# This will be a game changer



## tony58

http://www.caradvice.com.au/141944/tata-motors-mini-cat-air-car-to-debut-in-2012/


----------



## RNLA

Now if they could make it nice looking. I'm the hard customer to impress. I come from the school of old American iron an I'm not impressed with the look of some cars today. The propulsion is absolutely cool, we need this technology, the light weight is also super cool. They could make it look cool and engineer the gearing so it could speed a bit. Although electric think of the Tesla roadster, if I could afford it I would get one, totally bad a** car!


----------



## begreen

I've been following air car development for about 5 yrs. There's a company in France (MDI) that's been developing this technology. Tata is using their engine. I hope this one's a success. 

(Disclosure, I own Tata stock.)

http://www.mdi.lu/english/


----------



## RNLA

You bet BG, I could be totally convinced on the air power. I like the thought of alternative fuel, only they need to figure out "TOP FUEL" air power.  :cheese:


----------



## Backwoods Savage

It seem I remember someone experimenting with this concept except that it had an onboard air compressor. Just don't remember where I read about that. I also recall many years ago someone experimenting with hydraulics and the thing was powered with about a 15 hp engine and got super mileage. Not sure what ever happened with that one.


----------



## jharkin

Its certainly a great idea...but Im not convinced its a game changer yet. LIke hydrogen fuel cells this is just another battery alternative to power cars off the electric grid. In theory this could address the recharge time problem of batteries and infrastructure cost of hydrogen- lets watch how it does.

The looks are not an issue I think, in India this will fit right in.


----------



## webbie

I'm not schooled enough in engineering to understand the amount of energy saved and released in a small tank such as that.

I did, however, long ago think up an invention that some others have done...which involved compressed air! Way back in the 80's folks used those aerosol tanks to dust off their computers and keyboards..probably still do! I figured it would be nice to have a rechargeable can that you could pump up with plain old air instead of using whatever gases the regular dusters used. I went as far as to test one out by getting an old can and brazing a tire fill valve on the sucker so I could pump it up.....

Any car that doesn't need all the various IC systems is, in some ways, a game changer. Fossil fuels are limited, expensive and centralized whereas power in itself is not - that is, it can be generated from many different sources. 

Damn, I'd like to come back in 100 years and see what's up!


----------



## fossil

Webmaster said:
			
		

> ...I figured it would be nice to have a rechargeable can that you could pump up with plain old air instead of using whatever gases the regular dusters used. I went as far as to test one out by getting an old can and brazing a tire fill valve on the sucker so I could pump it up...



Those are commercially available.  I have two of them, the size of a typical spray paint rattle can.  They could be used with just compressed air in them, but the main purpose is to partially fill 'em with whatever liquid you want to spray and then pressurize them with compressed air.  Install one of the nozzles provided, and voila!  Instant spray can of whatever liquid you chose to put in there...paints, insecticides, solvents, whatever.  Wouldn't work for really viscous stuff, but for thin liquids, they work like a charm.  Rick


----------



## webbie

Yeah, I got pissed off back in the late 80's when I had to buy those cans and then put them in the trash.......so I thought up the pump-can.

Back then they were not around...but I think I've seen them since......
here is a fancy version. Mine would have had a little pump on it - non electric:
http://www.canlessair.com/canless-air-duster2.html

Here is the problem laid out with some reviews of solutions:
http://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/compressed-air-dusters-should-be-blown-away.html

turns out there is bad stuff in that compressed air- besides having to toss the can each time!


----------



## wetwood

jharkin said:
			
		

> The looks are not an issue I think, in India this will fit right in.



It would not be my vehicle of choice for driving over the Himalayas.


----------



## webbie

wetwood said:
			
		

> jharkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The looks are not an issue I think, in India this will fit right in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would not be my vehicle of choice for driving over the Himalayas.
Click to expand...


I once sold a stove to a really rich indian dude who (seriously) had to pack it by mule up to one of his many houses in those MTs.
No roads there, it seems.


