Berkeley Engineers Have Some Bad News About Air Cars

cheeks5965 writes "We've argued before over compressed air vehicles, a.k.a. air cars. Air cars are an enchanting idea, providing mobility with zero fuel consumption or environmental impacts. The NYTimes' Green Inc. blog reports that the reality is less rosy. New research from UC Berkeley and ICF International puts a period at the end of the discussion, showing that compressed air is a very poor fuel, storing less than 1% of the energy in gasoline; air cars won't get you far, with a range of just 29 miles in typical city driving; and despite appearing green the vehicles are worse for the environment, with twice the carbon footprint as gasoline vehicles, from producing the electricity used to compress the air. Given these barriers, manufacturer claims should definitely be taken with a grain of salt."

Comments

At least they don't pollute the city directly

[jandrese]

There appear to be two primary advanages of these cars: They're cheap to make and they don't directly pollute the city air. If the power plant is downwind they could actually improve the air quality in the city. You also get "free" AC, although heating the car is an issue. Since these are primarily targeted at cities like Mumbai the cooling is more important anyway.

Re:At least they don't pollute the city directly

[wizardforce]

What benefits do these air powered cars have that aren't significantly exceeded by electric vehicles?
The range of these cars is 1/5 of electric cars *and* is less efficient.

I guess congratulations are in order

[MoellerPlesset2]

Not on debunking this, because it's a completely ridiculous idea that anyone who's taken even introductory engineering thermodynamics should be able to debunk. Rather, they should get credit for going the extra mile and actually getting a paper out of the thing (and media attention!).

I mean really. There's perfectly good reasons why we're not using compressed air as a 'fuel', and it's not that we hadn't thought of it. The idea (and applications) have been around since the 19th century.

Re:I guess congratulations are in order

[bmajik]

The problem of humanity is one of the capture, storage, and application of energy.

Gasoline is a fantastic medium for energy storage: it's a better battery than any battery we know how to cheaply produce and service, and that's why we use it. But the energy capture function for gasoline [getting the energy into the gasoline] sucks. And the energy dispersal/application of gasoline has some environmentalists pretty upset.

Nature gives us many ways to store energy now and release it later. The chemical combustion of gasoline is one such mechanism. The desire of a compressed gas to push forcefully against its container is another such mechanism. The strong nuclear bindig energy is a particulary potent and pervasive mechanism. The specific heat of water is yet another.

The fundamental mechanisms of energy storage have been known about for a long time. Taken as a complete system to let humanity accomplish some goal, we are concerned with how we capture the energy, how much of it we can store [and at what cost], and how easy it is to get it back out in a form condusive to the sort of work we want to do with it.

As technology changes we must continually re-evaluate the end-to-end story for a particular aqcuisition/storage/application energy cycle. We may find that we are willing to tolerate a 100 fold decrease in energy storage performance for a 200 fold increase in acquisition efficiency and a qualitative improvement in application performance.

For instance, if i live in arizona and i have a sterling-engine powered air compressor that pumps my 50G tank to 100psi after 12 hours of sunlight, and this lets me go about 10 miles with no consumption of anything other than sunlight... I'm interested. If i commute 5 miles each way, I can get to work and back using nothing but solar energy. And unlike with PV panels and electrical batteries, a guy with a pipe threading die and a welder could build refueling system in his garage, out of stuff that has zero environmental impact whatsoever.

I think that's cool. I'm obviously playing fast and loose with the numbers. Since the kJ/m^2 of solar radiation is known at gridsquares all over north america, you could actually make some ballpark efficiency guesses about peices of the process and plug in real numbers to my hypothetical example. Even if reality is 1 mile @ 30mph after 8 hrs of sunlight.. that fits _some_ usage profile.

It used to be that every farm in North Dakota [where I live] had a windmill powering the farm. Then they disappeared and became an anachronism paying homage to a bygone era. Now windmills are dotting the countryside again. It didn't get windier here.

What changed?

The physics of energy capture, storage, and dispersion have always been the same; our efficiency and the context of the problem space continue to change. As such we must constantly re-evaluate what we did in the past against the realities of today.

Re:Zero Emissions are worse??

[Gerafix]

Bullshit. There's no such thing as zero emissions unless you're knee deep in shit in the middle of the wilderness, burning wood for heat. Killing wild animals with your bare hands or tools you hobbled together yourself. Living in a hut made of shrubs down by the river.

Those solar panels, wind turbines, penis pumps etc had to be manufactured somehow and that manufacturing process creates emissions. "Carbon offsets" is a joke, wake up people! Any emission is an emission.

No kidding?

[Brett Buck]

This is a surprise to someone? Who ever though this *could* work? Certainly not anyone with any knowledge of thermodynamics. The only compressed -gas systems that even have a chance of working are those that store the working fluid as a liquid, meaning it has to be able to be liquified at room temperature at a reasonable pressure (few hundred PSI at most). Otherwise the tanks are huge and heavy (meaning it will barely move under power) or they are small and heavy (meaning it has no range). Two excellent working fluid for this purpose are - wait for it - CO2 and Freon! Oops.

          Brett

Re:"zero fuel"?

[oldhack]

Does it involve an electric middle stage? If so, electric energy storage would be more efficient, I'm guesssing?

Re:Burning wood is not zero emission

[slim-t]

It releases the carbon that the tree had already taken out of the atmosphere, and the tree that grows in its place will recapture. So the net is zero emission.

As said in great grandparent post, compressed air and hydrogen are energy storage mediums. Wood is the same thing. Trees use solar energy to convert CO2 into carbon. When you burn the wood, you put the CO2 back into the air and get the energy back as heat.

It doesn't matter if we burn the wood for something useful, the trees dies and rots, or the tree is burned in a forest fire: at some point the carbon is coming back out of that tree.

Re:There are other ways to compress the air.

[Cyberllama]

But you could just as easily have that windmill power a turbine to generate electricity to charge the battery in your electric car and get a far higher energy density leading to more mileage per charge and per each day's wind. I think that's the point that's being made. There's lots of clean ways that can generate energy -- any of which can be used to compress air, but why add that extra unnecessary step in the middle when it's just an added inefficiency?