.
            In the end, the only acceptable path to sustainability is solar - it's our only non-intermediary (direct) non-polluting power source, and we get more of it than we could possibly use for many, many years to come.
      • pdrap, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8Solar power, wind power, hydro power, geothermal, wave, or tidal power can all supply electricity to compress the air.
        This thing has the range to be a good city car. We can run trains between cities too, to make the majority of ground transport pollution free.
        • chijim70, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Yeah like my grandmother just went from Pa to Florida via auto train. You get on a train with your car and get dropped off with it. Pretty cool.
        • econojon, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1well, the thing, it is harder to plug in an electric car at a gas station. But most gas stations already have air compressors, so it makes the transition much easier!
      • Jason4000, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7You could stick a little man in the trunk with a bicycle pump.
        • bratterscain, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3I knew those Oompa Loompas I had locked up would be of some future use.
    • swordedge, on 01/05/2008, -10/+2snore, they have been doing this for decades. It is possible that they can get it to make economic sense in India but they make smart cars look big
      • williamdyer, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5I think you were confused by the phrase "Show me your pneumatic tatas."
    • JettaMan, on 01/05/2008, -6/+2Hello! Compressed air is not an energy source. It requires you to burn energy in order to compress the air in the first place. You can use a gasoline powered engine to compress it or an electric engine. Why do people pretend that something is more environmentally if it obfuscates the original energy source?
      • Vorin, on 01/05/2008, -1/+31.nice use of obfuscates.
        2. since it runs on compressed air, the mechanisms used to drive it will be cheaper to produce than the electric drive train, plus, compressed air is fairly easy to come by, and would expand our options in refueling for greener possibilities, i.e, solar/wind-powered compressors
        • yaddayaddayoda, on 01/05/2008, -2/+3I myself have developed a car that runs on antimatter. There is a small problem with getting the fuel however...
        • JettaMan, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Vorin, I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, if they can develop this technology on their own through investments by good people like yourself, great. If they need to con some idiot bureaucrat for government grants, that is not great because they are stealing my tax money without my consent.
    • loganarcher, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4and to think I thought it was just a lot of hot air...
    • klick37, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1Not really. Unless you have a degree in pumping air tanks full by hand, you're going to use gas compressors or electric compressors (and the electricity comes from gas, presumably). It's kinda neat, but not all that great.. And it's ugly.
      • metalwolf, on 01/06/2008, -0/+0If you plug it into a wall outlet it is the exact same power that your TV, radio, or computer is powered with. If You think it is bad to use electricity to power a part or a whole car then stop using your computer, Thats bad too.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Somebodies about to get murdered....

      Remember The car that ran on water? Nikola Tesla? The Steorn guys? Let's just accept that we will never make it to the stars and never escape pollution and expensive utilities/ordinances/food/life and productivity necessities
      • noodhoog, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Oh noes! Steorn really DID have an overunity machine, but teh illuminatis sabotaged their demo so they'd look like a bunch of clueless morons and nobody would believe them. It's all true! *puts on foil hat*
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1We don't wear tin foil anymore, we sport rubber now pal. Get ready for the future synthetic fiber hats...iindestructible... We're gonna make a fortune...
    • rhinopig, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1From: http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2007/ ...

      "The MiniC.A.T is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued not welded and a body of fibreglass. The heart of the electronic and communication system on the car is a computer offering an array of information reports that extends well beyond the speed of the vehicle, and is built to integrate with external systems and almost anything you could dream of, starting with voice recognition, internet connectivity, GSM telephone connectivity, a GPS guidance system, fleet management systems, emergency systems, and of course every form of digital entertainment. ... the vehicle's wireless control system. Microcontrollers are used in every device in the car, so one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, indicators etc There are no keys – just an access card which can be read by the car from your pocket. "

      So it's made of plastic, has a general purpose computer, and is entirely wireless. That sounds totally safe.
      (Seriously though, the car does look neat for experimenting with, just not primary car reliable or safe.)
    • scimitar91, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1Hope the buyers are tough because anyone seen driving this thing is sure to get their ass kicked. I'd rather drive a bug.
  • Jimmyb207, on 01/05/2008, -6/+33It's definitely about time something like this came around.I wonder when they will be available in the states?
    • absurdist, on 01/05/2008, -2/+30Given the US DOT's emphasis on making cars so safe you can drive into a brick wall at 120 MPH and not spill your drink, I would guess it'll be here just about the same time that killing frost happens in Hell.
    • SD70MACMAN, on 01/05/2008, -4/+30Sadly, if GM, Ford, and Exxon have their way; never.
    • teh_techie, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4Seeing as how Smart Cars are JUST making their US debut, it might be a little while away
      • sotopheavy, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1But smart cars look like crap.I know a guy who was thinking of setting up a smart car dealership 3 years ago. he didn't because he couldn't have sold more than 5 in the whole state at the time.
    • heavyd14, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9Yes, I'd like to see some more Tatas over here in the states.
      • bratterscain, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Go to a Hooters, you'll see plenty.
    • drdan, on 01/05/2008, -11/+2Never this is a hoax. $3 of compressed air to go 70mph and 125 miles? Please you must be brain dead
      • skinturtle, on 01/05/2008, -3/+5You must be an old geezer.
        Just to let you in on something here....we now these things called PC's...you know..the thing you typing on right now that can do way more than the mainframes of old would ever think about doing.

        Technology can be made smaller and powerful now. Welcome to 2008 friend.
        • JettaMan, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately you still need to apply basic physics laws to science.
      • WaltDismal, on 01/05/2008, -3/+3When I do the numbers, it doesn't seem right, Let's say the 'engine' has a very small displacement - it's going to be like a small motorcycle engine. The photo of the four-seater car is then ludicrous. If the engine displacement is large, then it requires a huge air tank to last. And let's say the car runs for 2 hours (120 min) on compressed air and the fill-up takes 5 minutes. Within fill-up time you have to transfer a large volume of air at 25x the end pressure used by the engine . SCUBA cylinders, for comparison, are maybe 2000 to 300 psi and hold 120 cu ft of air. My rough calcs show you could run a car for 10 minutes on that. So you'd need bigger tanks, higher pressures. The tanks will be heavy, taking energy too. All in all, compressed air seems very limited in in overall power, load carrying, and practicality. What happens when you run out of air on some lonely road - do you use a bicycle pump to refill the tank. Hah. No way. Maybe connect a politician with a rubber hose to tank.
      • DavidGX, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't real, idiot.
    • JettaMan, on 01/05/2008, -5/+4Here's a few quotes if you listen carefully: "It will..." "They hope..." "The engine will..." "After more development..." In other words, it doesn't do those impressive figures, those are all just pie in the sky figures to dupe bureaucrats. I bet they are seeking "government assistance" to develop this con... er, product.
    • kill3rguy, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0Sadly, this concept looks like it's been around since 2002. It's taken six years just to hear about the idea, how long will it take until this car is on our roads?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.st ...
  • bellow, on 01/05/2008, -23/+156I can't possibly think of a more important news story, why isn't this on the front page everywhere?
    Does anyone remember when America used to produce much of the world's great innovations and our main export WASN'T war?
    I'd love to see this country be great again.
    • Jimmyb207, on 01/05/2008, -3/+12You and me both bellow.
      • illegalcortex, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1"You and me both bellow."

        That sounds like some sort of proposition...
        • Jimmyb207, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1so which one are you, Beavis or Butthead?