----------



## jharkin

For the mountains  no of course... but in the cities where most Indians who can afford this live it will be one of the better options out there for transport.

Some street scenes from one of my trips to give you an idea. The white car is a Tata... very typical Indian middle class car, 1200cc, seats 4 cozy. The 2 stroke 3 wheel rickshaw is still by far the most common taxi. 

Edit: This is in Pune, a city of ~6 million about 4 hours east of Mumbai (Bombay) by car. It happens to be the HQ of Tata motors also...


----------



## begreen

Thanks for the pics! When we stayed in India our driver had a Tata Indica. It was small, but actually a pretty nice and comfortable car. Almost every truck there is a Tata. When I got back I was impressed enough to buy some stock in the company which has done pretty well. 

Here's a couple more Tata and other shots. Our driver was lots of fun and was very proud of his new Indica. But even without a car, they seem to be able to pack more on a bike, truck or jeep than seems possible. This is a broom seller and the other one is a daily commuter vehicle taking folks back from work to the mountains outside of Udaipur. 

Note that in Delhi (where we stayed) all of the tut-tuts (3 wheel taxi) were converted to CNG around 2000. Diesel or 2 stroke is not allowed any more there.


----------



## tony58

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Thanks for the pics! When we stayed in India our driver had a Tata Indica. It was small, but actually a pretty nice and comfortable car. Almost every truck there is a Tata. When I got back I was impressed enough to buy some stock in the company which has done pretty well.
> 
> Note that in Delhi (where we stayed) all of the tut-tuts (3 wheel taxi) were converted to CNG around 2000. Diesel or 2 stroke is not allowed any more there.


>
 I would think that would be some good stock to own,especially if this car makes a go at it.I know its a dream to see opec on their knees...and see gas @ 50 cents per gal. and them eating sand.


----------



## begreen

The news seems to be good for the stock. It's gone up a four bucks in the past few days.


----------



## Highbeam

4 bucks is good if it is a penny stock. Is that a big percentage gain? 

The thing about compressing air for use in spraying electronics is that you also compress the water out of it. The air you spray can be a mist of water vs. the commercial cans that use a dry carbon dioxide or nitrogen. The cans sometimes use a liquid that will boil off and provide way more cubic feet of air per can than simple compressed air, kinda like how LPG boils into vapor. 

I have never bought a can like that. I just turn over my keyboard and shake the funk out every so often.


----------



## begreen

I bought it around $5. Hit $22 today. Up from $18 a few days ago, so I'm happy.


----------



## JRP3

I hate to kill the party but an "Air car" is just a terribly inefficient use of electricity.  Compressed air has very little energy storage potential, the compressor will use a lot of electricity to compress the air to fill a tank, the tank won't give you much range or power, and the "air motor" will also lose a lot of energy while running, and you have two "motors" to maintain, the compressor and the "air" motor.  These air cars have the performance of a golf cart, and there are no physics to make them much better.  The most efficient way to use electricity for transportation is in EV's, which is what most OEM's are working on, not air cars.


----------



## wetwood

Sorry, The last thing I watched on India was IRT deadliest roads....


----------



## jharkin

Nice photos BeGreen. Did you go for vacation or work?  I go for work every couple years (overdue to go again actually).


----------



## fossil

JRP3 said:
			
		

> ...Compressed air has very little energy storage potential...



Well, as a Mechanical Engineer and onetime submarine sailor, I wouldn't be so quick to just blow off this idea.  The article says, "two 340-litre carbon fibre gas tanks which are filled with air to 4350psi."  That's some _very_ high pressure air, and it most certainly does contain a significant amount of potential energy.  If they've figured out how to efficiently exploit the energy in that air in such a way as to make the vehicles a viable transportation option for some portion of the Indian urban population, and devised a convenient method for changing out the depleted cylinders for freshly charged ones, well then good for them.  I just might buy some stock.  Rick


----------



## Frozen Canuck

fossil said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Compressed air has very little energy storage potential...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as a Mechanical Engineer and onetime submarine sailor, I wouldn't be so quick to just blow off this idea.  The article says, "two 340-litre carbon fibre gas tanks which are filled with air to 4350psi."  That's some _very_ high pressure air, and it most certainly does contain a significant amount of potential energy.  If they've figured out how to efficiently exploit the energy in that air in such a way as to make the vehicles a viable transportation option for some portion of the Indian urban population, and devised a convenient method for changing out the depleted cylinders for freshly charged ones, well then good for them.  I just might buy some stock.  Rick
Click to expand...


