Living Car Free - "Air" car hit's the road........

Cars that run on air..........
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/315

whoa.

"But the carbon emissions per mile of these things still far outdoes any gasoline car on the market."
I wonder if that's true - it's tough to harness compressed air efficiently. the Pop Mech. article didn't have any more details, i'll have to dig into it

"But the carbon emissions per mile of these things still far outdoes any gasoline car on the market."
I wonder if that's true - it's tough to harness compressed air efficiently. the Pop Mech. article didn't have any more details, i'll have to dig into it

I think what they mean is that a power plant can still generate energy (used to power the high-pressure compressor) more efficiently than any gas powered car.

It's just too bad that we'll probably never see these on north american roads, it probably wouldn't survive the crash tests.

I wonder if the breaking mechanism compresses air back into the tanks to slow the forward momentum when coming to a stop? I have heard of such a technology before.

I wonder if the breaking mechanism compresses air back into the tanks to slow the forward momentum when coming to a stop? I have heard of such a technology before.

Yes, it does. Up to 13% is recoverable. Also, the motor can be used to fill its own air tanks if you plug it into a regular outlet. It takes about 4 hours.

I've been watching that for a year now, nice to see it going into production. It could easily be street legal. I don't understand why people think any vehicle allowed on the road has to pass crash tests, there are different categories of what's street legal. For instance, Neighborhood Electric Vehicles:

http://www.evworld.com/evguide.cfm?evtype=nev

I've seen a couple tooling around LA. Wouldn't survive a crash test, that's for sure. The air car could fit right into that category.

I think what they mean is that a power plant can still generate energy (used to power the high-pressure compressor) more efficiently than any gas powered car.


i got that; i just wonder how efficient it is at using the compressed air. every time energy is converted to another form there are loses. say the power plant burns fossil fuels to make electricity at 80% efficiency, then the air is compressed using electricity at 80% efficiency, then the car is 80% efficient... we're down to 51% efficiency for the whole process from dino juice to moving the car (.8 x .8 x .8).

if the air car is only 50% efficient, then we're down to 32% total efficiency. I'm just making up these numbers, but i bet the air car ain't all that efficient... any one have any sources for numbers? I could look up the power plant and compressor efficiencies but I'm too lazy :)

an advantage gasoline powered cars have is that the fuel is refined once, then burned to move the car in one step. it's only something like 35% efficient though, wastes so much heat they stick a radiator in there to get rid of excess energy! amazing.

How much does it weigh? It seems like light weight would be a significant contributor to its low energy usage?

I bet if they didn't put a compressor in it, it would be even lighter and more efficient. Take the compressor off the car and make it a stand-alone unit....

i got that; i just wonder how efficient it is at using the compressed air. every time energy is converted to another form there are loses. say the power plant burns fossil fuels to make electricity at 80% efficiency, then the air is compressed using electricity at 80% efficiency, then the car is 80% efficient... we're down to 51% efficiency for the whole process from dino juice to moving the car (.8 x .8 x .8).

if the air car is only 50% efficient, then we're down to 32% total efficiency. I'm just making up these numbers, but i bet the air car ain't all that efficient... any one have any sources for numbers? I could look up the power plant and compressor efficiencies but I'm too lazy :)

an advantage gasoline powered cars have is that the fuel is refined once, then burned to move the car in one step. it's only something like 35% efficient though, wastes so much heat they stick a radiator in there to get rid of excess energy! amazing.

Come on. I don't get why threads about new green tech or mass transit, stuff like that tend to end up in "I'm sure it still sucks somehow"-ville. Gasoline is refined once and then burned but you're going back to the electrical plant for the car? Gasoline comes from petroleum which is extracted from the ground and transported, usually by fossil fuel powered vehicles to refining plants which are powered by fossil fuels and gasoline isn't just a distillate, it's created through chemical processes at the plant as well, processes fueled by fossil fuels, it's then transported, again by vehicles, and all through this process vapor is released at the different stages, where finally it's in the ground at the arco where it gets pumped, releasing more vapor, into the car where it's finally burned.