          "That sounds like some sort of proposition...Heh heh heh heh"...............moron.
    • pugrat, on 01/05/2008, -4/+25I remember when "Made in the U.S.A." used to mean it was good quality. Days long gone, said sadly.
      • dopesick, on 01/05/2008, -2/+0+1 for ya
        We still manufacture the best war toys though. Oh and we had the "Air Jammer, Road Rammer"... It's an air powered vehicle..... *sarcastic laugh
      • Mellowman999, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4Not like "Made In China" is really comforting.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 01/05/2008, -1/+11One reason is that the same thing has hit the front page multiple times.
    • jwliv, on 01/05/2008, -6/+26Then get off your lazy ass and build one you dumbass. It's not the government's job to develop and export consumer goods, it's the work of entrepreneurs.
      • SatansSpatula, on 01/05/2008, -4/+18Er, this guy should be dugg up. He's right. Diggers like to sit around and exclaim how bad the US is, but never take any responsibility for it. Guess what, that's a big part of what's wrong with the US: an inability to take responsibility.
        • ChaosMotor, on 01/05/2008, -5/+11You can't expect people to take responsibility for things outside their influence, and the US political system has done a fantastic job of removing the common person from access to influence over American political and economic forces.

          Though I agree with you in theory - we are not ABLE to take responsibility because that responsibility is not given over to us by those who are in control. They ignore us and fight us and don't trust us to be responsible for anything, be it money, influence, or our own selves.
        • DestroyFascism, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Nanny states and so on....you know it...
    • ninetimes, on 01/05/2008, -0/+9Part of the problem with a lot of these things is that they aren't really "alternative power sources" like people tend to think. Compressing air is a method for storing energy. It's essentially the same as having an electric car running on batteries-- you still need a source of energy to "charge" the battery or the compressed air tank, either way.

      So the question here is, between this car and an electric car, what's easier to build and maintain, which is more efficient in terms of energy use? Which will be more reliable and practical? The only way that this is lower pollution than a normal electric car is if it's much more efficient. Well, and I guess there's also the issue of battery disposal.
      • DavidtheDuke, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4solar power + compressed air? isn't solar going to be cheaper than coal sooN? there you go...
        • ninetimes, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Let's assume for the sake of argument that solar power is a viable replacement for oil in terms of power sources. The question remains, which is the most effective and efficient solution:
          solar power + compressed air
          solar power + hydrogen
          solar power + battery

          It's not clear to me that compressed air is the best thing in that list.

        • geezor, on 01/05/2008, -3/+4all energy conversions have some byproducts (e.g. electricity -> light, using a light bulb, produces heat as a byproduct). Decompressing air, however, is an endothermic operation and therefore cools the area around it, i.e. it gains energy by sucking heat from the area around it. For places like India, this byproduct saves on the energy needed for an A/C. Compressing air, conversely, is exothermic and heats the area around it, but can be done at factories in cold climates. Thus, if we take earth's natural temperature gradient (hot climates / cold climates) into consideration, then compressed is even more energy-efficient than realized because its byproducts are not wasteful, the compressing action can heat up cold climates, and the decompressing action steals energy from excessively warm climates. It's very efficient! Partially untap the thermal energy in hot Indian summers!
        • SQLDigger, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Let's not forgot that not everybody lives in a place where there's constant sunshine . . . solar may be viable for some locales year-round, but certainly not all.
      • senatorpjt, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3Well, air compressors run on electricity, and being more than 100% efficient violates all kinds of laws of physics. So, it's less efficient than an electric car.
        • screensnot, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Batteries are 100% efficient?

          Which weighs more (therefore reducing the efficiency of the vehicle it's in), a tank of compressed air, or a battery pack?

          There are a few more factors you should consider, I'm sure.
      • DestroyFascism, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Batteries of all kinds can be (should be) recycled. An electric car running on 300 laptop batteries (per say) should be reliable for 3 years before you need to replace them with,,,,recycled batteries...
        An electric car with a hood, roof, trunk skinned with Polyvoltaics would charge itself while you work, would travel up to (at least now) 500kl and do 0 to 100 and back in 10 seconds...The car should be 100% recyclable, if not then it should not be sold...
      • unitedstatians, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1"Which is more efficient in terms of energy use?" maybe a water powered , human powered, rubber powered, hydrogen powered vehicle, etcetera. Why box yourselves in and offer only two alternatives energy sources? what about even solar and electricity?
    • UltraPenguinX, on 01/05/2008, -9/+1in before RON PAUL 08
    • mrgreen4242, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4It's not on the front page because this is last years news. I've been reading about various air powered cars for at least a year, if not two.
    • bowe, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2Shouldn't be on the front page. It's been there many times before, submitter must have known it was a dupe.
    • Naryuu, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4its not on the front page because "oil barrels now hitting $100" is...
    • dickenshit, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Eaaasy bellow.
    • khyberkitsune, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1It's not on the front page because it was front page news TWO YEARS AGO ON SLASHDOT.
  • jasonroeber, on 01/05/2008, -5/+25I've been watching this company for about 5 years now and am really happy to see that they are still in business. The Economist Magazine has been reporting on it for years.
    The last I read Tata, who is now considering purchasing Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford is planning on building them for the India market.

    I want one now! Why not sell it as a motorcycle class vehicle so that it doesn't require passing the crash tests of a regular car. It's all I need to get to and from work.

    BTW, it's exhaust air is cooled because it expands and is routed through the passenger cabin for AC. Just what I need for the hot Texas summers! It's a really cool car.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 01/05/2008, -15/+5It is a dumb car. The reason why oil/gas is so great is that there is a large amount of energy in it. Compressed air will need HEAVY shielded tanks to protect the occupants. And, it must be sured well so that if a rupture occurs, the tank doesn't kill the occupants or others. Really, it is completely impractical.
      • axcess99, on 01/05/2008, -0/+17Cause gasoline isn't at all dangerous in a car accident.
      • Brasky, on 01/05/2008, -2/+25Why do stupid people think compressed air blows up? It shoots out and gets cold from the expansion, thats it. The tank isn't going to explode in a crash, it will crack and the air will come out. Lets be less dramatic here.
        • nosecohn, on 01/05/2008, -1/+20"Why do stupid people think compressed air blows up?"

          Because of Jaws.
      • lemz, on 01/05/2008, -0/+11almost as impractical as sitting on 40 litres of fammable explosives... yet, here we are... if i had to chose, id say exploding air container over exploding gas tank.
        • schnikies79, on 01/05/2008, -7/+4Not me. Fuel tanks need a flame/spark to ignite and the tank can be ruptured without an explosion.

          With compressed anything, if the pressure is high enough, a tank rupture can result in an explosion.
        • axcess99, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7check the faq http://www.theaircar.com/faq.html

          The tanks crack, not explode. It would leak in a quick and noisy, but safe manner.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Well, I suggest you stay away from a paint ball field then. I mean, there's compressed air all over at those places! I'm sure that your baseless fears will be vindicated when paint ball stops consistently being the statistically safest sport you can play.
      • ChaosMotor, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Realistically neither the air nor the gas would explode in a collision. Gas requires pressurization and vaporization to explode, a ruptured tank provides neither; the will burn at most. Air would require a fuel source to explode, which it would not have, ergo it would release in a high pressure discharge.

        Finally, compressed air tanks are fairly robust technology, ask any diver, paintballer, mechanic, or anyone else who deals with industrial quality air compressors.
        • boflaade, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1"Air would require a fuel source to explode"
          Actually it would be the fuel that explodes not the air.
      • DestroyFascism, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3You would think some people here watch Mythbusters. (The hollywood exploding car theory) Busted!
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3"I know, because I didn't do years of research and development. I didn't even bother Googling 'compressed air systems'!"
  • QuantumBios, on 01/05/2008, -4/+53I've always loved tatas
    • kevinwiz, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Ya, tata is not gonna fly in english countries
  • Error601, on 01/05/2008, -32/+9Yes, they've been running this scam for a very long time. It depends on people having money yet no knowledge of physics and engineering.
    • thinman1189, on 01/05/2008, -2/+13Your post is much like your name
    • ZeroXMD, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3hmm, i can't figure out which you are. A complete idiot in every sense or someone who works for oil companies. Because both are very viable depending on your name and what you said. THERE ACTUALLY IS OTHER WAYS OF FUELING AN AUTOMOBILE BESIDES OIL!!!! Watch Who Killed the Electric Car and reformat your brain, it's virus and idiocy ridden.
  • Depthfunction, on 01/05/2008, -19/+36Compressed air car prototypes have been around for a while. They really would be the best possible solution for powering automobiles, but the big oil companies will never allow it to happen. With other alternative forms of energy: ethanol, hydrogen, etc., the oil companies can still get in on the action, but if compressed air were used universally, the oil companies would be run out of business. They know it and so this technology will never be available in the US.

