New Technology - looks promissing???

Following is some information I just saw on the internet on a new car being introduced. Someday this technology could change the world (maybe even the flying world)


Tata Motors is ready to introduce Air Car - Will it be the next big thing? Tata Motors is taking giant strides and making history for itself. First the Landrover/Jaguar deal, then the world's cheapest car, and now it is also set to introduce the car that runs on air, compressed air.




With spiralling fuel prices it is about time we heard some breakthrough!

India's largest automaker, Tata Motors, is set to start producing the world's first commercial air-powered vehicle.

The Air Car, developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre for Luxembourg-based MDI, uses compressed air, as opposed to the gas-and-oxygen explosions of internal-combustion models, to push its engine's pistons. Some 6000 zero-emissions Air Cars are scheduled to hit Indian streets by August 2010.

The Air Car, called the "MiniCAT" could cost around Rs. 3,475,225 ($8,177.00) in India and would have a range of around 300 km between refuels.

The cost of a refill would be about Rs. 85 ($2.00)

The MiniCAT which is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued, not welded, and a body of fiberglass powered by compressed air. Microcontrollers are used in every device in the car, so one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, indicators, etc.

There are no keys - just an access card which can be read by the car from your pocket. According to the designers, it costs less than 50 rupees per 100 Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where 80% of motorists drive at less than 60 Km. The car has a top speed of 105 Kmph.

Refilling the car will, once the market develops, take place at adapted petrol stations to administer compressed air.
In two or three minutes, and at a cost of approximately 100 rupees, the car will be ready to go another 200-300 kilometers.



As a viable alternative, the car carries a small compressor which can be connected to the mains (220V or 380V) and refill the tank in 3-4 hours.
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 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.

I had a co2 powered airplane when I was a kid,
I have seen somewhere,where they used air powered carts and forklifts in a produce warehouse, cool for sure. Still takes electricity or fuel to run a compressor,

This has been around for quite some time. I think it makes a lot of sense. I wonder, what the efficiency is.

Kai.

Gyro_Kai said:

... I wonder, what the efficiency is.Kai.

Click to expand...

"world's first commercial air-powered vehicle. "

The efficient raises considerably if a Washington Politician is the source of hot air...

True. But if one is using electricity produced through nuclear power for the compressor, then efficiency is not really a problem or concern. They have been using these motors for taxis for several years now.

Efficiency isn't always the first priority. Electric propulsion is significantly more energy efficient than any internal combustion engine, and cheaper to run, but takes longer to charge than a gasoline car takes to refill, and can't yet provide enough range to be competitive.

Some of the inefficiency in a compressed-air scheme involves the heat generated and wasted in compressing the air. But if you live in a hot country, and can use the chilled exhaust gas instead of an engine-driven compressor to cool the occupants of the car as this system does, the difference becomes less clear. A compressed-air car also doesn't need to idle, apparently saves money on maintenance, and may have other benefits.

I don't know if Tata has followed one line of inquiry through to conclusion, but that is the storage tank(s) in the car. Obviously, highly compressed air has some potentially very negative consequences in an accident. They were talking about using tanks made from carbon fiber which is very light and very strong. In addition, when the carbon fiber tank fails as in an accident, it tends to peel open leaving a large opening to vent air under pressure as opposed to a small hole which makes the tank a rocket.
It's all very interesting stuff but, as pointed out, it is an inefficient energy source as those of us who have tried to run an air wrench off a small storage tank already know.
Tata seems to be using the compressed air (some 2,000 psi) against a working resistance like a spring.

Paul

Electric propulsion is significantly more energy efficient than any internal combustion engine.

Click to expand...

Not so! It still requires an engine to generate the electricity, then it requires well over 100% of the batteries electricity capacity to charge the batteries.

Not Yet said:

Paul
Not so! It still requires an engine to generate the electricity, then it requires well over 100% of the batteries electricity capacity to charge the batteries.

Click to expand...

Dave, it's hard to find an apples-to-apples comparison, but most published comparisons I've seen conveniently leave out some losses on the fossil fuel side, especially in refining and distribution.

A modern coal power plant running at 100% rated power can reach efficiencies near 90%, and high-voltage transmission lines lose little of that. A lead-acid storage battery used within its recommended margins is in the high 80s, and modern multi-phase electric motors can top 90%. For the system as a whole, 60-65% is achievable, if there aren't too many transformers in the circuit.

An internal combustion automotive engine running on gasoline is in the 30s, and that doesn't count the energy used to refine gasoline or truck it to filling stations. Diesel truck engines break into the 40s; the most efficient internal combustion engines ever built are the giant diesels used to power ocean-going ships, and the best of them do about 50%.

