The Compressed Air Car
July 17th, 2007
It is important to realize that the way we power our vehicles today is based on the legacy of energy discoveries of the 1800s. Oil was first taken out of the ground in Pennsylvania in the 1860s. When the automobile industry came into being some four decades later, petroleum was the first candidate for the energy source. Even though the quintessential American inventor Thomas Edison did build an electric car, electricity was not as wide spread as it soon would be, so the power of the Rockefeller oil cartel won the day.
Today we are using the energy source discovered 150 years ago to get us to work and to the grocery store. Do we use candles to light our homes? Do we use tubes to power our radios and TVs? Do we cool our houses with blocks of ice? No, no and no! So why do we continue to blindly define transportation energy on an 150 year old discovery that we know is causing climate change, funding terrorism and is in finite supply?
In the last few decades, Western Science has, as it has penetrated ever smaller particles, come to the conclusion that everything is energy. Taking a look at energy from this point of view it strikes me as incredibly narrow to think of fuel, or energy as fossil fuel. That is just a small slice of what is available. If everything is energy then let’s look elsewhere, everywhere.
There are people around the world who are doing just that. A French company called MDI has partnered with an Indian company Tata Motors, to bring to market a car that runs on compressed air. That’s right, air. The power source is air and the waste product is air. A visionary inventor and entrepreneur, Guy Negre, the founder of MDI, has developed a compressed air engine that has the potential for being one of the great inventions of this century.
Negres’s compressed air car can travel 120 miles between refueling. That is significant because more than 50% of Americans live 20 miles or less from work, and the average daily mileage per car is less than 40 miles a day. The cost to operate is low, about one dollar per hundred miles. The compressed air only car will need to go to compressed air fueling stations for a compressed air refill. Once these retrofitted gas stations are in place, a refueling will take 3 minutes, will cost about $2 and will allow the driver to drive 125-175 before needing to refuel. Alternatively, there are engines being developed that either switch over to electric or gas power allowing the car to continue to be driven, while at the same time operating the compressor to refill the tank with compressed air. This model car could be driven from L.A. to New York on a single tank of gas. Because there is no heat generating combustion in the engine, changing the oil, vegetable oil at that, needs to be done only once every 30,000 miles.
What is not to like about this? Cars that are pollution free, basically petroleum free, low cost to purchase [estimates are less than $20,000], low cost to operate and capable of handling most of our driving needs. Sure if you want to pull a boat or rumble around in a big SUV or pick up this vehicle is not for you, but for commuting and running errands, the overwhelming amount of vehicular use in the U.S., the compressed air car is just fine.
What the compressed air car points to is the fact that humanity has the technological capability of solving our energy problems as they relate to transportation. Combined with the coming electric cars in the next few years, it is possible that by 2020 we could primarily be free of our reliance on the internal combustion engine. Now that is the potential and clear possibility. Do we have the social and political fortitude to make this a reality? Will our government see the clear opportunity or will it succumb to historical habit and inertia and cave to the well funded industry lobbying efforts that have influenced energy and transportation policy for the last 100 years?
The presidential candidates in 2008 could campaign on an “Energy Independence by 2015†platform, calling for government supported mass production of electric cars, compressed air cars and basically create a nation-wide Apollo project for the replacement of the internal combustion engine in a decade. The technology is soon to be in place, so it is up to us, all of us, to utilize the compressed air car and all such emerging new technologies to make it a reality.
If you are interested in learning more about the compressed air car, here are some links: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/ , http://www.cyber-media.com/aircar/ , http://www.theaircar.com/
July 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I’m a movie junkie and two feature films scare me. The first was terrible…Chain Reaction, released in 1996, perhaps Morgan Freeman’s only bad movie. Scientists discover a way for saltwater to replace oil as our primary energy source, but the government blows up it’s own research because they feel shutting out oil would kill the world balance. The other movie was 1995’s Syriana, a shocking look at the marriage between U.S. oil companies and the agenda of our own government. Both movies are fiction, but is the depiction of our government’s attitude towards alternative energy true?
July 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
What are the ecomonic implications (ie tax $$$) for the US if 50% or more of gas consumption went away? There must be a tremendous financial ripple effect at stake, yes? I’m thinking the same thing as MIke, couldn’t this create a whole new set of issues?
Great invention though. Maybe these guys and Tesla Motors should get together to form “the” green car company.
dk
July 18th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Gut feeling:
The catch is in the details. The 100 miles range is faulty.
One should utilize very high air pressures. Therefor a heavy air accumulator/tank needed.
Taken together no huge promise here.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Ben Tour: these cars can be reloaded with special compressors in under 5 minutes. Or conversely they can be reloaded from an on board compressor that runs off of any regular outlet in a few hours. the 100 mile range limitation is perception. Most people never travel more than 40 miles in a day! If you do, then reload the tanks in a few minutes for another 100 miles!
July 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
My impression from my research is that what Richard says in basically correct. The key thing to remember is the car is in early production stage. If it can get up to mass production, there will innovation and improvements along the way.
As for the comments of Dave and Mike, there is no question that there are powerful vested interests to overcome, but they have to be overcome if we want to survive. As for tax revenue, that can always be figured out. Institute a high gas tax, institute a higher gambling tax. Legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it. Institute a luxury tax on medical institutions that overcharge etc. That part is easy. It is getting the government to start to lead and be fearless that is the big issue.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Concern has been expressed regarding pollution resulting from the energy needed for the fueling station compressors. Instead of using electricity to power the compressors, wind or water power could be used in some instances.Used directly to power the compressors there would no need to use electricity. This could lower pollution even more since most electricity is produced from coal burning power plants.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Nobody has said anything about low temperature phase change technology. In case you don’t know,this is where refrigerants are used in place of conventional fuels in a closed loop system. No emissions and 4 times the power.This also means no refueling as the refrigerant goes into a condenser and is recycled over and over. This was developed using crysler engines.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:48 am
In the not-to-distant future, the vehicle will become almost, if not completely self-sufficient. There are plenty of emerging technologies, e.g. photovoltaics, that can help to recharge the tank without the need to plug in. In addition, the dual-fuel capability means that it can be assisted by biofuels. The engine can also be put to other uses, such as power generation. I think previous writers are right: the technology is brilliant, but is there the will?
September 4th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
If what joe suggested, about powering the air pumps with some alternative to electricity, this would be a great endeavor. However fueling stations around town aren’t likely to have high enough winds to power a compressor like that in all cities. If we power the pumps with electricity I see no advantage over electric cars. If you’re not aware – coal, nuclear and gas turbines power the majority of the world still. Gasoline engines give about 15-20% efficiency at best, Gas turbines maybe around 30%. It would be nice to see some better improvements, like renewable electricity generation. Focus and Prioritize – solving the problem of driving a regular car with an electric car doesn’t really matter if the electricity is still made in a similar way to the regular cars power production. All we get is more pollution from mass production of more and more vehicles. Where are we going to put all these vehicle carcasses when they are used up? They aren’t being recycled all that well at present.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Great news guys this car is coming to the world soon but im not sure about America yet? Lots of great info on this car at http://www.thefuture.net.nz for when the car is released in Australia and New Zealand, Paul
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
everyone thinks is a done deal not so the car at present with full tank of air does 7.5 KM the 100 miles comes from a wild exageration from the copany that a small reduction in weight , bigger tanks and new bearings will turn 7.5 lm to 100 km. smoke and mirrors
there is just not enough energy in compressed gas think about it the car has the equiveleint of 6 diver tanks , we get about 30 min of breathing air from one tank , so how does 2 hours of your breathing drive a car I can do the math and its not even 6 kw of power.