    Look for Cheney and Bush to add Tata Motors to the list of international terrorist organizations if this deal with France takes off.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 01/05/2008, -5/+21It still takes energy to compress the air. And, it really isn't an alternative form of energy.
      • nreynolds, on 01/05/2008, -3/+16you could get your own solar cell to power an air compressor, then just fill up whenever you need it.
        • Synapse84, on 01/05/2008, -1/+16or you can get one of those foot pumps for air mattresses!
        • axcess99, on 01/05/2008, -6/+2They already tried this. From the FAQ:

          Is it possible to use solar energy to compress the air while driving?
          Unfortunately, nowadays solar panels are not yet efficient enough to make them useful to use in our cars. With today´s high-end technology, a solar panel of almost 50 sq. m. is necessary to provide with enough energy to a compressor, in order to "auto refill" the car.
        • Dumbledorito, on 01/05/2008, -1/+6@axcess99: Not IN the car. You use the solar panels to run your compressor at HOME, probably with a storage battery to build up sufficient charge.
      • nosecohn, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Well, if they're only charging $3 for a fill-up that'll get you 125 miles, it can't take THAT much energy.
        • Hosalabad, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3Well think of it as 30kwh or something that uses 30000 watts for 1 hour.
          Summer electrical rates of 10/cents a kwh would bring you about 30kwh to get $3.
    • OffPiste, on 01/05/2008, -17/+3Man liberals are stupid.
      • Travelsonic, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3Partisan hacks are even stupider.
      • VinceNoir, on 01/05/2008, -2/+4Man neocons are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, worthless wastes of air. Unlike this car. I say we jail one neocon per air powered car, In an airtight glass box... dickweed.
      • BahJayJay, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6What about woman liberals? Haha, get it? Get it? Nudge.
    • cwcentral, on 01/05/2008, -8/+2Why do you think Pakistan is in turmoil currently? Tata needs to make more miltary goods (or buy them from western nations (HINT)) to protect themselves from the turmoil VS. building fuel efficient cars for the world...
      • ramprasadh, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Who's the genius who dugg this up? How is Pakistan being in turmoil related to a company that has been associated with its neighbor, India for the better half of the past century??
        Please take a minute and try to explain. I am curious..
    • chedabob, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Open source the technology, and let people build their own systems. Big oil companies can't make it "disappear" if all the specifications are in the public domain.
  • sriel, on 01/05/2008, -2/+36Pollution-free, no...
    Simple and efficient, yes!
    • teh_techie, on 01/05/2008, -0/+11I was about to say... that unless the power used to run the air compressors is truly green power, it's not pollution free... just lower OVERALL emissions.
      • spetsacdc, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6It would be a lot easier to make the refueling stations green than every car. I'm sure the technology exists to power an air compressor with minimal pollution (such as solar power). Way more practical than putting solar panels actually on cars.
        • Rammsteined, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5There's a lot of room on the roof of your average petrol station, put the solar panels there.
        • Anand999, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Heck, if you live in a windy place, have a wind turbine that directly turns a compressor to fill your air tanks for your fueling station.

          Even if it doesn't do away with pollution altogether, it's a great start. I think as long as the "end users", in this case cars, run on a pollution free and renewable fuel, you can make changes upstream without affecting them. For now the air compressors that fuel the cars are run by coal power plants, etc. but when/if fusion becomes a practical source of energy, they'll be powered by fusion power plants without requiring anybody to upgrade their car.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 01/05/2008, -2/+15Try this link from 275 days ago.
    http://www.theaircar.com/MiniCats.html
    • slythfox, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4So sad. It's been featured in several magazines before it ever appeared on Digg's homepage. As much as I like Digg, it's quite annoying how some good stories never make it to the frontpage, or anywhere near...
      Such an amazing car, though. I believe it uses a carbon fiber material for the tanks so that they crack on impact, rather than exploding.
      • WaltDismal, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1People overlook that, if a high-pressure tank is ruptured it behaves just like a jet. You may not get blown up in an accident, but you might end up on top of a building.
    • SatansSpatula, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Articulated connecting rods (as are prominently featured on that site's tech page) pop up every 20 years or so. They never play out, though. The additional friction and fragility prevent them from succeeding.
    • ep53, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0I am currently living in Cannes which is about 20 mins from Nice (Headquaters) and dont need a big car for poodling around in. Thanks for the link, i will be looking into it.
  • iamdan1, on 01/05/2008, -0/+46They should be available in Washington D.C, lots of hot air there.
  • redxninja, on 01/05/2008, -9/+6Compressed CO2?
    • xMedic, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen sulfide.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Compressed CO2 turns to liquid, and gets really cold as it evaporates. Although it is easier to compress CO2, it 's energy density (amount of energy able to be stored per mass) is smaller than compressed air or nitrogen. it's like the difference between an alkaline battery and a lithium battery.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Wow! I understood you! TAKE THAT AMERICAN EDUCATION SYSTEM!
    • KillaJazzBass, on 01/05/2008, -4/+2Good idea, find another way to pump CO2 into the atmosphere..?
      • enri, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1As long as they are collecting the CO2 from the air then it is neutral.
  • SIRBERUS, on 01/05/2008, -2/+22I guess I will do the obligatory reply for this one....

    "So how much pollution is made from the places compressing the air to go in the vehicles."

    or

    "How much energy is required to compress the air for the vehicles."

    Your choice =)
    • Lowrads, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Depends on whether the vehicle drivers also operate an on-board, gasoline powered, air compressor. Aside from that, they'll probably be coal powered, except in Europe, where it will predominantly be nuclear.
    • Chucara, on 01/05/2008, -2/+8Well.. I'm willing to speculate that less pollution is generated even by coal power plants to compress air than is wasted in a combustion engine with an efficiency of less than 30% on a good day.

      Question is: Will this actually have enough power to be useful?
      If it does (which I am very skeptical about), the next step is to start building windmills to generate power for compressed air and tada - car pollution solved. (I'll just ignore the costs of building enough windmills at the moment)
    • VinceNoir, on 01/05/2008, -8/+3Ineffective argument. It's merely hair splitting to try and protect the status quo. Personally, I say kill the oil business globally and make all petroleum based cars illegal under penalty of serial limb amputation for each infraction. (Males have an extra limb but it probably doesn't much matter since the loss of their car will be a double damage hit for them when they lose that limb)
      • SIRBERUS, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3Kill the oil business? But then how will all those air pumps fill all those pollutionless-vehicles?

        Or would you rather hand the crown of monopoly over to the coal industry? I'm sure they won't take advantage of us like those mean ol' oil tycoons.

