Compressed Air Technology - Air Car

[Casio]

What is the viability in say, a home solar-powered compressor? Do we know a ballpark figure of how much power it takes to compress air to the pressure it needs to be? You can get those travel compressors that run off 12v car power, although they obviously wouldn't be suitable for the job of compressing large gas tanks to immense pressures.

...I assume a hand pump is out of the question.

 

[Grand Prix]

Right, and we would need more power to compress that air. DUR? You are ultimately going to spend the same amount of energy compressing the air as you would just running the car. So in fact, the AIR powered car would produce just as much pollution, remotely, as an electric car. Hate to burst your bubble.

*realization dawns*

Hmmm. The air car is crap! 💡

Yes, with less than a dozen incidents in the last 2 decades, none of which were serious by any measure. Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest power on the planet that can remotely meet our needs. Hydro is up there, but only in certain areas, like where I live. But your options for the near future are nuclear or coal. And coal is terrible for everything.

As extraordinary as the amounts of energy nuclear fission produces, I still don't trust it completely. I don't think anyone would. Maybe it's because I'm part Ukrainian?

Uranium isn't a renewable resource, however. In 2346 people could be wondering why the idiots from the 21st century were so daft as to rely on it... *snicker*

Solar efficiency isn't the issue. Its batteries that are the issue really. In fact, batteries are pretty much the only technology that hasn't followed Moore's law remotely.

Hmm, I wonder why that is?

 

[Alfaholic]

Here's an angle I rarely see considered. We're concentrating on power sources that pollute less. Why do we want to reduce pollution? Because it is, apparently, forcing a change of our weather by changing the equilibrium between the factors that control it. More or less. In short terms, we're upsetting a natural balance.

So what happens when you use solar, wind or hydro power instead? The law of conservation of energy states that the energy we use must come from somewhere else. Solar energy that we use to replace coal energy would have gone into heating the earth / ocean. So what happens when you remove all that energy from its particular natural cycle and reroute it into people's use? Something else goes out of balance. The continent cools slightly, or the air above the continent surface stops getting heated, changing a weather pattern, or whatever. If you take the energy out of the wind, once again you change a weather system. Take it out of the sea, you affect the balance of that natural system, and so on. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, from this angle, nuclear power proves to have the lowest environmental impact, since it's releasing energy that was otherwise relatively dormant.

I'm very worried that we'll fix the pollution issue and at the same time introduce some other problem, different and unexpected but maybe equally or more threatening.

I'm no scientist and don't have any data to show what effect shifting our major energy source from coal to, say, wind would be, but I am surprised that so much focus seems to be on pollution. I'm concerned that the real danger is in the amount of energy we use, and that where it comes from just alters the nature of the danger, but does not reduce it. I know that solar energy is not very efficient, and that's partly why it's fallen out of favour.

Perhaps we should be looking more at using less energy by improving the efficiency of energy conversion and usage, and just by being less energy in the first place. Be less consumptive.

Perhaps the problem is deeper, and it's one that few politicians will address... perhaps there are just too many people on the planet, and we'll be victims of our own success, just as happens to most species.

So what's this got to do with the air powered car? Well, perhaps the clue is not to make the car less polluting, but to either make it more efficient, or remove the need for transport.

 

[Grand Prix]

I never took it from that perspective before, Alfaholic. + Rep

Radiation is quite normal, and adding more of it to the environment probably wouldn't effect the climate too much. It would make people die sooner, but maybe with pollution levels reduced from more repulsive resources, it'll balance out?

That said, I do not want a Nuclear power plant in Vancouver. However, we could build a crap-load of them in the Arctic. Canada does have a lot of Uranium deposits, so it kind of makes sense for the country to do that. Problem is, we have too many skeptics like me living here.

 

[Azuremen]

Here's an angle I rarely see considered. We're concentrating on power sources that pollute less. Why do we want to reduce pollution? Because it is, apparently, forcing a change of our weather by changing the equilibrium between the factors that control it. More or less. In short terms, we're upsetting a natural balance.

