Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Berkeley Engineers Have Some Bad News About Air Cars

Posted by timothy on from the puff-the-magic-dragon-was-involved dept.

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."

6 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. At least they don't pollute the city directly by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:At least they don't pollute the city directly by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:At least they don't pollute the city directly by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

      They were first developed to be used in environments, where sparks could lead to an explosion (e.g. chemical plants or refineries). There you can't use electric cars.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  2. Re:Zero Emissions are worse?? by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

    >>>all those Prius owners don't really seem to care about Lithum strip mines

    Prius cars don't use lithium. They use nickle and hydride, and when disposed are no more harmful than throwing-away coins and water. (Although recycling the metal would be better.)

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  3. Re:Zero Emissions are worse?? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Carbon offsets" is a joke, wake up people! Any emission is an emission.

    I hold all my farts in sir!

  4. Time for a new tagline by heffrey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot - news for idiots, stuff that's obvious