+1. I am glad that someone is at least making the effort to try an alternative. 
As opposed to most on this side of the pond who sit, watch, & do little except complain about the high cost of fuel. 
One has to remember that India like China is going to have their finger in a lot of pies, the ones that fail & above all the ones that succeed. 
The winners will more than pay for the losers. 
In a few decades these emerging economies will be running the joint whether we like it or not so here's hoping they get it right.


----------



## tony58

Frozen Canuck said:
			
		

> fossil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Compressed air has very little energy storage potential...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as a Mechanical Engineer and onetime submarine sailor, I wouldn't be so quick to just blow off this idea. The article says, "two 340-litre carbon fibre gas tanks which are filled with air to 4350psi." That's some _very_ high pressure air, and it most certainly does contain a significant amount of potential energy. If they've figured out how to efficiently exploit the energy in that air in such a way as to make the vehicles a viable transportation option for some portion of the Indian urban population, and devised a convenient method for changing out the depleted cylinders for freshly charged ones, well then good for them. I just might buy some stock. Rick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> +1. I am glad that someone is at least making the effort to try an alternative.
> As opposed to most on this side of the pond who sit, watch, & do little except complain about the high cost of fuel.
> One has to remember that India like China is going to have their finger in a lot of pies, the ones that fail & above all the ones that succeed.
> The winners will more than pay for the losers.
> In a few decades these emerging economies will be running the joint whether we like it or not so here's hoping they get it right.
Click to expand...


I'm not a engineer, but the way I see this its sorta the beginning of perpetual motion.Look out when they get it perfected.Opec we don't need you anymore...It will be exciting to see the outcome of this.TaTa is no fly by night company.


----------



## jharkin

Its not perpetual motion. In theory you get as much energy out using the compressed air to spin the motor as you put in using the compressor to fill the tank,* minus* all the losses from inefficiencies in the system. Ever feel the cylinder on an air compressor running hard? Gets hot right? That's where your efficiency loss goes.

This is rally just an energy storage alternative to a battery, same as a hydrogen fuel cell (use elec to make H, get it back in the cell), flywheel systems, etc.  All of these systems have losses, even the best batteries have efficiency losses in the charging process etc.

This wont be a universal solution but could find a real good niche if the efficiency is at least in the ballpark of batteries. This system has a big advantage in not having the dependency on rare elements some batteries do, plus you don't have to carry around all that mass and you dont have the recharge time problem.

But the bottom line with ALL of these alternatives is where does the electricity come from?  In most places that means COAL.


----------



## JRP3

Exactly, though the US is only around 45% coal at this point, and dropping.  Compressed air is a poor form of energy storage, period, end of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200.  There is no such thing as perpetual motion anyway.  Trying new ideas is great, but the physics has to make sense.  A mechanical engineer should know that you don't get free energy and that the obvious losses in a compressed air system is simply a terrible use of electricity.  Batteries have far better efficiency and density.  Tesla is coming out with their Model S sedan this year which will have up to 320 miles of range,  http://www.teslamotors.com/  Nissan has the LEAF around 100 miles of range, and batteries are constantly improving.  Meanwhile Tata and Midi build golf carts that barely have any range, little power, would not pass a crash test, and are a horrible waste of electricity.  If you want a low cost form of low speed transportation for the Indian population something like this would be better and use no grid electricity:  http://sunnev.com/  I would seriously look into the actual physics of energy in compressed air before I invested in anything dealing with it.  Tata may be a good investment but not because of their "air car".


----------



## fossil

JRP3 said:
			
		

> ...A mechanical engineer should know that you don't get free energy...