        Seriously though, scroll down to Apocone's post... it is quite nice.
      • thailand1972, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1I'm very sure there's a LOT less energy required to run a fuelling station than there is to run all the cars it fuels up.
        • thailand1972, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1what I should say is: less pollution to running a fuelling station than running all the cars it fuels up with compressed air.
          • SIRBERUS, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1not necessarily. It all comes down the the efficiency of the end result.
    • ZeroXMD, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1it doesn't matter because the pollution from the plants and places that compress air will not change and is here right now. Take away all of the cars in the world that run on gas and you will see enough of a drop from that alone to make up for any extra (which there won't be) from the plants. They used that exact same bs excuse on the Electric car, so don't buy that crap about "well the pollution will just come from somewhere else" because, Guess what people, it won't change because the amount of pollution will be the exact same as it is now from the plants and air compressors. Why would you want to defend the Energy Monopoly holders?
  • thinman1189, on 01/05/2008, -2/+9This isn't new, it's been featured on many a Discovery/Science Channel documentaries on "cool fuel". And uh, wasn't their update that they made a deal with Tata Motors posted on Digg months ago? Attention for this is also good but way to be tardy.
  • santiago1, on 01/05/2008, -14/+9 Instead of having to stop to refill the compressed air, why not build in a small compressor that is driven by the rotating wheels?
    • sportbikepilot, on 01/05/2008, -1/+43perpetual motion no worky
      • thebellmaster1x, on 01/05/2008, -7/+3Granted, yes, but if it used air from the atmosphere, couldn't it be classified as an open system?
        Either way, that damn second law gets in the way of everything.
        • SQLDigger, on 01/05/2008, -3/+3I'm not sure I understand you. How does, "A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law" conflict with a notion of perpetual motion?
          • thebellmaster1x, on 01/05/2008, -3/+4Second Law of Thermodynamics.
            Not Robotics.
      • nosecohn, on 01/05/2008, -4/+4LOL! Something about that just strikes me as hilarious.
    • thinman1189, on 01/05/2008, -1/+5Solar panels on the roof *should* make up for any lost energy, but it would probably still require some fuel up. And while it's a great idea, it would make the car heavier and therefore require more energy. Unless there are compressors that can put out that amount of air and not way a ton, I don't think it will work. Keep in mind the industrial sized units they would have at refilling stations only take a couple of minutes to work, but the home units take hours. If that's any indication of portability of the compressors, I don't think it would work.
      • SatansSpatula, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1Uh... There is no way in hell that there is enough square footage on a car roof to house solar panels sufficient to power a practical passenger car down the highway. That requires several horsepower, just to maintain a reasonable speed.
      • nosecohn, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1Here's an idea... How about a big scoop in front, shaped kind of like a speaker horn. During normal driving, it could be covered by a lightweight flap. But when you apply the brakes at high speed, the flap would open, introducing drag and "scooping" air into a valve or reduction turbine, forcing more air into the tank. Voila! Regenerative braking aerodynamic style.

        • MacEnvy, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Are you suggesting we mount a Star Trek-style deflector shield on the front of all cars? Awesome, I'm in.
    • eviljim, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Because that would reduce the forward motion of the car, so you'd have to use more energy to push the car forward.
    • active1x0, on 01/05/2008, -3/+2Aside from the work to turn the wheels and accelerate the car, you lose most of a car's energy through friction in all the various belts, gears, etc present in any vehicle. There will always be friction, and consequently a negative return of energy. So you could build in a small compressor, but the energy would eventually run out. You'd just be prolonging the time it takes to run out of energy.

      Also, compressors are notoriously energy-inefficient. Gas mileage in your car can go down, I believe, as much as 50% just from running the compressor necessary for A/C.
      • SatansSpatula, on 01/05/2008, -4/+4No you don't. "Aside from the work to to turn the wheels and accelerate the car," which I take to mean "accelerate", the vast majority of your energy is going to fighting air resistance, which builds exponentially with speed.
        And mileage does NOT go down by 50% by running your A/C compressor... Christ, where the hell are you pulling these random numbers? Admit it, you're in middle school, aren't you?!
      • active1x0, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3Not really. Turning the wheels means fighting whatever forces are slowing down the car, which includes air resistance. Aside from any energy spent making the car go forward, the rest is lost to turning ***** like air compressors for the A/C or battery, or hydraulics for brakes. And I looked it up, it's more like 20% loss in fuel efficiency with A/C on.

        But really, you are so much better than me. Please continue to be an *****, we all appreciate your services.
        • NormalVisual, on 01/05/2008, -1/+0The numbers you looked up don't jive with real-life experience. If the A/C makes a difference of 20%, then I should see a corresponding drop in mileage during the summertime vs. the winter, everything else being equal. There *is* a difference, but it's closer to 5% than 20%.
    • sixsidepentagon, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Isn't that what a hybrid does?
      • Vorin, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3kinda, with a hybrid, instead of applying brake pads (exchanging the motion of the disc/drum for heat via friction) it engages electric generators that use that energy no power batteries/capacitors that are on board.
    • teh_techie, on 01/05/2008, -2/+2You didn't really think before you posted that, did you? Nice idea... but if perpetual motion were possible, then we'd be MUCH further ahead in technology than where we are...
    • ChaosMotor, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4No, people, he has a point, as long as it only recovered energy during braking, not only would it reduce braking costs (longterm material costs to maintain the braking system eg pads, rotors, and calipers) but you could use that to regenerate pressurized air, reducing your overall operating costs... but only fractionally, and it's the same concept that Ford tested on their F150s for compressed air regenerative braking, not to mention what hybrids often do right now, only storing the electricity instead of using it to recompress air.
      • bigmike7, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1I don't think he had any concept of regenerative braking. He meant, the compressed air pushes you forward, now your forward motion runs a compressor, which pushes you forward, which means more compressed air, forever and ever.
    • charliethehawk, on 01/05/2008, -1/+0conservation of energy FTW.
    • lougoose, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1It's a nice thought, but won't work. Although, here's my idea. While the car is running on air, it charges a battery. This battery can then be used as a starter to get the compressed air up and working. So on and so forth.
      • cromptonenator, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4I don't think you'll need much of an electric motor to start this car. I would thought it was more the case of unscrewing a valve.
    • sschepis, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Perpetual Motion
  • SilverBlade2k, on 01/05/2008, -7/+10No gas? Perfect!....oh wait...the US and Canadian governments will probably put forward some laws to make this illegal anyways...
    • lougoose, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Not illegal...just very difficult to get, thanks to our wonderful lobbyists.
    • boflaade, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Canada has made it easier to buy econo cars. Why would Harper remove his mask now? It's too close to election.
  • sportbikepilot, on 01/05/2008, -3/+16nice... but here in Texass the retards all drive trucks and SUVs. you get hit in that little toy car, there would be little left of you but a red stain on the road. no thanks
    • BahJayJay, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3That's why you just get one of these air cars, and then outfit it like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
      • unpolloloco, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2cept that adding any additional weight will cause its max speed and range to decrease significantly
    • blackjack75, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Come on, if there were retards in Texas we'd know it.
  • nbx909, on 01/05/2008, -5/+10125 mi is a little short, but a great start.
    • lemz, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8you must have some really long commute.
    • njcarlos, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Well, I'm doing about 20 m/g in my Altima and paying close to $3/g... $3 for 125 m is ridiculous. A great start? Psshh
  • gharding, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8I thought that said "Revolutionary air can runs on compressed air". I was beginning to wonder what the non-revolutionary air cans used!
  • Richandler, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9This has been around for a while. The thing is like a tin box. Not that safe. If you would like to lift government safety regulations to get it to the market then by all means petition your representatives.
  • ApocOne, on 01/05/2008, -23/+121Uhm, I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but there's no conspiracy keeping products like this off the market. Think about it logically - Car's need energy to move, any energy. Thus, a car needs to be able to store energy to keep it moving over long distances. Storing compressed air is not optimal when compared to gasoline. This discussion was played over at Metafilter many times, so I'll just copy + paste:


    a) That car has been coming onto the market later this year for about ten years now.

    b) Since you'll compress the air with coal-generated electricity, the environmental benefits are marginal. (Note: If you are using solar power/nuclear/wind/geothermal this point is moot)

    c) Filling the tank is not an easy problem. It will have a tendency to either become extremely hot or extremely cold, depending on how it is filled. (Compressing air produces a lot of heat.)

    d) Running the car is not an easy problem. It will have a tendency to freeze up. (Letting air expand from a compressed state sucks in a lot of heat, or produces a lot of cold, depending on how you look at it.) If your engine is always at -10C, moisture from the air is going to freeze onto it and you'll have a giant ice block instead of an engine.

    e) Gasoline has something like 100 times the energy density of compressed air, so you'd need to carry 100 times as much compressed air to get similar cruising range in your car... Plus you've got to carry the tank itself. A car gas tank is made of thin steel and you can lift it with one hand. A 4500 psi air tank is HEAVY. The weight of the tank reduces the range of your vehicle.

    f) People are killed routinely by exploding truck tires (around 90 psi); do you really want to sit on a giant (see point e) 4500 psi air tank? Really?

    g) inefficiencies introduced by a non-isothermal compression and a non-isothermal expansion of the compressed air, meaning you have to burn more coal (or whatever) than you would otherwise.