IS this what you guys are talking about?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2010/10/27/ef.air.pod.car.bk.c.cnn?hpt=T2

It says it gets 300 KM or 187 miles on a $2.00 charge. If an average car today gets 28 miles to the gallon, going 187 miles costs us about $17.56. $2.00 seems pretty efficient to me.

PW_Plack said:

A modern coal power plant running at 100% rated power can reach efficiencies near 90%, and high-voltage transmission lines lose little of that. .

Click to expand...

All other numbers granted, Paul, but any heat to electric conversion machine will not exceed 60%.
This is simply due to the fact that you have to somehow provide a cool end to the process.

The 90% often quoted are calculating the excess heat being use in heating schemes of nearby residential areas, which is not really effective in the summer or in Florida.

Kai.

Stoney said:

True. But if one is using electricity produced through nuclear power for the compressor, then efficiency is not really a problem or concern. They have been using these motors for taxis for several years now.

Click to expand...

I wonder if anyone ever did the whole calculation on nuclear power. Building a plant, discarding of it after the radiation related decay has rendered it useless after 20 years. Cost for guarding the nuclear waste for the next 200 000 years.

I wonder, if it is still as efficient as their promoters say. I understand NPV calculations, but still.

Kai.

Here's the link to the nearby Dominion Plant. If we had more of these online we would have plenty of electricity.

http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/surry/index.jsp

Don't over look the fact that REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPES OF PLANTS YOU HAVE ON LINE when the grid goes down it sucks big time. The grid system is a dinasour waiting to die.

Tony

Gyro_Kai said:

All other numbers granted, Paul, but any heat to electric conversion machine will not exceed 60%...

Click to expand...

Kai, you make sense. But even if you start with a powerplant 60% efficient, I believe you can beat a gasoline internal combustion engine with electric propulsion in end-to-end efficiency including refining/distribution/delivery losses.

In the end, it will come down to cost anyway. It's not an effective use of time or resources to design ways to conserve a fuel which is already much cheaper than alternatives. This is why environmental activists resort to attempts to artificially inflate the price of fuels through regulation, or create politically contrived shortages.

Consumer behavior also sits in a sort of market equilibrium. The US mandated more fuel efficient cars starting in the 1970s. Americans responded not by saving fuel, but by doubling annual miles driven. The only thing which will produce a meaningful incentive to carpool, use mass transit or otherwise conserve is a dramatic increase in fuel prices. We like to complain about the price of gasoline, but adjusted for inflation, gas at $2.90/gallon in 2010 is no more costly than gas at $.29/gallon was in 1970.

PW_Plack said:

Efficiency isn't always the first priority. Electric propulsion is significantly more energy efficient than any internal combustion engine, and cheaper to run, but takes longer to charge than a gasoline car takes to refill, and can't yet provide enough range to be competitive.

Some of the inefficiency in a compressed-air scheme involves the heat generated and wasted in compressing the air. But if you live in a hot country, and can use the chilled exhaust gas instead of an engine-driven compressor to cool the occupants of the car as this system does, the difference becomes less clear. A compressed-air car also doesn't need to idle, apparently saves money on maintenance, and may have other benefits.

Click to expand...

Concerning range of electric cars I can't agree: one of the greatest geniousses in the development of electric cars is American: the developer of the TESLA. Makes 200 - 300 miles per batt-recharge.

For the AirCar: finally a company starts production. It is one of the many solutions for a cleaner traffic, easy to establish and build up an infrastructure. We have to start somewhere and this AirCar is a great achievement.....

Paul, energy conserving cars is for me a great example how state intervention can actually do good. GW Bush said, let's not intervene, technological advances will improve the fuel efficiency of our cars. That did not work. In the 70s a good ol' Chevy would burn about the same amount of petrol as today's SUV, while producing about 80hp compared to 250hp today.

If the petrol is taxed highly, like in Europe, there is an incentive to conserve fuel, thus making your oil importing homeland more independent. People start using public transport, where available, high compression low volume engines are developed, low weight materials are used, etc. etc. And on top, the state has some extra money to waste

Angelo, there is a video of Top Gear on the Tesla (google it). You can not believe both advertisement statements. Either you drive it like a sports car or you drive 200 miles. Not both.

Kai.

Gyro_Kai said:

I wonder if anyone ever did the whole calculation on nuclear power. Building a plant, discarding of it after the radiation related decay has rendered it useless after 20 years. Cost for guarding the nuclear waste for the next 200 000 years.

I wonder, if it is still as efficient as their promoters say. I understand NPV calculations, but still.

Kai.

Click to expand...

WHAT????? Discarding the plant after 20 years?? WHAT????
The decayed material already is stored deep undergroud in caves or in containers on specified sights. No new guards....! Already have them on the current sights.
Why is the rest of the industrialized world proceeding with what we designed 30 years ago and we are sitting on are a&&!?