So what happens when you use solar, wind or hydro power instead? The law of conservation of energy states that the energy we use must come from somewhere else. Solar energy that we use to replace coal energy would have gone into heating the earth / ocean. So what happens when you remove all that energy from its particular natural cycle and reroute it into people's use? Something else goes out of balance. The continent cools slightly, or the air above the continent surface stops getting heated, changing a weather pattern, or whatever. If you take the energy out of the wind, once again you change a weather system. Take it out of the sea, you affect the balance of that natural system, and so on. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, from this angle, nuclear power proves to have the lowest environmental impact, since it's releasing energy that was otherwise relatively dormant.

Well, here is the deal you are missing. Solar power comes from the sun. The energy still affects the earth system, just the radiation is collected to produce a photoelectric reaction. The surface of the planet still gets heated, and so on.

Water power, etc? That is all from gravity... and isn't really robbing the planet of a non renewable resource. The energy from water falling in areas is generally just lost when it collides back with itself... which it gets to do anyhow once passing through a dam. Tidal power would actually be drawing power from the moon-earth system combined, of which there is so much gravitational action we would be nothing but a speck of influence.

So, while yes, every energy source has to come from somewhere, Solar, Tidal, etc, tend to come from more immediate extra earth sources. In reality, power comes from two different sources on this planet. Gravity and the Sun. Well, a third if you consider nuclear I guess. Fossil fuels are more or less power from the sun (think about it).

So while your Jainism style view is certainly warm and fuzzy... its not quite thought out entirely.

 

[Grand Prix]

Water power, etc? That is all from gravity... and isn't really robbing the planet of a non renewable resource. The energy from water falling in areas is generally just lost when it collides back with itself... which it gets to do anyhow once passing through a dam. Tidal power would actually be drawing power from the moon-earth system combined, of which there is so much gravitational action we would be nothing but a speck of influence.

Tidal dams do kill a lot of marine life. Ideally, we should build dams at every river in the world. But then we have no more salmon, and salmon is delicious.

No, we should focus on nuclear fission, and if possible, nuclear fusion. But with fusion, we should only limit the hydrogen we can use to hydrocarbons we get from millions-years old tree sludge. If we start taking hydrogen from water for it that's gonna cause another problem in the distant future. So solar is the only viable option for the next few thousand years really. (Make that billion...) Even Dimetrodon harnessed solar power before we have... How embarrassing!

 

[Azuremen]

Tidal dams do kill a lot of marine life. Ideally, we should build dams at every river in the world. But then we have no more salmon, and salmon is delicious.

No, we should focus on nuclear fission, and if possible, nuclear fusion. But with fusion, we should only limit the hydrogen we can use to hydrocarbons we get from millions-years old tree sludge. If we start taking hydrogen from water for it that's gonna cause another problem in the distant future. So solar is the only viable option for the next few thousand years really. (Make that billion...) Even Dimetrodon harnessed solar power before we have... How embarrassing!

You do realize if we burn hydrogen... you get water back out? Its just another storage method for power, a battery of sorts. As for fusion reactions.. hydrogen is only the most abundant element in the universe. And overwhelmingly so.

Dams... river dams, have been shown to only impact about 10% of the salmon population. Whats killing the salmon off is the uncontrolled fishing in international waters at the end of the rivers.

Tidal dams may cause issues, but the buoy system that uses floats attached to piers, resulting in a oscillating motion from the waves causing the buoy to rise and fall work as well.

But like I said, if you want alternative power, we need to improve batteries.. alot.

 

[wfooshee]

{snip} If we start taking hydrogen from water for it that's gonna cause another problem in the distant future. So solar is the only viable option for the next few thousand years really. (Make that billion...) Even Dimetrodon harnessed solar power before we have... How embarrassing!

I sort of get annoyed when I see people talk about releasing hydrogen from water to get fuel hydrogen.

It takes more energy to release the hydrogen than you get by burning it as fuel. A lot more. That's why burning hydrogen makes water. It really really wants to be there. It's a hopeless source of hydrogen.

As for Dimetrodon: a few bajillion years behind chlorophyll.

 

[Azuremen]

I sort of get annoyed when I see people talk about releasing hydrogen from water to get fuel hydrogen.

It takes more energy to release the hydrogen than you get by burning it as fuel. A lot more. That's why burning hydrogen makes water. It really really wants to be there. It's a hopeless source of hydrogen.

As for Dimetrodon: a few bajillion years behind chlorophyll.