I mean, is it academic curiosity or is there just some sort of ingrained distrust for anything that isn't a bike (which was made out of metals mined by machines and refined at plants and transported for further refinement and transported to fabricators, all of this involving burning of fuel and copious amounts of chemicals, especially for aluminum and titanium, not to mention all the rubber bits that go on there and the calories you burn pedaling the thing, hoo-boy, where do you draw the line? Do you have a job that makes you money that you use to buy your food? Whoa nelly.)? That's what I'm curious about, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but the tone here seems to be more "bike-only" than a "car-free".

Come on, the thing runs on air and in build and maintenence uses far fewer petroleum products than even a hybrid car. In places like socal it would be perfect if outfitted with a solar-cell roof.

Interesting. Now that's one solution to combat emissions and global warming. Range of 125 miles is not bad considering most commute is within 15-20 miles IMO in our area.

Oh, by the way, this car can be truly pollution-free. If you read up on the company's website, you'll see they have plans for windmills and river barges that convert wind and river currents directly into compressed air. With a suitable infrastructure, you could drive up to a windmill, re-pressurize your car and drive away without costing the environment anything at all.

I can picture large farms having a windmill that provides all the air pressure needed to run the farm equipment. This could be the solution we're looking for - at least in some cases!

an advantage gasoline powered cars have is that the fuel is refined once, then burned to move the car in one step. it's only something like 35% efficient though, wastes so much heat they stick a radiator in there to get rid of excess energy! amazing.
It's more like 15-16% iirc. Which is why EVs are so much cleaner/efficient even if the power source is coal. In terms of the Air Car's efficiency, it'd be best if they just stuck a small gasoline motor in there with a direct drive for highway travel, but it wouldn't be as "green". :rolleyes:

It's more like 15-16% iirc. Which is why EVs are so much cleaner/efficient even if the power source is coal.
right you are on the efficiency - all-knowing Wiki says around 20%. I must have been remembering the 35% that is lost through the radiator.

Come on. I don't get why threads about new green tech or mass transit, stuff like that tend to end up in "I'm sure it still sucks somehow"-ville. Gasoline is refined once and then burned but you're going back to the electrical plant for the car? Gasoline comes from petroleum which is extracted from the ground and transported, usually by fossil fuel powered vehicles to refining plants which are powered by fossil fuels and gasoline isn't just a distillate, it's created through chemical processes at the plant as well, processes fueled by fossil fuels, it's then transported, again by vehicles, and all through this process vapor is released at the different stages, where finally it's in the ground at the arco where it gets pumped, releasing more vapor, into the car where it's finally burned.

I mean, is it academic curiosity or is there just some sort of ingrained distrust for anything that isn't a bike (which was made out of metals mined by machines and refined at plants and transported for further refinement and transported to fabricators, all of this involving burning of fuel and copious amounts of chemicals, especially for aluminum and titanium, not to mention all the rubber bits that go on there and the calories you burn pedaling the thing, hoo-boy, where do you draw the line? Do you have a job that makes you money that you use to buy your food? Whoa nelly.)? That's what I'm curious about, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but the tone here seems to be more "bike-only" than a "car-free".

Come on, the thing runs on air and in build and maintenence uses far fewer petroleum products than even a hybrid car. In places like socal it would be perfect if outfitted with a solar-cell roof.