    There you go, no miracle, no conspiracy.

    You guys are ***** thick sometimes, if there was a potential for money to be made it would be made. The oil companies can only kill-off the inventors of technologies, they can't stop competing technologies from hitting the market (no matter how much they lobby/try, the inherent greed in people will make any money-making venture come to fruition.)
    • Mellowman999, on 01/05/2008, -15/+7It always sucks to burst the bubble of those tiny little fools around you.
    • Vodd9, on 01/05/2008, -4/+12Thank you.
    • teh_techie, on 01/05/2008, -3/+6Think about that can of compressed air (or whatever chemical it is). When you spray it for a while, the can turns cold... cold enough to get FROSTY... Real world example you can pick up at your electronics or department store!
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/05/2008, -3/+4You are thinking of CO2. CO2 liquefies when you compress it and gets cold when it evaporates again.

        For the most part, you can't turn air into liquid. This is actually a good thing. It means you can compress it a lot, thereby storing more energy in it, without dealing with huge temperature changes associated with physical state changes.
        • unpolloloco, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3except for the fact that just the very act of reducing pressure reduces temperature per the equation PV=nRT
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily!

            You have 3 components on the right side of that equation. If P goes down and V stays the same it means that n * R * T must go down ....not that just T goes down.

            R is the ideal gas constant so it's not changing.
            T could very well go down but it does not have to
            n is the number of gas molecules. This IS DEFINITELY going down as you let the gas out of the container.
            According to PV = nRT it is theoretically possible for T to go up if you reduce n enough.
          • NormalVisual, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0Sure, if you could somehow reduce the number of gas molecules while keeping the pressure constant...
      • eOgas, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4So this is why compressed air powered tools always freeze right? The other guy is right, you're thinking of CO2. And the air inside of a compressor is a lot more compressed than in a tinly little can. Wouldn't you think that anything that run's on compressed air would freeze? I mean how can you even claim that this is true? Have you ever used a compressor? There are no chemicals. There is no nothing. It's just compressed air. And what comes out is...wait, AIR. And guess what, it's not cold.
        • boflaade, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3There goes the Diesel engine. All these years the compressed air in the cylinders, ignited the fuel. Now we have Digg scientists who say NO, the compressed air will get cold instead. All those engines will be abandoned now.
    • ametory, on 01/05/2008, -8/+33I hate to burst the bubble. But do you seriously think they did not consider these points. If you actually visited the theaircar.com website, they have a FAQ. Here are some info from there
      ---

      One of the most frequently asked questions is about the safety of the compressed air storage tanks. These tanks hold 90 cubic metres of air compressed to 300 bars. Many people ask whether this system is dangerous in case of an accident and if there is a risk of explosion. The answer is NO. Why? Because these are the same tanks used to carry the liquid gas used by buses for public transport. The tanks enjoy the same technology developed to contain natural gas. They are designed and officially approved to carry an explosive product: methane gas.

      In the case of a major accident, where the tanks are ruptured, they would not explode since they are not metal. Instead they would crack, as they are made of carbon fibre. An elongated crack would appear in the tank, without exploding, and the air would simply escape, producing a loud but harmless noise. Of course, since this technology is licenced to transport an inflammable and explosive gas (Natural gas), it is perfectly capable inoffensive and non-flammable air.

      It is fitting, therefore, that MDI has reached an agreement with the European leader in aerospace technology Airbus Industries for the manufacture of the compressed air storage tanks. With a remote supervision arrangement, Airbus Industries oversees the making of the storage tanks at each MDI factory. The coiled carbon fibre technology used in the construction of the tanks is complex and requires a substantial quality control process which the multinational company, home of the Airbus aircraft, will provide for our vehicles.
      • SatansSpatula, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3The elongated crack is the key here. All that air escaping through a pinhole would be a terror. But through a pretty large opening, it's really not such a big deal.
        As a counter-example, an old coworker was involved in submarine production. Part of the regular testing of the door seals was to pressurize the internals to only a few PSI over atmospheric pressure. When something failed, however, the results could be spectacular. A few pounds per square inches, over a large number of inches, adds up to a lot of force pushing outward on one large, but discrete component. When those doors blew off, they came at you *fast*.
        • Vorin, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1..but that's water pressure vs. a few psi over 1 atmosphere, not pressurized air vs. 1 atmosphere.
          plus, the quote from the site said loud, but not immediately harmful.
        • karel747, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Mythbusters took on that whole deal with compression, etc, and found the exact opposite of what you said: A bullet hole in an aircraft fuselage would not cause explosive decompression, but a large-sized hole would.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2I'm no fan of mythbusters...
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/05/2008, -4/+7I don't buy that the tanks are as safe as you think in the event of a rupture.

        Think about it this way. The car can go 125 miles with a top speed of 70 mph. That means there is about enough energy in the tank to keep the car going 70 mph for about an 1 hour and 45 minutes.

        Now imagine that instead of releasing the energy over the course of 1 hour and 45 minutes, a rupture occurs and you release it over the course of a few seconds. If this is just compressed air, then it will not be flammable, but it will turn essentially into a rocket. It might not be as aerodynamic as a traditional rocket, but it will have the same kind of effect. A huge amount of high pressure gas escaping at very high velocity.

        This is very different than natural gas who's energy is mostly stored as chemical energy that is released via combustion. Compressed air has ALL of it's energy stored by means of pressurization. It doesn't need to be oxidized to create the high pressure needed to release the energy, all you have to do is let it out.

        I don't know the exact size of the tank or the psi that the air is stored at, but I would not be surprised if this fiberglass (what sail planes are made of) car can't get airborne if a rupture of the right size happens in the right place.
        • metalwolf, on 01/06/2008, -0/+0Well at least the NASCAR fan boys will get some fun watching a car flip, but honestly what is the chance of it occurring in the exact spot for that to happened?
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1I don't know what are the chances of it happening in a place to cause the car to get airborne,

            A crack anywhere if it is big enough will exert a huge force on the car in the opposite direction. If the crack is not in line with he center of gravity of the car, then it will cause the car to spin (pretty violently). I am imagining something like letting the air out of a balloon happening. That is an object with semi random direction, but with much higher velocity and destruction.
      • playaj20008, on 01/05/2008, -4/+2For some reason I think you are wrong.
    • Biks, on 01/05/2008, -2/+3You mean...the dental association ISN'T preventing the magical one-time application of a secret chemical which will prevent tooth decay for the rest of your life? (just to keep the dental profession in business?) God damn it.
    • ADAGUY, on 01/05/2008, -6/+8YOU are the dumb one. This car was on 60 minutes about a month ago. You are wrong on every count. The fuel tank is non-explosive. Don't ask me how they did it, but is non explosive. The air compressor that pumps this dude up to the 4500 lbs of pressure comes with the car, and it uses about 1.50 worth of electricity to recharge the tank. The company also came out with a different model whihc has a built in air compressor. and an optional battery powered motor. When you run out of air, you turn on the battery powered motor and the car continues to go down the road, charging the tank at the same time!
      • Hollic, on 01/05/2008, -4/+4Good work there. "Don't ask me how they did it." Oh, but I am. You don't know? Shut up then.
        • eOgas, on 01/05/2008, -4/+3It's because the tank is not made out of metal. It's made out of carbon fiber...douche. Yeah, who's shutting up now? Why don't you read up on something before you decide to be an all knowing ***** about it.
          • Hollic, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1As I understand it, a carbon fiber tank is especially subject to tearing compared to a steel/alloy tank rupturing. My point, you pompous prick, is that it's not a good solution to simply say "it will be fine" without a lot more data to back it up.