I think he was referring to hydrogen for fusion.

Which fusion releases alot more energy than the electricity to separate it...

 

[Grand Prix]

I think he was referring to hydrogen for fusion.

Which fusion releases alot more energy than the electricity to separate it...

Although we need nuclear fission to generate enough heat to fuse it into Helium and energy, it does produce a lot of energy. Although it could cause a problem in the distant future where we might get more energy greedy, and start fusing the hydrogen in water as well.... Then the whole atmosphere will be filled with Helium and Oxygen, water supply would reach lower levels, and everyone would start talking like Donald Duck high on Oxygen. Hopefully human stupidity won't be around for that to happen though. Although we would probably start harvesting Hydrogen from Jupiter at that time. (and screw up yet another planet...)

 

[superberkut]

All I can say is, "Can't wait for a sports-car derivative". Hopefully it will be a bit more powerful...

 

[Alfaholic]

Well, here is the deal you are missing. Solar power comes from the sun. The energy still affects the earth system, just the radiation is collected to produce a photoelectric reaction. The surface of the planet still gets heated, and so on.

I don't follow you there. How can the collected radiation both heat the earth and power a kettle? I can't say I'm surprised it comes from the sun, the name kind of gives it away

What I am asking is this, and the figures are just arbitary figures to help make the picture easy to see: 1 square metre of dirt currently gets, say 100 joules of energy per minute / hour / day from the sun, on average. Some of this is reflected, and warms the atmosphere. Some warms the dirt, etc. Now place a 1 square metre solar panel above that bit of dirt. If its more reflective than dirt, it will increase the amount of energy reflected back into the atmosphere, thus increasing the temperature of the atmosphere in that area. Some of the energy heats the panel's structure and chassis, and might also be radiated back into the atmosphere. Apparently, about 10% of the energy it receives will be converted to usable electricity and as such will be routed away from the area, to the nearest town or whatever. Now extrapolate this to consider the solar panel area needed to replace an average power station.

How much difference does that then make to the solar station's local environment? If we replace all energy sources with solar collection, how much impact does that have? The aim in using alternative power sources is to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. If we replace all the fossil power generation with another source, I believe that chances are we replace one problem with a different one. On the other hand, if we reduce usage by improving efficiency, then we just reduce one problem. In other words, I 100% back your statement that more efficient batteries are needed.

In the media and on TV and so on, fossil fuels are seen as evil and solar is advertised as "clean", as though we get something for nothing. I'm simply not convinced that this is so..

Water power, etc? That is all from gravity... and isn't really robbing the planet of a non renewable resource..

No, but it is redirecting that energy away from one system and into another.
As I understand it, the current pollution problem has nothing to do with it being a non renewable resource. In fact, that in itself is a solution to the real problem (apparently) that the side effects of releasing energy from coal and petrol etc are a change in the climate. The only problem with a non renewable resource is that, as its description suggests, we run out of it.

The energy from water falling in areas is generally just lost when it collides back with itself.....

Not according to the law of conservation of energy. It goes somewhere. If we don't know where it currently goes, how can we predict the results of redirecting it?

... which it gets to do anyhow once passing through a dam. Tidal power would actually be drawing power from the moon-earth system combined, of which there is so much gravitational action we would be nothing but a speck of influence.

I can imagine... though I'd expect the local environmental effects to be more pronounced. While the planet itself might not notice the impact, humans are smaller and more fragile. Small changes make a bigger difference. For me, this is the same question as I had for solar power. Produce the same amount of power that we currently use from tidal power, how far will the effects reach?

... So while your Jainism style view is certainly warm and fuzzy... its not quite thought out entirely.

I had to look Jainism up. I don't understand how my post aligns with that particular religion?

 

[Grand Prix]

All I can say is, "Can't wait for a sports-car derivative". Hopefully it will be a bit more powerful...

It can be as powerful as you want it to be mate. The problem is that is that does the exact same thing as an electric car, except it's noisier. If you made an electric car with the same amount of power that an air car uses, there isn't any difference between the two. You still need electricity to compress the air. The same amount of power as you put on the road, actually. It ain't called the Law of Conservation of Energy for nothing. In fact the air car is worse than the electric car because some of that energy is being used to produce more sound.