Easy there, just so you know, my bikes are a hobby, not a religion... actually I own 2 cars as well. and personally I think the sound & thrust of a bridge-ported rotary motor at full honk is one of the most transcendental experiences possible in life ;)

In my case it really is academic (and cynical) curiosity of how efficient it really is, looking at the big picture from start to end. To be accepted as "green" I for one want the data to back it up! There's a lot of folks out there trying to make a buck out of being green with alternative energy and transportation even if total environmental impact is actually higher. Sorry, I'm an engineer, I can't help it :rolleyes:

Great video about the air car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

it isnt new, this has been done before, just not recently or with so much publicity to my knowledge

just like steam cars have been made, old and newer ones, very little of what can be done with cars is really new as in never ever been done or tried before, its a pretty mature industry

pneumatic power has its applications, Im not sure autos are gonna be one of them though

it isnt new, this has been done before, just not recently or with so much publicity to my knowledge

just like steam cars have been made, old and newer ones, very little of what can be done with cars is really new as in never ever been done or tried before, its a pretty mature industry

pneumatic power has its applications, Im not sure autos are gonna be one of them though

I was wondering how long until "this is nothing new" popped up.

Yeah, it's nothing new like the model T was nothing new.

I think this is a very exciting idea, the best news I've heard on the environmental front in years (which, admittedly, isn't saying much). This is potentially an alternative to petroleum-based cars that rednecks and soccer moms might actually be able to live with. The technology is clearly not 100% efficient, but then nothing else is, either, and even at 15% efficiency, an air-compressor car is still way better than one powered by corn-based ethanol or other biomass fuel. It has advantages that can't be overlooked, not least of which is the fact that it does as well as many fully electric cars without the need for batteries, which are heavy, toxic and expensive. I do like Lyeinyoureye's idea of a gas/compressor hybrid. It would make it possible for such cars to pass crash tests in North America, reach higher speeds, as was mentioned, and still possibly get very, very high mileage. Oil companies probably won't like the car, though, nor will most auto makers, probably.

for small applications pneumatic is fine, it just doesnt scale up too well..........

variations of it have been around for decades, many many engines out there even today have pneumatic starters for example, its common on some big truck engines, it was also used on some airplane engines in the past in the same way

its light, its small, and its cheap

its inefficient, and lifespan under heavy duty conditions? well, one downside to that is traditionally you have to use a complete loss oiling system to keep the system working right, so emissions would be an issue, something that isnt immediately obvious :) there are ways around this of course, but its something else to tradeoff just like anything built/designed

also unlike gas or electric, heat would be an external matter, so would A/C and any other accessories

AC comes from the exhaust. Compressing that much air gets it pretty darn cool. The car itself is relatively efficient, but compressed air isn't. Given use on nothing but air, I'm pretty sure the engine would at least last for hundreds of thousands of miles. Overall, it'd have roughly the same cost of an EV for congested city driving w/o periodic battery replacement, so cheaper than both an EV and normal car in those conditions. I wouldn't try to use it on the highway, it's called a citycat for a reason. ;)

You guys should offer your services to MDI. Clearly you've thought this through more than they have.

Let me guess... couple more engineers?

Hehe, call me an engineer again and I'll slap you upside yer internetz head. :p

You guys should offer your services to MDI. Clearly you've thought this through more than they have.

Let me guess... couple more engineers?

nope, just experience building, tinkering, fixing, fabricating parts, and a wide variety of mechanical and electronics work.........I had a soldering iron or wrenches in my hands from about age 3 till I left home, it kind of sticks with you and learn how stuff works, my dad was into all sorts of motorized vehicles, I was too for awhile, I played with cars after being on my own for years

Ive built all sorts of things, some alone, some with him. Cars, boats, small R/C models of all sorts, an airplane. We even raced a hydroplane for 2 seasons we built from plans and fabricated almost everything for it too. Ive been around and worked on almost anything with a motor at some point, cept turbines or jets. I know how they work too, just never taken one apart or built one yet :)

yes, I do have an engineering degree, but it doesnt have much to do with my life these days, what I do now is pretty far from engineering LOL

anyway, with a background like that isnt hard to just glance at something and immediately be able to size up how it works and what makes it tick and what things do work to begin with and why along with all the history and just basic knowledge that comes with that

AC comes from the exhaust. Compressing that much air gets it pretty darn cool.