            Care to take a guess how many gas tanks explode in cars? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't happen. The tanks are made explicitly to expand with heat, so they rupture and start on fire. Explosions happen when pressure builds up. The tanks don't let that happen. Thanks for playing.
        • Akaricloud, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3@ e0gas.

          So because its made out of carbon fiber it doesn't explode? Thank you! that answers all the questions. Except for of course, why it is that carbon fiber doesn't cause explosive decompression when ruptured.
          • axcess99, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3Because carbon fiber "tears", it does not "shatter".
            Shattering would release tiny bits of shrapnel in every direction as it releases all the air at once.
            But tearing: it just develops a single large crack that lets the air whoosh out in a loud but "controlled" manner.
    • donutwant, on 01/05/2008, -1/+6Your points are valid but you're not considering how technology could improve the safety and efficiency of the system. For example, the problem of moisture in the system freezing could be solved with an air dryer. Heavy trucks use them on their air brake systems which suffer from the same problem. Air tanks could be designed with a failure mode that directs the compresses air downwards. That would still be dangerous and probably blast the car into the air but that's relative compared to the benefits the system might offer in certain circumstances and the dangers of gasoline vehicles. In any case you're right that the market will sort it out.
      • boflaade, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1At last! Trucks used compressed air for brakes for decades. I have never heard of them exploding. Truckers also transport air bottles. Two dangerous are involved: (1)Air contributes to combustion and can't be carried with combustibles (2) safety valves have to be protected from being knocked off, because of problems with the air being released at great pressure.
      • ApocOne, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0Correct, but you haven't considered many of the other points, some which can't be changed. What about the low energy density of compressed air? You can't change the nature of the air. Maybe if we ran out of every other option in the world to fuel our cars, but that hasn't happened yet. We have, and can find better alternatives.
    • Elliuotatar, on 01/05/2008, -2/+7Why not power a car with dry ice instead?

      I'm no physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell from what I'm reading on wikipedia, CO2 gas takes up about 808x as much space as solid CO2.

      Now atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI. So if you just filled an unsealed tank with CO2 gas it would be 14.7 PSI in there.

      So, if you filled that tank instead with dry ice, then you'd be storing the equivalent of 808x as much gas, which would be the quivalent of nearly 12,000 PSI.

      And because dry ice takes time to sublime from solid into gas, then you would maybe not even need a tank with a very high pressure to hold it since you could just let the excess bleed off, and your tank of fuel would still last the day. Or maybe pressurizing the tank, or keeping it cooled would allow you to prevent it from subliming for several days. I'm not sure.

      But it seems to me that dry ice would be a much better solution than compressed air. No super high pressure tanks, you can fill up in seconds, you have a ton more range, and you maybe wouldn't lose pressure as the fuel runs out because you'd be constantly repressurzing a smaller tank.

      Is this idea crazy?
      • playaj20008, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3I don't know who dugg you down but I thought I'd put you back up there because your points are very valid. I too often theorize about power with dry ice or even vacuum energy from space. Some would call me crazy. I prefer stoned.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1compressed air has a much higher energy density than compressed co2.

        The fact that CO2 compresses so easily (with not that much energy) also means that it doesn't give you that much energy back when it turns back to a gas.

        Compressed gases that are not flammable work exactly like batteries. You can't get more energy out than you put in. The only variables you can change between different gases is the volume and mass per unit energy. Ideally you want a gas that you can pack as much energy into as possible with the fewest particles possible.

        Compressed air is good because it is HARD to compress. That means it takes more energy to compress, and that you get more energy back when you allow it to decompress.
        • Elliuotatar, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1How do you tell how hard a gas is to compress? Since air is 78% nitrogen, then is it the nitrogen which is harder to compress? And is that why it's also colder than compressed CO2 even when it's only in liquid form? And oxygen... Is that harder still than nitrogen to compress?

          Also I don't really get how compressing gasses works. When you compress a gas, it gets hotter. But then to make dry ice, you lower the pressure quickly to make the remaining CO2's temperature drop. So then the dry ice is cold. But does it have low energy because it's cold and a solid now? Or is there potential energy stored in there which just happens to not be that much?

          I wish I didn't forget everything I learned in physics class!
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2I am not a physicist or a chemist either. I just took a few under grad science classes in college.

            But here goes my explanation.

            CO2 actually changes state relatively easily when you compress it. Air by contrast is extremely resistant to state change, more so than the sum of it's components, and also because it is made up of a bunch of different stuff.

            Once CO2 is not a gas, it is no longer compressible. (You can not stuff any more energy into it).

            Since air does not change to a liquid easily even under extremely low temperature and high pressure, you can keep compressing it and putting more and more energy into it. This also means that the pressure gets higher and higher, and that you need stronger and stronger containers to hold it.

            This is why compressed air tanks are typically rated for much higher psi than compressed CO2 tanks.
        • ApocOne, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1How do you get more energy back when you allow it to decompress? You are contradicting yourself.

          If you were to get more energy back when you allow it to decompress you would have over 100% efficiency, which is not currently possible (because then you'd also have a perpetual motion machine and the worlds energy problems would be solved!). You get less energy back, obviously. Energy input is always greater than energy output. You need energy to compress the air, but even transfering ALL the energy put into compressing the air into something viable/useable (i.e. kinetic energy for pumping pistons) cannot happen because energy is "lost" (actually just transfered elsewhere) in this transfer process. So yeah, you are wrong.
      • quraid, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2technic ally you are correct. but you seem to be forgetting the important reason for the air car:
        cutting down on greenhouse gases and specifically CO2. using the expansiuon of CO2 to power cars will be much more ruinous than burning fossil fuels and defeaat the very purpose of using alternate fuels in the first place.
        • Akaricloud, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Not to mention it takes ALOT more energy to turn gas c02 to its dry ice state then it does to compress air, and that extra energy means more coal burning.
        • Elliuotatar, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Uh, if you extract the CO2 from the air, then putting it back into the air is going to have a net zero effect on the atmosphere. I know it sounds bad for the environment on first glance, but it wouldn't be.

          As for how much energy it takes to turn CO2 into ice vs compressing air, well, I don't know how efficient the conversion is but just because it takes more energy doesn't mean its less efficient if you get that same amount of energy back out.
    • balthisar, on 01/05/2008, -2/+4Good observations. I wonder where they get the compressed air so cheaply? In manufacturing, we're getting away from compressed air for everything, because it's so costly and inefficient versus electricity.
    • thailand1972, on 01/05/2008, -3/+6Dugg down for "***** thick" and thinking metafilter.com is somehow THE fount of knowledge on the internet.
      • ApocOne, on 01/10/2008, -1/+0Meh, "***** thick" was probably the wrong word but sometimes the lack of intelligence on the part of digg users frustrates me.

        As for metafilter, I never said it was. I just said that this discussion has been played out on metafilter on numerous occasions, so it was the easiest place for me to go to find the points that have been brought up before. I didn't mention metafilter in order to add any sort of credibility to the post, I added it because I did not want to take credit for the points I did not write. If I wanted to I could go into it deeply and provide you with citations, sources, etc. etc. from credible experts, but this isn't a formal essay and I'm not trying to sway the masses or anything. If you are really interested (as I was when I first heard about the technology), you can look it up and verify what I've said, or disprove what I've said, for yourself. I'm not going to spoon-feed you information.
    • cromptonenator, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Answer to d) About the engine freezing over, you are not thinking straight.
      Part of the reason why internal engines get so hot is because of the friction of the cylinder heads rubbing against the sides. So therefore the engine will probably just be slightly warm.
    • eOgas, on 01/05/2008, -1/+10Wow, what a douchebag. Not only are all your points wrong, but you've used the herd mindset of digg users to your advantage, in making people think what's false is true. Thanks to you, a bunch of idiots will read your crap and think regard it as fact simply because it has a lot of diggs. They will most likely not prod any deeper than your comment, or look at it with any bit of reason. This is exactly what the republican party does in promoting blind patriotism. I hope you're proud of yourself. If I wasn't a devout athiest, I would condemn you to a fiery death in hell. Go ***** yourself you piece of *****.
      • ApocOne, on 01/10/2008, -1/+0What the hell? Where did I "use the herd mindset". I just stated my opinion and what I know about the issue. I'm not trying to manipulate anyone, and I really have no reason to do so. Your hositlity is definetly misguided. I'm as eager as everyone else to find new, exciting, cheaper and more efficient ways of fueling our homes and cars. I am simply not convinced that compressed air is a viable solution.