If you're talking to me, rest assured I'm quite well versed in the Laws of Thermodynamics.  I made no implication whatever that this was some sort of a lossless system.  Rick


----------



## begreen

JRP3 said:
			
		

> Exactly, though the US is only around 45% coal at this point, and dropping.  Compressed air is a poor form of energy storage, period, end of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200.  There is no such thing as perpetual motion anyway.  Trying new ideas is great, but the physics has to make sense.  A mechanical engineer should know that you don't get free energy and that the obvious losses in a compressed air system is simply a terrible use of electricity.  Batteries have far better efficiency and density.  Tesla is coming out with their Model S sedan this year which will have up to 320 miles of range,  http://www.teslamotors.com/  Nissan has the LEAF around 100 miles of range, and batteries are constantly improving.  Meanwhile Tata and Midi build golf carts that barely have any range, little power, would not pass a crash test, and are a horrible waste of electricity.  If you want a low cost form of low speed transportation for the Indian population something like this would be better and use no grid electricity:  http://sunnev.com/  I would seriously look into the actual physics of energy in compressed air before I invested in anything dealing with it.  Tata may be a good investment but not because of their "air car".



Batteries do not come for free either. Look at their cradle to grave costs from the mining of rare minerals, to construction, to use, to recycling. The Tesla S looks lovely, but at $65K (short range version) to $95K, it is built for the wealthy, not the average citizen. India has an abundance of sunshine so storing this energy as compressed air is a technology they can use now while waiting for battery technology to develop makes sense. As for safety, the idea is to get young families off of motorcycles where they often ride with 3-4 aboard. It's all relative. What works for them is not the same as for us. After all, how many 3 wheel tut-tut taxis do you see roaming NYC's streets? Safety, pffft.


----------



## JRP3

Which is why I suggested the SUNNEV as a better solution.  India doesn't have so much electricity that it can afford to waste it in a compressed air system, frankly no country does.  A wasteful system does not make any more sense for India than it does for us.  As for batteries, short range NEV's can use common lead acid batteries, which are highly recycled, though lifetime costs would be lower with lithium.  Further more lithium batteries do not have large amounts of rare earths in them, in fact most lithium formulations use none.  The majority of materials in a lithium battery are plastic, aluminum, copper, and electrolyte, with small amounts of lithium.  They are not particularly toxic either and are also recyclable.  They are also very long lived in EV formats and use, and even after they have lost too much capacity for EV use they can have a second life in grid back up systems where energy density is less important.  An EV battery pack might see 20 years or more of total use before it needs to be recycled.  
The Tesla 160 mile version is $57K by the way.  As with any new technology initial costs are high but come down with increased volume.


----------



## Jags

JRP3 said:
			
		

> Compressed air is a poor form of energy storage, period, end of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200.



Well, it took about 6.5 seconds on google to debunk this statement.  I will not bore anybody with the details, use your own search.  There are some very large and efficient systems out there that in fact use compressed air for an energy storage medium.

I got no dog in this fight.  Just say'in.


----------



## begreen

JRP3 said:
			
		

> The Tesla 160 mile version is $57K by the way.  As with any new technology initial costs are high but come down with increased volume.



I stand corrected. Did they just change their website? I was on it last week looking at pricing and I see some changes today. The 40K battery model will now be $49K (Dec 2012), but the 300 mile range 85K battery model starts at $69K and up to $97.9 for the full trimmed performance version. I'll take two so that my wife can have one also. Oh heck, throw in a couple for the kids to play with too.