I don't think there is an solution to the energy problem, not unless we use less energy in the first place. It would help if we could store more of the sun's energy though, with batteries. But battery companies are companies, they want to make money. In order to make money, they must make weak batteries and sell a lot of them (just imagine how many AAs you've replaced in your life, they must make billions). In the end it's human greed that dictates everything.

 

[Freddie]

It can be as powerful as you want it to be mate. The problem is that is that does the exact same thing as an electric car, except it's noisier. If you made an electric car with the same amount of power that an air car uses, there isn't any difference between the two. You still need electricity to compress the air. The same amount of power as you put on the road, actually. It ain't called the Law of Conservation of Energy for nothing. In fact the air car is worse than the electric car because some of that energy is being used to produce more sound.

You're also missing one very important aspect of the electric car which gives it another advantage: electric cars don't need drivetrains (not in a traditional sense, anyway).

Electric cars can have their motors mounted directly to the wheels, giving a power efficiency well above 90% (I'm counting resistance in cables, conductors etc) from batteries to the ground, the power loss between the motor and wheels is practically zero.

In cars powered by compressed air seen so far, all of these use a conventional drivetrain with transmission, driveshafts, differentials and so forth. We all know that there are significant losses there. Also, the engine also idles when the car is standstill, which means the car is consuming energy even if it doesn't do anything practical.

IMO; I don't think cars powered by pure air is the future. But I won't dismiss it, as the technology can be used to power a generator, for recharging the batteries in an electric/compressed-air series-hybrid. Same solution as used in the Chevy Volt and Volvo ReCharge, but with an air-powered reformer instead of petrol/diesel reformers.

 

[Grand Prix]

We could still use air engine technology to replace petrol and diesel engines, for the gearheads and racing fans. But since the majority of people don't care what sound their car makes anyway (though I could be wrong on this, but if most people are willing to buy crap inline-3 engined cars with soundproofing, I don't see why they would care), electric cars are the obvious choice for mass production. The problem is, again, the batteries, and that applies for both the air and electric engine.

 

[Azuremen]

Not according to the law of conservation of energy. It goes somewhere. If we don't know where it currently goes, how can we predict the results of redirecting it?

It goes into entropy and loss via friction of water molecules and other similar crap.

I can imagine... though I'd expect the local environmental effects to be more pronounced. While the planet itself might not notice the impact, humans are smaller and more fragile. Small changes make a bigger difference. For me, this is the same question as I had for solar power. Produce the same amount of power that we currently use from tidal power, how far will the effects reach?

Not as far as you seem to think. You have a limited understanding of energy laws, where energy goes, and physics it seems. I'm not saying this to belittle you, it just seems that you are using somewhat bad science to argue we shouldn't do anything, which brings me to this...

I had to look Jainism up. I don't understand how my post aligns with that particular religion?

You are very much talking a Jainism type view with "we shouldn't do anything because it will affect everything else, and so thus we should do nothing." Basically.

We could still use air engine technology to replace petrol and diesel engines, for the gearheads and racing fans. But since the majority of people don't care what sound their car makes anyway (though I could be wrong on this, but if most people are willing to buy crap inline-3 engined cars with soundproofing, I don't see why they would care), electric cars are the obvious choice for mass production. The problem is, again, the batteries, and that applies for both the air and electric engine.

Except you are forgetting one thing...

a 300 LITER tank compressed at the standard 30 MPa yields less energy than a liter of gasoline.

So you aren't going to be racing anything with these, or doing anything with these. Power is limited by how much you can safely compress air.

So stop thinking this magical air technology is going to replace gasoline. Its not. It has no where near the power potential.

 

[Grand Prix]

Except you are forgetting one thing...

a 300 LITER tank compressed at the standard 30 MPa yields less energy than a liter of gasoline.

So you aren't going to be racing anything with these, or doing anything with these. Power is limited by how much you can safely compress air.

So stop thinking this magical air technology is going to replace gasoline. Its not. It has no where near the power potential.

In that case, I think sound recordings of various petrol engines from today are going to become very desirable collectible items in the next century. 💡 Although I imagine that there will be plenty of oil left for auto racing, assuming they still want to use it when it gets pricey.