        And, by the way, I'm an anarchist (or libertarian, but I don't want to get into a long discussion about how the existance of government is not pareto optimal), so your comparison to a neocon/republican/summer solider/sunshine patriot amuses me. In fact, it is pretty ***** hilarious.
    • tyywebb, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6And remember everyone, combustion engines actually have explosions inside them! Would you really want to be cruising around with something that explodes under your hood?
    • graeh, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-A3XHFT5qc
      Sheds some light on the specifics of how it's put together. For instance, the explosion risk is mitigated by carbon fibre air tanks which split, not explode like a steel tank.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8aZVLpf-c&feature ...
      Is the second part and demonstrates another air engine in Australia.
      • ApocOne, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0Interesting, I hadn't thought of this possibility. I'm always happy to see new innovations and people trying to rethink old ideas. There are still lots of issues which will prevent this technology from being viable in automobiles, but perhaps in another application that requires less energy density, the technology could prove to be useful.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Somebody burst this guys bubble for me, because I'm not smart enough...
    • illegalcortex, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3When I read all these comments, I just keep coming back to "but what about a tank of gasoline?" If we're talking about the potential for disastrous energy releases, a full tank of gasoline is kind of a big deal. As the original poster pointed out, it contains something like 100 times the energy of the compressed air. And since it's so light and dense, gasoline tanks are always going to hold far more potential energy than an air tank. No surprise that in crashes, exploding gasoline tanks can be a huge safety risk.

      So if we're comparing this miracle car of the future with the normal gasoline ones, let's leave off this silly criticism from the list from now on.
    • ApocOne, on 01/10/2008, -1/+0Guys, I really don't want to discuss this further. Most of you didn't really take time to debunk any of the points. Some of the points you raised were valid (increasing techonlogy making it safer, use of carbon fiber allows tank to tear/shatter less easily (although a tear isn't exactly "safe"), etc. etc.). There's a reason I didn't get into it and just copy and pasted, namely that there are SO many reasons that if I were to start getting into it I would of written a damn thesis.

      The most important issue here is energy density and size/weight of tank/of the car. Basically, compressed air is an inferior form of energy. That's all.
  • 10scott10, on 01/05/2008, -6/+9this is only big news, if they power the compressors to make compressed air using something other than fossil fuels.

    so basically you have created an electric car with an extra step between the powerplant and the car. YAY, inefficiency
    • axcess99, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8Same basic number of steps.
      Instead of storing the materials in heavy metal batteries which is converted into mechanical energy, it stores the mechanical energy as pressure. Do you think chemical batteries are 100% efficient or anything close to as eco-friendly as a metal tank? (not saying this is 100% efficient, it isn't)
  • sunrooms, on 01/05/2008, -4/+5very smart move indeed, taking constantly growing oil prices into consideration
    • sixsidepentagon, on 01/05/2008, -5/+2And how do you expect to compress the air?
      Really, this is just inefficiency in action.
      • donutwant, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Geothermal could run a stationary air compressor better than it could run a car ;)
  • urbandistrict, on 01/05/2008, -5/+6Very cool! Dugg for the future.
  • Mellowman999, on 01/05/2008, -8/+3Hold on, and AIR car...That runs on AIR...Humans acting, humanly...
  • arestme, on 01/05/2008, -7/+5I think this and other pollution-free cars are great. But it won't matter if i die the 1st time an SUV hits me. Feeling safe is #1 for me! I know anything can happen.
  • bingobongony, on 01/05/2008, -3/+5You know rawstory is getting desperate for the ad snese money when they continue to spam Digg even when they run out of wacko political articles.
  • Quintios, on 01/05/2008, -15/+9This is typical of Digg environmental articles. "Car runs on compressed air. Yay! This is the greatest thing ever! Air doesn't pollute! Oil companies and Bush are BAD. Ron Paul is the greatest thing evar! Huckabee sux! Big Oil will outlaw it! The government will never allow this thing to make it!" ad nauseum...

    Did you ever think about the energy required to compress the air?? That must come from magic dust and fairies, which are also known to not pollute. Of course! Compressors are not as efficient as other methods of storing energy; I hate to tell you all this, but there are better ways.

    Digg me down if you like, but all this is doing is storing energy from another source and is no different than an electric car. It's just getting "charged" with a different medium. This would NOT be the best solution for powering cars. Sitting on top of a highly compressed cylinder of ANY gas is not my idea of "safe". And for those of you that think cars blow up when they crash... Gas tanks blowing up/catching on fire are very very rare. Unless it's a Pinto. ;)
    • coinman987, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4and sitting on highly flammable chemical explosives is your idea of safe?
    • ametory, on 01/05/2008, -2/+5RTFA in thttp://www.theaircar.com. It answers about your "safety".
    • BigBallistix, on 01/05/2008, -2/+5"Digg me down if you like". OK.
    • AdamskiAirsoft, on 01/05/2008, -2/+3"Did you ever think about the energy required to compress the air?? That must come from magic dust and fairies, which are also known to not pollute. Of course! Compressors are not as efficient as other methods of storing energy; I hate to tell you all this, but there are better ways."

      Then go invent it. This is better than using gasoline. And you can use solar power, or geothermal power, or wind power, or hydro power, or something eco-friendly to compress the air.

      "Digg me down if you like, but all this is doing is storing energy from another source and is no different than an electric car. It's just getting "charged" with a different medium. This would NOT be the best solution for powering cars. Sitting on top of a highly compressed cylinder of ANY gas is not my idea of "safe". And for those of you that think cars blow up when they crash... Gas tanks blowing up/catching on fire are very very rare. Unless it's a Pinto. ;)"

      There is no best solution, and it's better than what we are currently using. And as for safety, social darwinism. Kill off a lot of dumb drivers.
      • Quintios, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1I don't need to invent it. It's already been invented. Electric cars would not exhibit the loss in efficiency observed converting that energy to compress air and then drive the car. Electric cars would skip the lossy compression step and simply apply the energy directly to the motor. Now, on the other hand, perhaps there are advantages for not having these large batteries in all these cars that would eventually need to be recycled, but there is a loss in energy during compression and the costs would need to be weighed.
    • Jareth86, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3You can compress air with a ***** bicycle pump. Honestly, its not all that power consuming.
      It doesn't take the 1.21 jigawatts you seem to be implying.
      • Quintios, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, and you'll have to pump that bicycle pump for 3 months to fill up the car. Please, engage the brain before you start typing. We'll all be better for it.

        You obviously have no clue as to what a compressor is, how efficient it is, or the costs per SCF to compress air. Sadly, your comment has been Dugg up, so there are other people out there as underinformed as you. Maybe this site is just fully of bored teenagers...
    • soulpiercer7, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1this IS an electric car. the only difference is that it stores the energy as compressed air rather than in a battery.Batteries are expensive, energy intensive to make, and are quite heavy. Carbon fiber air tanks are probably just as heavy but far more economical (in terms of energy consumed in their production and final cost).
      gas tanks catch on fire and stuff, when these rupture, they just crack and let the air come out. they don't explode like you might think. still not the ideal scenario but it's not that bad.
  • Brasky, on 01/05/2008, -3/+4Considering commercial large-scale compressors can be something like 85% efficient, this could be a good solution.
  • mal1964, on 01/05/2008, -7/+2Well that will make that old joke meaningless now .
    Why do Jews have big noses?
  • robflm256, on 01/05/2008, -2/+2http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news/companies/exx ...