----------



## fossil

Tesla makes a couple of really beautiful cars.  They're also complex, heavy, and _very_ expensive.  Tesla's never turned a profit.  Tesla's managed to sell about 2100 vehicles in 9 years.  Tesla and Tata aren't exactly in the same league...nor is this somewhat intriguing concept car from Tata aimed at the same demographic as Tesla's products (by a long shot).  *"Compressed air is a poor form of energy storage, period, end of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200." * This is the kind of thinking that stifles creativity and innovation.  I'm glad it's an attitude that's rarely found in the Engineering/R&D community.  If you think a whole lot of research by some very bright individuals has not led to the development of this Tata "air car", then you don't know much about the Indian technical community.  Rick


----------



## begreen

Yes, even if they cut the price by $10K the Tesla S is not going to compete with a Honda Civic or other average econobox. They do make beautiful cars, but I'm not sure I will ever own one, though it would be fun to try one out. Perhaps a more reasonable comparison will be the Mitsubishi iMiEV? I note that the MiniCat is designed to go 200-300km on a filling for a cost of about 100 rupees or about $2. The car is set to sell for under $13K and will have full safety features. Maintenance will be low with an oil change every 50,000km.


----------



## JRP3

Jags said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compressed air is a poor form of energy storage, period, end of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took about 6.5 seconds on google to debunk this statement.  I will not bore anybody with the details, use your own search.  There are some very large and efficient systems out there that in fact use compressed air for an energy storage medium.
> 
> I got no dog in this fight.  Just say'in.
Click to expand...

If you had data you should share it.  Maybe you are referring to large scale CAES systems for grid regulation, where they aren't trying to carry air in a portable container.   It's relatively cheap compared to some large scale grid storage systems but round trip efficiency is poor.  Trying to carry enough air around in a vehicle is a bit different.  From Wikipedia:


> Advanced fiber-reinforced bottles are comparable to the rechargeable lead-acid battery in terms of energy density. Advanced battery systems are several times better.[2] Batteries also provide nearly constant voltage over their entire charge level, whereas the pressure varies greatly while using a pressure vessel from full to empty. It is technically challenging to design air engines to maintain high efficiency and sufficient power over a wide range of pressures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage#Energy_density_and_efficiency
That's not even addressing the power losses in compression and decompression to fill a tank and power a vehicle, and carbon fiber tanks are not cheap.  So you've got energy density around lead acid battery levels, poor "charge" and "discharge" efficiencies, and the need for expensive high pressure tanks, which also pose a potential explosion risk from violent decompression in an accident.   If that all sounds good to you have at it, I'd just like people to look at this with some facts and open eyes.  Too many people see "Air car" and think "wow, it just runs on air, perfect".  There are a lot of real problems with the concept that should not be ignored.


----------



## JRP3

BeGreen said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tesla 160 mile version is $57K by the way.  As with any new technology initial costs are high but come down with increased volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. Did they just change their website? I was on it last week looking at pricing and I see some changes today. The 40K battery model will now be $49K (Dec 2012), but the 300 mile range 85K battery model starts at $69K and up to $97.9 for the full trimmed performance version. I'll take two so that my wife can have one also. Oh heck, throw in a couple for the kids to play with too.
Click to expand...

No they've been quoting the same prices since it was announced, though it wasn't official until a few weeks ago.   The $49K is including the $7500 tax rebate.


----------



## JRP3

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Yes, even if they cut the price by $10K the Tesla S is not going to compete with a Honda Civic or other average econobox. They do make beautiful cars, but I'm not sure I will ever own one, though it would be fun to try one out. Perhaps a more reasonable comparison will be the Mitsubishi iMiEV? I note that the MiniCat is designed to go 200-300km on a filling for a cost of about 100 rupees or about $2. The car is set to sell for under $13K and will have full safety features. Maintenance will be low with an oil change every 50,000km.


Obviously Tesla is not trying to sell to the same market as Honda, they are targeting BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, etc.  The 2012 production run is already sold out in advance.
I'm going way out on a limb, (not really), and bet that the MiniCat will never get 200km of range, let alone 300km.  I think the Midi car it's based on went about 7 miles, at maybe 30 mph.  Has there been any independent testing of the MiniCat?


----------



## fossil

JRP3 said:
			
		

> ...Too many people see "Air car" and think "wow, it just runs on air, perfect"...



Well, I'd like to see some data to support that statement. You don't give "people" much credit.



			
				JRP3 said:
			
		

> ...There are a lot of real problems with the concept that should not be ignored.