yup it does when released, but due to range issues they probably use lots of pressure and low volume as possible, plus with a load on it I dont know how much cooling effect you'd really get, not like even high flow rate air tools really get all that cold to the touch in use, not enough to use, same effect as letting air out of bike innertube, ya it gets cold but nothing serious but it would be enough to be a problem on cold days

with car A/C systems your talking about a few horsepower usually, thats lots of btu's, its an interesting idea though, something worth looking at

the oiling issue is still there though, the air has to be clean and oiled or the engine has to have an oiling system, some will leak thru right out the tailpipe either way you go whether using pistons or an impeller, better than internal combustion though

I think this aircar has some ugly tradeoffs to deal with, small short range it has possibilities though.

I just thought of a good example where this stuff is used. They are building a bridge downtown right now across the river. Alot of the construction tools they use are pneumatically driven. They have a huge diesel air compressor/tank unit on site to power them. They use them to hammer the steel shoring beams into place and to cut them off at the right length once in place along the banks of the river. I watched them do some of that today.

High pressure air tools aren't as high pressure as what's in the air car's tank. ;)

The temperature of the clean air expelled by the exhaust pipe is between 0 - 15 degrees below zero, which makes it suitable for use by the internal air conditioning system with no need for gases or loss of power.
The engine has an air filter, so it actually leaves cleaner air behind, and lube is via vegetable oil since the load is much, much less.

Due to the absence of combustion and, consequently, of residues, changing the oil (1 litre of vegetable oil) is necessary only every 50,000 Km.

the oiling issue is still there though, the air has to be clean and oiled or the engine has to have an oiling system, some will leak thru right out the tailpipe either way you go whether using pistons or an impeller, better than internal combustion though

The company's site also says that the engine can use vegetable oil to keep the engine running smoothly.

Why did the big 3 never conceived of this before? Is it because of their partnership with the oil companies? That honeymoon is long over, just compare the profits generated by the oil giants against lossess for the detroit 3. It's a shame a third world country can come up with an environmentally safe and efficient product that probably scares the oil companies as well as the detroit 3.

Why did the big 3 never conceived of this before? Is it because of their partnership with the oil companies? That honeymoon is long over, just compare the profits generated by the oil giants against lossess for the detroit 3. It's a shame a third world country can come up with an environmentally safe and efficient product that probably scares the oil companies as well as the detroit 3.

Who's to say the big 3 didn't conceive of it.
Detroit was built by cheap oil. Americans got used to being able to cross the country (2,000-3,000 miles) with cheap gas. An air powered car that has a range of 125 or so miles does not do what a gasoline powered engine does as far as range and convenience. One can fill a 20 gallon gas tank in less than 5 minutes and be on his/her way. Not to mention the difference in power generated by a big block V8 and this compressed air engine.

Why did the big 3 never conceived of this before? Is it because of their partnership with the oil companies? That honeymoon is long over, just compare the profits generated by the oil giants against lossess for the detroit 3. It's a shame a third world country can come up with an environmentally safe and efficient product that probably scares the oil companies as well as the detroit 3.

It's from France, not a third world country. India is the first place that looks like will start mass producing it.

The only reason the big 3 do anything is for profit. That's the only reason most us corporations do anything because as publically held companies they're basically legally bound to pursue nothing but profit. Profit is short term. Shareholders don't want to see any significant money spent on anything that isn't going to return a profit within just a few years. Whenever you ask yourself "why doesn't X corporation do Y?", that's your answer- because they are pursuing profit. GM's business isn't making cars, their business is making money, cars are just the means to an end.