There was a time, though, in the 70s when everyone was panicking over oil and the use of it by F1 cars. As it turned out, the amount of fuel used by race cars was only "a drop in the oil barrel." In fact, I think I read that a Boeing 747 flight from New York to London uses more fuel than an entire F1 season! So I don't think we have anything to worry about there.

 

[Alfaholic]

You have a limited understanding of energy laws, where energy goes, and physics it seems. I'm not saying this to belittle you, it just seems that you are using somewhat bad science to argue we shouldn't do anything, which brings me to this...

I haven't suggested we should do nothing. Perhaps you need to stop speed reading posts.

You are very much talking a Jainism type view with "we shouldn't do anything because it will affect everything else and so thus we should do nothing." Basically.

The only part of that quote that bears any resemblance to what I have said is "it will affect everything else". The rest is a figment of your imagination.

I asked: "Produce the same amount of power that we currently use from tidal power, how far will the effects reach? ". Your enlightening answer was "Not as far as you seem to think. ". Really? If you know something about the effects, give me some figures, or references, so that I can actually have some peace of mind about it. If you don't actually know, don't waste my time with patronising and factless answers.

By the way, energy "lost" through friction generates heat, for starters.

 

[Azuremen]

I haven't suggested we should do nothing. Perhaps you need to stop speed reading posts.

You are very much talking a Jainism type view with "we shouldn't do anything because it will affect everything else and so thus we should do nothing." Basically.

The only part of that quote that bears any resemblance to what I have said is "it will affect everything else". The rest is a figment of your imagination.

The Jainism comment came from this....

Perhaps the problem is deeper, and it's one that few politicians will address... perhaps there are just too many people on the planet, and we'll be victims of our own success, just as happens to most species.

So what's this got to do with the air powered car? Well, perhaps the clue is not to make the car less polluting, but to either make it more efficient, or remove the need for transport.

If you can't see how it got a "maybe we need to do nothing" attitude from this, I dunno man.

I asked: "Produce the same amount of power that we currently use from tidal power, how far will the effects reach? ". Your enlightening answer was "Not as far as you seem to think. ". Really? If you know something about the effects, give me some figures, or references, so that I can actually have some peace of mind about it. If you don't actually know, don't waste my time with patronising and factless answers.

By the way, energy "lost" through friction generates heat, for starters.

Really? Heat? I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED. Thank you for enlightening me. But that was in regard to hydro power via dams.

Tidal power, if done using the float system, uses energy captured from wave motions that cause a float to rise and fall, which is then translated into electric energy. The dampening effect from this is minimal, if you took the time to understand how massive water is and how much energy is contained in a wave.

The energy then would be transfered in used in say a car, where the tires would rub against the surface of the road. Producing friction and then heat. So oh wait, the Earth + car system maintains the energy that was supposedly lost is in fact still there.

Solar panels function by absorbing solar radiation - they still get hot, they just make use of part of the spectrum of light

Silicon 190–1100
Germanium 400–1700
Indium gallium arsenide 800–2600
Lead sulfide <1000-3500

So that other bits of the spectrum still get absorbed, and there are alot more bits to the spectrum. So the solar panel heats up, which heats up the Earth + Solar panel system. And again, like I pointed out, we are not beaming the energy straight into space, so yeah.

I'm a not going to give you exact numbers because I don't feel like finding the mass of a float, the mass and resistance of a linear array of magnets for creating charge, the height of the average wave in a region where this is being tested, and such. The number of calculations to satisfy your requests is absurd, and I am not an environmental engineer, so I don't have that much interest.

The local impact from a hydro electric facility is probably in the 1% range for loss of heat for the river system it affects. Far more energy is taken from solar and surrounding land mass to maintain the rivers temperature.

But before I continue this debate/discussion/education, what kind of science classes have you had?

 

[Alfaholic]

The Jainism comment came from this....



If you can't see how it got a "maybe we need to do nothing" attitude from this, I dunno man.?

I still don't get it. My first sentence suggested that the problem is overpopulation. When many species are successful / dominant in their own environment, the sheer weight of their numbers counts against them, usually by causing a food shortage, but whatever, and they then suffer high mortality as a result. I'm suggesting that the human race might fall into the same trap, but perhaps by altering our environment enough that it can no longer support as many of us. As for removing the need for transport - that's already happening as broadband allows more people to work from home (often for family or cost savings I suppose) but I'm suggesting removing the requirement to rack up lots of miles by car, plane, train, ship and so on with inventive solutions. The whole point of my original post was to suggest that perhaps we should be looking more at reducing energy consumption rather than just focusing on pollution.