Hmm...you don't give the Indian engineering community much credit, either. Maybe you never had a college professor who came from India. I had a couple. Impressive, to say the least. I'm quite confident that the "real problems" have _not _been ignored.

Not everyone needs or can afford the very best of anything & everything...including portable energy storage. Sometimes "good enough" is the best choice.  I doubt you'd find any knowledgeable person who would argue that advanced battery technology is not superior to compressed air. But, is it the necessary and most cost-effective solution in every case? I don't think so. The world's big enough for a wide range of technologies & solutions to challenges...and the vast spectrum of needs vis-a-vis available resources demands a smorgasbord of choices. Rick


----------



## JRP3

I've been following this technology for quite a while, I've seen many people who think this only runs on air.   The title of this very thread is overly enthusiastic and it's obvious a number of people posting have not really dug deeply into what is involved.  I'm not slighting the engineers in India, but no engineer can change the laws of physics, and many very smart people have pursued projects destined to fail.  (Plenty of people have tried perpetual motion projects because they were able to get 99% efficiency while ignoring the fact that 101% efficiency was impossible.)  A compressed gas can only have so much gravimetric and volumetric energy density, and the only way to increase that is to increase the pressure, and the only way to increase the pressure is to use more electricity, or gas or diesel with a petroleum powered compressor, which would be even less efficient.  There is no engineering that's going to change the way a gas compresses and decompresses.  A regular 7.5hp 150psi air compressor would take 230V and 25 amps, 5,750 watts, and that's just for 150 psi.  If that runs for an hour that's 5.75kWh's of electricity, how much electricity would a 4000+psi compressor need for a few hours fill time?  Plus you lose a lot of that energy as heat in the compressor, and you lose more of it again in the air motor in the car, since it's basically just the reverse of a compressor.
Worth reading:  http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/09/tata-motors-air-car-minicat/


> The concept found some limited success in powering locomotives, mostly used for mining, where a combustion-free energy source was desirable. Ultimately, even these were replaced by more efficient electric motors.





> Energine Corporation, of Korea, claimed that it was going to deliver a hybrid compressed-air/electric car, only to see its CEO arrested for making exaggerated claims.





> Kâ€™Airmobiles, a French company, were another compressed air concept, but it never saw the light of day. The company was unable to procure the necessary funding, and the engineers who worked on the project, ultimately admitted that the inherent efficiency and low-running-temperature problems made the project unfeasible.





> In 2009, Tata Motorsâ€™ vice-president (engineering systems) S. Ravishankar told DNA Money the project is facing difficulties in terms of vehicle range and cooling. Ravishankar said, â€œAir is not a fuel, it is just an energy carrier. So a tank full of air does not have the same energy as a tank full of CNG. Any vehicle using only compressed air to run would face problems of range.â€
> 
> The article continues: â€œRavishankarâ€¦went on to say that excessively low engine temperature is another problem, in a vehicle using only compressed gas as fuel.â€





> In December of 2009, UC Berkeley, ICF International and Stanford experts had this to say about the feasibility of compressed air versus chemical fuels, as an energy storage medium: â€œThe study concluded that even under highly optimistic assumptions the compressed air car is less efficient than a battery electric vehicle and produces more greenhouse gas emissions than a conventional gas powered car with a coal intensive power mix.


And don't get too excited by the CO2 comparison numbers of the Air Pod to the Tesla Roadster, since the Air pod is basically a golf cart and the Roadster can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds and has over 200 miles of range.


----------



## jharkin

I gotta say I'm with fossil on this one.  I grant this is nowhere near a game changer, but in certain markets it could be a good solution. Sure compressed air takes a big efficiency hit compared to batteries but there are ways to reduce that and some cases where its not such a big deal. The big losses are the heat generated in compression - those grid storage schemes use vast underground cavers to make the compressed volume so big that you don't need much pressure differential and thus minimize the heat issue (I have a friend working on this fora grid storage firm in NH working on this). Or you find someway to do useful work with the heat in a high pressure application. The fact that they quote $3 fill ups and that the tailpipe air comes out at below freezing temps tells me that that they got at least a usable level of efficiency out of the air driven engine.