They don't have jack in terms of hybrids or electric cars, etc., because their model of building bigger and bigger cars for higher and higher profit margins had been working very well for a decade or so now. The Bush administration has said from the beginning they are 100% opposed to any raising of CAFE standards, they don't believe global warming is a real phenomenon, and they want to open up as much drilling as possible. What possible reason would GM have to change its business plan? Why would they go out of their way researching technologies to significantly increase fuel efficiency? 7 years ago the administration basically told the big 3 they're going to do everything they can to increase the flow of oil and decrease the regulation of autos and industrial pollution. That's called a blank check. 6 years ago the administration got a blank check itself in the form of 9-11. 9-11 was a windfall, a gift from heaven for companies like the big 3. The country was firmly in control by the GOP and terrorism became the unquestionable justification for every policy under the sun. It's only due to the administration and GOP's extreme corruption and incompetence that gas is at $3 a gallon. Those fools thought they could invade Iraq, stick around for a few weeks, and leave in their wake a bunch of democracies who wouldn't mind letting exxon pump their oil for them.

Why no air cars in the US? The US has become nothing more than a place to make a buck, that's why.

Why no air cars in the US? The US has become nothing more than a place to make a buck, that's why.

Regardless of the cost! BTW unfortunately our tax structure supports waste...

Aaron:)

Regardless of the cost!
:lol:true:lol:

Originally Posted by wahoonc
Regardless of the cost!


:lol:true:lol:

To tell you the truth is scares the hell out of me to see how much of our manufacturing infrastructure has been dismantled and how many of our decent paying manufacturing jobs have been converted to low paying service jobs. My Poster Child is the county I live in. There used to be a Denim mill here that made and dyed denim for just about everybody. At it it's peak in the mid 90's it employed around 2000 people at an average wage of $14+ and hour. Now the largest "industry"/employer in the county is Walmart with 470 people at an average wage of $8 and hour and they got tax concessions to move where they did. The mill PAID taxes, this is just a snapshot of one small area, if it is happening here it has to be happening other places.

Aaron:)

To tell you the truth is scares the hell out of me to see how much of our manufacturing infrastructure has been dismantled and how many of our decent paying manufacturing jobs have been converted to low paying service jobs. My Poster Child is the county I live in. There used to be a Denim mill here that made and dyed denim for just about everybody. At it it's peak in the mid 90's it employed around 2000 people at an average wage of $14+ and hour. Now the largest "industry"/employer in the county is Walmart with 470 people at an average wage of $8 and hour and they got tax concessions to move where they did. The mill PAID taxes, this is just a snapshot of one small area, if it is happening here it has to be happening other places.

Aaron:)

Yeah. Ain't globalization a wonderful thing. I used to get $15 an hour doing computer tech support. Since a lot of that has been outsourced to India, Costa Rica, etc., where folks are tickled pink to make $2 or $3 an hour, most of the help desk work here is down to more like $10 an hour. Ask any of the working women and men that have seen their wages, benefits, and job security erode as jobs are outsourced to countries with cheaper labor, if they think the trans-national corporations and the governments that support them are acting in their best interest.

The globalization web site of the Department of Sociology at Emory University lists the following as some of the reasons “why so many people oppose globalism.” These are precisely the reasons that globalization evokes terrorism.

--It is used as an ideology by the powerful to deceive the people about illusory benefits of a dehumanizing system.

--Insofar as it stands for a real process, it perpetuates the inequity and exploitation inherent in capitalism; globalization polarizes the globe and therefore creates an even more unjust world.

--It is not subject to democratic control and therefore cannot serve the interests of the people at large.

Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Edward S. Herman, in an interview for Third World Traveler in June of 1997, adds a little more detail to this outline.

"Global capital wants international trade and investment rights to prevail over the desires of local populations. It also wants to minimize welfare state expenditures, business tax burdens, threats of inflation, union organization, and environmental constraints; and the IMF, World Bank, and WTO strive to carry out these aims. These organizations have a common set of goals, reflecting the power of TNCs [trans-national corporations], transmitted to them by the national governments serving the same interests."

Vandana Shiva, in her Resurgence article, “Globalism and Terrorism”, brings a human element to Herman's rather technical description.