I still don't get where "do nothing" comes from.

Really? Heat? I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED. Thank you for enlightening me. But that was in regard to hydro power via dams.

Tidal power, if done using the float system, uses energy captured from wave motions that cause a float to rise and fall, which is then translated into electric energy. The dampening effect from this is minimal, if you took the time to understand how massive water is and how much energy is contained in a wave.

The energy then would be transfered in used in say a car, where the tires would rub against the surface of the road. Producing friction and then heat. So oh wait, the Earth + car system maintains the energy that was supposedly lost is in fact still there.?

It's not still there. It was in a wave, it's now been transferred inland. So it's elsewhere.

If the dampening effect is minimal, then the energy transfer is also minimal. You don't get something for nothing. If we only need a minimal amount of energy to replace that which we currently get from fossil fuels, then great, I've got no need to worry. If we need one out of every ten joules from each wave that passes by in order to keep New York running, then perhaps we will have an impact.

In terms of tidal and solar power, are you saying "no, we just don't, and won't, use enough energy for it to be a problem"? Or are you saying "we can use all we like and it will never be a problem"?

But before I continue this debate/discussion/education, what kind of science classes have you had?

Not sure why that makes a difference. I studied science in school (8 years physics and chemistry) and then did a mechanical engineering degree (4 years - mechanics, electrical, materials, etc.).

EDIT: P.S. Thank you for taking more time to actually put some figures together and at least address my issues in some detail. Much more satisfying to read, at least now I trust that you might have the right info to change my opinion.

 

[superberkut]

It can be as powerful as you want it to be mate. The problem is that is that does the exact same thing as an electric car, except it's noisier. If you made an electric car with the same amount of power that an air car uses, there isn't any difference between the two. You still need electricity to compress the air. The same amount of power as you put on the road, actually. It ain't called the Law of Conservation of Energy for nothing. In fact the air car is worse than the electric car because some of that energy is being used to produce more sound.


I don't think there is an solution to the energy problem, not unless we use less energy in the first place. It would help if we could store more of the sun's energy though, with batteries. But battery companies are companies, they want to make money. In order to make money, they must make weak batteries and sell a lot of them (just imagine how many AAs you've replaced in your life, they must make billions). In the end it's human greed that dictates everything.

Thanks for the education. Though I must say, I am familiar with the marketing concepts you described there. (On the idea of the concept) That's pathetic, despite the fact that I have replaced less than 80 AA batteries in my life; I believe in kinetic play items, if anything.... and if I find the time.

 

[Grand Prix]

Thanks for the education. Though I must say, I am familiar with the marketing concepts you described there. (On the idea of the concept) That's pathetic, despite the fact that I have replaced less than 80 AA batteries in my life; I believe in kinetic play items, if anything.... and if I find the time.

I think I've replaced the batteries in my Wii remote at least 4 times now. Mouse batteries I must have replaced 20+ times already. I also have to replace hearing aid batteries, clock batteries, TV remote batteries, watch batteries, laptop batteries, the batteries on my nephew's Optimus Prime... Sheesh, it goes on and on! It's no wonder they're not doing more research into improving storage capacity of batteries, people are always happy enough to keep buying them! And then they complain that the batteries on electric cars were too weak!

 

[Azuremen]

I think I've replaced the batteries in my Wii remote at least 4 times now. Mouse batteries I must have replaced 20+ times already. I also have to replace hearing aid batteries, clock batteries, TV remote batteries, watch batteries, laptop batteries, the batteries on my nephew's Optimus Prime... Sheesh, it goes on and on! It's no wonder they're not doing more research into improving storage capacity of batteries, people are always happy enough to keep buying them! And then they complain that the batteries on electric cars were too weak!

Actually, the military invests a ton into research, because batteries are critical. Its not that battery companies are selling weak batteries...

There is a limitation to how much charge can be stored in a battery due to the chemistry and such that simply limits capacity per weight/volume.