GeoffT
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 09:50 AM |
|
|
More news on the 'air powered' car.
Link
|
|
|
|
|
joneh
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 10:16 AM |
|
|
Without being too negative I reckon if that was really any good, someone would have had him bumped off by now!
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
more media hype - zero emissions. How can it run on zero emissions? Compressed air is what, like plucked out of thin air? No!
somewhere along the line energy would have been used to compress the air with resulting emissions.
Just like electric car, so the car does not emit pollutants but the power station does.
Next we'll be discussing the flywheel motor.
|
|
|
joneh
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 10:26 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
more media hype - zero emissions. How can it run on zero emissions? Compressed air is what, like plucked out of thin air? No!
somewhere along the line energy would have been used to compress the air with resulting emissions.
Just like electric car, so the car does not emit pollutants but the power station does.
Next we'll be discussing the flywheel motor.
Or the petrol burner they mentioned to heat the air....
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 10:33 AM |
|
|
Are they suggesting we drive around with those huge air cylinders hung under that little plastic car! Have they never seen Jaws II ? Imagine a motor
way crash…there’d be craters left in the road!!
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 10:48 AM |
|
|
Nothing was said about the range of the car
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 10:56 AM |
|
|
The thing is zero emission cars are designed for city's to reduce local pollution. They don't help with climate change, in fact they
probably do the opposite due to the inefficiency of converting energy from one form to another. ...
You would be surprised as to how many lives are effected by local pollution, aerosols (particulates) for example reduce life expectancy by a few years
(in the UK, not some third wold country)..
It's a balance, less local pollution and longer lives, or climate change, you choose...
Dan
[Edited on 13/2/08 by Bluemoon]
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
It's like the kind of thing you'd see on 'Brainiac'
what trully a daft idea and a terrorists dream come true, crash it and it takes out the whole block.
Warning - Keep out of direct sunlight!
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
thunderace
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 11:25 AM |
|
|
it has a petrol burner to heat the air ,
it wont do damage it will have a guilt in weak section to take the blast unlike metal cylinders.but you ears will hurt lol
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 11:32 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
it has a petrol burner to heat the air ,
which is the principle on whcih the ICE run?
and the burnt petrol does not pollute then?
|
|
|
AdamR
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 11:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
more media hype - zero emissions. How can it run on zero emissions? Compressed air is what, like plucked out of thin air?
What if the power is generated by a wind turbine?
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
it has a petrol burner to heat the air ,
it wont do damage it will have a guilt in weak section to take the blast unlike metal cylinders.but you ears will hurt lol
think volvo 850 slicing that thing, including tanks in half, BOOOM!!
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AdamR
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
more media hype - zero emissions. How can it run on zero emissions? Compressed air is what, like plucked out of thin air?
What if the power is generated by a wind turbine?
so making a wind turbine, prepraing the gound, installing it, making the cables to connect it to the grid etc. will product no emissions?
In the very long term the emssiosn average out to be very low but you get owt for nowt, except maybe chlamydia.
|
|
|
AdamR
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
so making a wind turbine, prepraing the gound, installing it, making the cables to connect it to the grid etc. will product no emissions?
Not if all of those processes are powered by other wind turbines! 
Ok so I'm being facetious. But the point is that yes, everything ultimately needs energy - but if the power can be generated cleanly then who
cares?
It's (almost) just about possible to believe in the government plan that in 30 years we'll have enough renewable energy capacity to power
all non-industrial consumption in the UK. If the same grid is also powering most of our transport, then regardless of what you think about global
warming etc that is a massive chunk of pollution we no longer need to worry about.
Anyway... I digress!
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 12:50 PM |
|
|
big scalelectrics cars, that's what we need
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 12:52 PM |
|
|
and of course theyre made from GRP - which is made from oil .
they should make em like peugeots , theyd be a lot lighter then .
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bluemoon
You would be surprised as to how many lives are effected by local pollution, aerosols (particulates) for example reduce life expectancy by a few years
(in the UK, not some third wold country)..