"The economy of globalisation creates a culture of despair and fear among the poor. It integrates markets globally, but excludes ordinary people from the economy and from democratic decision-making. Economic exclusion of those who do not comply with the rules of capitalism creates political, social and cultural exclusion and insecurity. Exclusion and insecurity provide fertile ground for breeding extremism, terrorism and fundamentalism. Democracy emptied of economic freedom and ecological freedom becomes potent ground for anger and violence, leading to attacks on the structures of global power."

Yup and it all leads to anarchy and the fall of "the empire" so history will repeat itself...ad nauseum. I just hope I am gone prior to the downfall I wouldn't make a good anarchist:(

Aaron:)

Yup and it all leads to anarchy and the fall of "the empire" so history will repeat itself...ad nauseum. I just hope I am gone prior to the downfall I wouldn't make a good anarchist:(

Aaron:)

I just hope capitalism doesn't render the earth uninhabitable by the turn of the next century. It's headed that way and I worry for my grand children. :(

To tell you the truth is scares the hell out of me to see how much of our manufacturing infrastructure has been dismantled and how many of our decent paying manufacturing jobs have been converted to low paying service jobs. My Poster Child is the county I live in. There used to be a Denim mill here that made and dyed denim for just about everybody. At it it's peak in the mid 90's it employed around 2000 people at an average wage of $14+ and hour. Now the largest "industry"/employer in the county is Walmart with 470 people at an average wage of $8 and hour and they got tax concessions to move where they did. The mill PAID taxes, this is just a snapshot of one small area, if it is happening here it has to be happening other places.

Aaron:)

Wages are only part of it, and a small part at that, because of unions, most American companies, unionized or not, have a good level of benefits, and benefits can add as much as 50% to the cost of labour. It's less in Canada and Western Europe, where governments provide a basic level of health care, the most expensive of those benefits. Companies don't need to provide any benefits in many third world countries, plus they pay a lot less in wages.

Even including all costs of labour, it's still not that much of the total, pollution abatement is expensive, Most first and second world countries, have some level of pollution abatement control regulation, most third world countries do not. Which is why denim mills and dyers now operate in Mexico, where there is a river that runs blue from dye pollution.

The only good thing, is that as a countries economy improves, wages, benefits and pollution abatement become part of the picture. Look at Japan, in the 1950's labour was dirt cheap, nobody got any kind of benefits, and you could pollute as much as you want. Now, 50 years later, Japanise workers have a level of wages and benefits equal to any first world country, and pollution is highly regulated. That's why your 1970's film camera was made in Japan, and your new digital is made in Malaysia or Taiwan. Now 50 years from now, it may be as expensive to make something in Taiwan as it is now in Japan.....

What will throw a monkey wrench into all this, is oil, or rather a lack of oil, shipping is going to get very expensive, real fast. Nuclear ships might resolve this, but the risks are too great. Think about it, a terrorist group, pirates an undefended nuclear powered commercial ship, finishes the voyage and puts the reactor critical as it steams into port. So we are back to wind power, wind power means smaller ships with larger crews and longer voyages, and that means much more expensive shipping. This means that your likely to eat more locally grown foods, because shipping them long distances will be difficult or impossible. Expect to eat more preserved foods in the winter and spring, and fresh stuff in the summer and fall....

This also means a return to manufacturing jobs in Europe and North America, but less trade between the two, goods will be more expensive, and there will be a return to repair work. Where as now if your toaster breaks, you go to Wally world and get another one, made in China, for $29.95, it doesn't make sense to repair it for $50. Where as if your toaster cost $299.50, your more likely to get it repaired for $50, then to buy a new one. What you may find also a lot more of, is factory refurbished goods. When you do replace something, you trade in the old one, they return it to the factory, where any parts that are worn or broken are replaced, it gets a through cleaning, and maybe new paint, and sold as refurbished. I know the idea of buying a refurbished toaster sounds lame, but it sells for $100 cheaper, and is just as good as the new one, expect shops to be sold out more often then not........