    Once this stops, then maybe we can enjoy air-powered cars. But unfortunately, global Big-Wigs will do anything they can to keep us from using anything but regular old gasoline.
    :-)
  • ethereel, on 01/05/2008, -9/+4complete bs...
  • CheapDigWannbe, on 01/05/2008, -6/+8No matter how revolutionary the car, apart from improving performance it has to have up to standards design. Digg me down, but admit it would suck for safety, terrible for getting up to speed when entering a highway, and you would be ashamed to be seen sitting in what looks like one of those plastic children's car you know those... things: http://www.activetoy.co.uk/cms_images_products_2/6 ...
    At least the design can be improved, and acceleration too with a small electric engine for rear wheels and few fuel cells for acceleration purposes.
    • Biks, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Well if anyone is going to digg CheapDigWanabe down..then I want to be dugg down too. Just so I can feel like I'm giving the orders around here. :-/ (oh yea, and I'm not going to tell anyone why I dugg this story)
    • ripple123, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Why yes I think I will digg you down.
    • AdamskiAirsoft, on 01/05/2008, -2/+3You realize how retarded it must have looked to drive in a car when it first came out, when everyone else was walking or riding in a horse drawn w/e?
    • lefooey, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2This car, while perhaps revolutionary in its propulsion design, would not pass any safety standards in the U.S. or quite a few other countries. After you get done adding the necessary steel reinforcement for side impact collision, the TPMS systems and the dozens of airbags either mandated or plainly necessary, then the car would weigh too much to ever achieve the phenomenal efficiency that it implies it has. It's no conspiracy, but simply trade offs between weight (efficiency) and safety. These are the same problems plaguing hybrids and fully electric cars today.
  • xlar54, on 01/05/2008, -5/+4Whichever presidential candidate gets behind this idea gets my vote. Im sick of promises to "lower our dependency on foreign oil".. for the last 50 years thats all we've heard, and not a one of them has done a thing about it.
  • popothebright, on 01/05/2008, -3/+15Yawn. This was old news 5 years ago. There are problems -- massive ones -- with this technology. You can cling to your conspiracy theories if you like, but the reason this isn't being used isn't "big oil" killing the idea. The idea is deeply flawed (not to mention dangerous).
  • romistrub, on 01/05/2008, -3/+7lmao... I never expected the Digg userbase to be this dense! One question: how do you compress the gas?!
    • mal1964, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3the same way you do for scuba driving
    • AdamskiAirsoft, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Techniques that use geothermal power, wind power, solar power, hydro power, etc.

      L2Not Fail
    • axcess99, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Via energy from local power grid. Which is supplied via a) solar/wind/geo-thermal/hydro/nuclear power or b) coal power
      and guess what? large-scale power plants of any kind are MUCH more efficient and clean than a small internal-combustion engine (not to mention the additional cost/pollution of trucking gasoline around to every corner gas-station all the time).
    • SQLDigger, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2. . . the last comment explaining why it only costs $3.00 to go 125 miles . . . At last check my Impreza takes 5 gallons of gas to go that for. Will you sell me 5 gallons of premium for $3.00? Not that I would trade my Impreza for the pope-mobile even if Jesus himself was the chauffeur, but that is a pretty impressive number for something that effectively is running off of fossil fuels (in most locales, anyway). Clearly there are some places to go in the design, and public perception of their "right" to transportation . . . but it's still pretty clever, and the kind of clever innovation that makes this planet so ***** great once in a while.
      • festering1, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Well said. My gas car gets about 100 klms for 10 euro. This would be great for driving short distances, and sounds like it would suffer far less breakdowns than a hybrid. Overall, I think this is a great concept.
  • über, on 01/05/2008, -2/+2I have a question: What is compressing said air?
    • axcess99, on 01/05/2008, -0/+21)You don't think they thought of this? You're not even the first person to ask in THIS THREAD
      2) see above, use electricity-grid (small internal-combustion engines are much less efficient and more dirty than evan a coal plant)
  • Nebetsu, on 01/05/2008, -6/+1Well the French are good for something after all!
  • p51d007, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7What's next? Rubber Bands?
  • PhilThePhenom, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3The car looks pissed...
  • valdo, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6So can you pull over a bicyclist for a jump start?
  • JohnP, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5But how much power does it take to run the compressor? If it is more energy efficient than hydrogen then i think we just bypassed the most overly engineered issue of our lifetime.

    Clean wind and solar electricity + This technology would pretty much save the planet while bypassing expensive R&D and production of hydrogen solutions.

    Also, want to add that tata is a pretty admirable company, i doubt i will feel the same if they move Jag development out of Coventry though.
    • OnipSemaj, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Even if it takes more power than gasoline can provide in specific energy output, that's really not the point. The intention is to provide a 100% clean alternative to fossil-fuel burning cars. Of course electric motor cars could do the same thing, but batteries wear out over time and are very difficult to maintain in the long run. I am sure companies will figure out a way to build more and more efficient compressors over time.
    • Nerys, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1PLUS since its ELECTRIC you can offset it with solar THE POINT is not so much to be CHEAPER than gas but to be CHEAPER TO ME than gas IE I can produce my own E I can NOT produce my own gasoline (practically) with 90cent a watt solar panels and grid tie in I just install a solar panel big enough to off set the amount of E I use to compress the air for the car. Problem Solved. 100% clean absolutely ZERO pollutionh and I drive for FREE after initial investment.

      While not not as cheap as the $1 per 100 miles of an EV till we get past the chevron patent or come up with something new THIS could work. STOP talking about it French company and sell me one dammit :-)
  • digitallysick, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2My car runs off of souls of the living......
    • blackjack75, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Good morning Mr. Cheney. I was sure the tech would interest you.
  • jhop, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4No one has addressed the fact that, even though you need energy to compress the air, this type of technology put into widespread use would consolidate energy generation and make it easier to regulate increased efficiencies. We'd be focusing on converting one whole coal power plant to sustainable tech, vs. 100,000 autos.

    Then again, the car would need to look good, not like a pile of *****. I really don't understand the F'd up designs that get publicized by some of these "green" rigs. Make it look like a Tahoe, Ultimate Aero, is300, or something legit. Sacrifice a few efficiency points.
    • kgarr, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0"Ugly" hybrids sell better than the regular models with hybrid engines. People who drive these type of vehicles want to be noticed for it.

      Smug Alert!
  • TheZorch, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3This was on Beyond Tomorrow on the Science Channel some time ago and I was pretty amazing. The tanks on the one they showed were made of Carbon Fiber so if they blew they'd just rip open rather than shoot shrapnel into the vehicle. They ran off compressed air and not on Compressed CO2. A Battery Powered compressor would keep the tank topped up when it started to get too low.
  • skunksmellnice, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0This is a fantastic idea. I'm curious about the power of the car.
  • BigBallistix, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3Can everyone please stop debating about whether or not "Big Wigs" could prevent this from being marketed successfully? There's such a thing as A Country Other Than the One You're Bitching From. You could just base the company in another country willing to co-operate, eventually you'd find one not willing to be bought-out. One that would look at the long term opportunities of being put on the map, solving their unemployment and generally improving relations with every single country that would want to import. And you'd be hard pressed to stop privatised importers. So I therefore confirm my self-confessed arrogance by claiming: ISSUE SOLVED.
  • GoatRoper, on 01/05/2008, -1/+5Considering it probably costs me $3 to just START my Suburban, I like this idea.
  • ryan83189, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5It's French, does it have a Presta valve?
  • joshuaer, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2The Free air at gas stations is starting to look even better! I would drive one if they come to the usa
  • blackdude, on 01/05/2008, -3/+3Great tech but it's hideous. That's definately a chick repellant, looks like a throwback vw van :/.
    • KingGorilla, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3It looks like it belongs in the Pixar movie Cars
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.