Dan
[Edited on 13/2/08 by Bluemoon]
So people die off, then there will be no need for a congestion charge.
See it all balances out in the end.
Ain't nature wonderful? 
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 01:28 PM |
|
|
I was listening to southern counties radio this morning and they had the dude that invented the wind up radio speaking. He is inventing a wind up
mobile for release this year. Maybe next year he will invent a wind up car?
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 02:11 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AdamR
It's (almost) just about possible to believe in the government plan that in 30 years we'll have enough renewable energy capacity to power
all non-industrial consumption in the UK.
So will
a) the government invest in renewable and/.or nuclear enrgy sources
or
b) tax energy so much that you cannot aford to use leccy and gas in your house * or drive your car anywhere?
which is the more likley scenario?
* maybe a good time to invest in North Face
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 02:23 PM |
|
|
Bah Humbug: I think these sort of ideas are more a mechanism for getting money from uninformed investors  than about the environment.
Anyway the energy cost of moving X lbs Y miles at Z speed remains the same no matter what you use, and the energy to compress the air in this case
will most likey come from some polluting source.
|
|
|
GeoffT
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 02:41 PM |
|
|
Away from the environmental arguments, I suppose the method of energy storage looks preferable to heavy and hugely expensive batteries. Also in the
event of a serious accident, which is more dangerous - a highly flammable liquid, highly corrosive sulphuric acid, or potentially explosive compressed
air! I'm hedging my bets on that one....
As already mentioned though, the word 'range' seems to have been avoided in that report, I wonder why.....!
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 03:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
As already mentioned though, the word 'range' seems to have been avoided in that report, I wonder why.....!
You could stick a diesel powered compressor in the back of the van when you want to go on holiday!
|
|
|
Tralfaz
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 03:42 PM |
|
|
I can't understand why whenever someone comes up with a progressive idea on this front masses begin crying foul!, lies!, halve truth! etc.
Progress only happens with new thinking.
While it is certainly true that you don't get something for nothing, the development of a vehicle that runs on compressed air which can be
generated by any number of sources seems to be of enough worth to explore. If nothing else it 'could' continue to be used even if oil
sources dry up. Further while the raw energy needed to compress the air may in fact pollute it is possible that it may be done more efficiently, we
all know that in a traditional internal combustion engine a signifigant portion of the energy produced is lost as heat.
What benefit may be gained by improving air quality in cities?
Go ahead flame away.
T
|
|
|
I love speed :-P
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 04:05 PM |
|
|
The easiest solution would be to have 100% nuclear/renewable energy system. Get rid of gas for heating, petrol for cars etc and have as much as
possible powered by electricity. The CO2 produced would drop very quickly. However which is better to die of high sea levels and worse weather or
nuclear radiation?
Another problem is if every car in the UK went electric over night, the government would lose billions in lost tax.
Don't Steal
The Government doesn’t like the competition
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
I have no doubt it works, it's a very simple system after all and based on some quite ancient technology.
The points in dispute were the zero emissions claim, when the companies own diagrams clearly show a burner being used. The usable range such a system
would provide (not given as far as I could see) and my point about the safety issue of carrying large cylinders of compressed gas on a light weight
platform. All quite valid and not deliberately negative at all.
As for where the energy comes from to first compress the gas, your right, even a coal fired power station is producing far less emissions for a given
about of burned fuel as these plant's have to process and clean their emissions before realised.
I don’t consider nuclear as a viable option. Reserves of uranium are already getting low not helped by the amount used in weapons manufacture. Do a
search on uranium mining and have a look at the miners who have to extract the ore. I also fail to see the logic in positive environmental claims for
nuclear when they have the most dangerous waste pollutant of anything so far invented. Reactors are deadly for over 100,000 years, hugely expensive to
deal with and any mistake end’s up with another Chernobyl (so infamous that actually comes up in my spell checker). Easy it is not.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