Oh well, my bike is calling, so more later.

High pressure air tools aren't as high pressure as what's in the air car's tank. ;)

The engine has an air filter, so it actually leaves cleaner air behind, and lube is via vegetable oil since the load is much, much less.

340 liters of air at 4340 PSI, and they say they can fill them at gas stations? not any gas stations I know of !! Never heard of or seen any with anywhere near that kind of air pressure. Thats a rather extreme amount of air pressure. I wonder if once your get in the car the thing runs continuously like a gas engine or cycled on demand as needed, something has to run the accessories. I figured they'd jack up the air pressure for obvious reasons, but I didnt think they'd go quite that high. Wonder what happens in a crash situation.

Note- it does not say it is going into production. It is very carefully worded to imply that, but it is not happening. They project 2008. That may well be true. But right in the article it says something like" if the manufacturers don't have any surprises". It may never make it to production. Pratically everything is hyped this way to create demand before production ships a product.

We still have to wait and see if it really happens. It's not a done deal. Projections don't mean much sometimes. I'm noit saying it won't happen, I'm saying it has not happened yet and something could go wrong.

340 liters of air at 4340 PSI, and they say they can fill them at gas stations? not any gas stations I know of !! Never heard of or seen any with anywhere near that kind of air pressure. Thats a rather extreme amount of air pressure. I wonder if once your get in the car the thing runs continuously like a gas engine or cycled on demand as needed, something has to run the accessories. I figured they'd jack up the air pressure for obvious reasons, but I didnt think they'd go quite that high. Wonder what happens in a crash situation.

Gas stations? I think you should go read the site a bit more... They have a section on air tank construction too. ;)

Recharge time: 4 hours (Mains connector)
Recharge time: 3 minutes (Air station)

whoa.
Besides a folder can 2 bikes fit in or on it?

340 liters of air at 4340 PSI, and they say they can fill them at gas stations? not any gas stations I know of !! Never heard of or seen any with anywhere near that kind of air pressure. Thats a rather extreme amount of air pressure. I wonder if once your get in the car the thing runs continuously like a gas engine or cycled on demand as needed, something has to run the accessories. I figured they'd jack up the air pressure for obvious reasons, but I didnt think they'd go quite that high. Wonder what happens in a crash situation.

The real question, is where does the energy come from to put the air in the tank? the compressor is probably electric, and the electricity comes from a generating station that runs on oil, coal or nuclear. So, you still have a high energy requirement (pumping a tank to 4340PSI takes a pretty powerful motor. That means you have the same high pollution factor as well, just moved it somewhere else. No matter how they package it, cars are going to be an inefficient use of energy, and even if a wonderful new power source was developed tomorrow, you still have traffic to deal with.

So is what we eat. Unless we grow all, or the vast majority, of our own food, we get the same high pollution (http://constructal.blogspot.com/2006/03/whats-mileage-on-that-bicycle.html) someplace else. This is likely better than a car and probably better than a bicycle for urban traffic, w/ slightly higher electricity costs than an EV, but no periodic battery replacement. I think it'd be great for certain areas, especially those that have an abundance of renewable or low carbon dioxide electricity sources. Even nuclear, considering it's been the cleanest and safest baseload source over the last few decades.

I think the concept is interesting and I hope it makes it to production. Air can be compressed by any mechanical means, electrical, wind power, hydro, bunch of peasants on bicycles hooked to a compressor. In the grand scheme of things none of us are truly sustainable;) :p It is going to come down to what can be supported with the technology at hand at this time. I would be interested to see if the motor could be scaled up to run buses. I think that it might be an overall "greener" vehicle than the EV's due to the manufacturing and disposal of batteries. However I think a lot of the car and it's components (tanks) are carbon fibre...not exactly a super environmentally friendly material. Some types of plastics are/can be produced from vegetable matter (Henry Ford was experimenting with soy bean based plastics back around WW II)

Aaron:)

The proton will decay! :D
I think buses are more likely to use compressed hydrogen, which around here could be from wind power, than compressed air. Compressed air is a PITA for a big vehicle because of the tank size needed, and compressed hydrogen is a PITA for a small vehicle because it tends to leak out if not immediately used. EVs aren't very "not green" if you will, because suitable batteries for them will always be recycled due to raw material cost. If you have a Prius pack, it'll go for ~$1000 at a junk yard, and Toyota will pay you for it, including picking up shipping to their facilities. The large NiMH batteries from the S10/RAV4/Ranger/etc-EVs go for $bank$... Even lead acids have core charges on them in CA, so it's not like batteries would pose a significant environmental hazard if they're handled properly. Lemme put it this way, I'm pretty sure the extra pollution to make the battery would be "paid off" in a year or few of EV operation, and after that it would just get recycled so the pollution cost isn't nearly as big. The difference in pollution is large enough that it's worthwhile for the federal and state governments to subsidize hybrids rather than health care, if you catch my drift. The same thing's happening with heavy duty diesels, so it's pretty consistent across the board. The bean counters figured we pay X amount for health care due to ICE emissions, so if we pay Y (Y<<X) amount for retrofitting the worst pollution sources, or insuring they aren't sources in the first place, it's a win-win situation.

The proton will decay! :D
Not if they're properly maintained. If they do decay, I guarantee it will be when you're out on a lonely road and forgot to bring your proton patch kit. What's the experimental status of proton decay?

Not if they're properly maintained. If they do decay, I guarantee it will be when you're out on a lonely road and forgot to bring your proton patch kit. What's the experimental status of proton decay?
Experimental. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay#Experimental_evidence)
P.s. I'm melting! Melting! :D

To me the one big issue with the EV's is the batteries and the manufacturing process as well as the disposal of them. We had a incident here a while back where the EPA got involved in a battery situation. I know a guy that owns an independent battery store, it has been in his family for years. He was selling old batteries to a recycler, getting his manifest and keeping his records. Seems the recycler was doing nothing but dragging the batteries out to his place, pouring the acid on the ground, breaking the cases open with a hammer and selling the lead out of them. Then burning the broken cases. Somewhere along the way the EPA found out about it and the guy at the battery store's insurance had to help pay for the clean up. Seems he was considered liable because he sold the batteries to the recycler. I am sure this scenario plays out all the time, somewhere. Ditto with auto recycling yards. We have one down the road from us that is going to be a major clean up some time in the future. The guy is running it illegally as can be, and gets slapped on the wrist every now and again. It slows him down for a few months then he is right back at it. It has been going on for several years now. IMHO the greener we can make things on the front end the better of we are going to be.

Aaron:)

Yeah, lead acids tend to be the source of lots of crap because it's common and a lot of yards are run by asshats, although in all fairness, there are no manufacturer made EV cars powered by them on the road iirc, so all that waste is from the usual ICE powered automobile. Any recent lead acid EV is either home built, or classified as a motorcycle. Any and all NiMH/Li-whatever can and will be recycled appropriately because they're just so damn expensive compared to lead acid, and I don't think we'll see a mass produced lead acid powered EV automobile, the energy density just isn't there.

...Seems the recycler was doing nothing but dragging the batteries out to his place, pouring the acid on the ground, breaking the cases open with a hammer and selling the lead out of them. Then burning the broken cases. Somewhere along the way the EPA found out about it and the guy at the battery store's insurance had to help pay for the clean up. Seems he was considered liable because he sold the batteries to the recycler. I am sure this scenario plays out all the time, somewhere...
Jiffy Lube used to write "old oil" on the service ticket if they took old oil from you (and of course every oil change implies that). Someone once told me the financial responsibility for botched recycling cleanups goes ultimately to the generator of the toxic waste, which in this case would be individual motorists, the customers of Jiffy Lube. Don't know the basis for that statement though.