I mentioned earlier and Ill say it again - don't forget that with this scheme they don't have to haul around 1000 lb of batteries That saving alone lets them make the system much lighter and requiring far less input energy.


One other thing... Ill get on my podium for a minute... anyone who pins all their hopes on just one alternative (EV) writing off the rest IMHO does not understand the truly massive scale of the problem we face. We are a civilization that is almost totally dependent on the black gold... 80 million barrels of it every day... 29 billion every year.  Its a staggering number that gets even scarier if you put it in gallons:

*1,226,400,000,000 gallons* of crude oil consumed.

every single year.

People need to wake up to the fact that we simple are not going to be able to magically convert a couple billion cars to EV overnight... or maybe ever. We probably will find there just isn't enough lithium in the ground to make that many batteries.  Thats the reason why we keep holding on to oil even though we know its days are numbered... its easy...  the alternatives are all hard.. and none of them will scale to the level that we use oil.. ever.  Our only hope for the future is to make use of a combination of all the available alternatives along with major reductions in energy use (efficiency and just making due with less).

So lets not toss the baby with the bath water. Lets make a go at actually solving this thing. Lets prove the doomers wrong that we can get out of this mess we have backed ourselves into.


----------



## fossil

JRP3 said:
			
		

> ...the Roadster can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds...



Certainly an important consideration for a vehicle in downtown Mumbai.


----------



## JRP3

The only way we can get ourselves out of this mess is by not only pursing viable technologies but also by not wasting time on technologies that are destined to fail.  Wasting electricity is not a viable way forward.  Also, a car the size and specs of the Minicat would not need 1000lbs of batteries at all.  This thing barely does 60 mph and it will not get the range they claim, (and have not demonstrated.)


----------



## JRP3

fossil said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Roadster can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly an important consideration for a vehicle in downtown Mumbai.
Click to expand...

Are you purposely trying to miss the point?  Or am I not being clear?  Comparing the emissions profile of a vehicle with the performance of a golf cart to an extreme sports car is not exactly apples to apples.  Might as well compare it to a bicycle.


----------



## fossil

I never said a word about emissions profiles, but I certainly agree they're not meaningfully comparable.  Nor are the needs that the two very different vehicles are intended to serve.  I really think I'm about done here in this thread.  Thanks all.  Rick


----------



## begreen

JRP3 said:
			
		

> The only way we can get ourselves out of this mess is by not only pursing viable technologies but also by not wasting time on technologies that are destined to fail.  Wasting electricity is not a viable way forward.  Also, a car the size and specs of the Minicat would not need 1000lbs of batteries at all.  This thing barely does 60 mph and it will not get the range they claim, (and have not demonstrated.)



The range thing... is your 'going out on a limb' opinion, as stated in your previous post. You could be right, or wrong. We'll see. I respect Tata and don't think they will bring this car to market unless they feel it offers a real solution. Let's wait and see.


----------



## jebatty

I find it interesting that the shortcomings of the air motor are presented as negatives. If, and only if, the gasoline engine was the new kid on the block, I venture to say that it would be panned to death.


----------



## woodsmaster

4350 psi is a lot. imagine if you crashed or severed a line. That much pressure would cut you in half very easily. kinda
like riding a bomb, but I guess sitting on 20 gallons of gasoline comes with risks to.


----------



## maple1

Seems to me it takes a lot of energy to compress air.


----------



## JRP3

BeGreen said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way we can get ourselves out of this mess is by not only pursing viable technologies but also by not wasting time on technologies that are destined to fail.  Wasting electricity is not a viable way forward.  Also, a car the size and specs of the Minicat would not need 1000lbs of batteries at all.  This thing barely does 60 mph and it will not get the range they claim, (and have not demonstrated.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The range thing... is your 'going out on a limb' opinion, as stated in your previous post. You could be right, or wrong. We'll see. I respect Tata and don't think they will bring this car to market unless they feel it offers a real solution. Let's wait and see.
Click to expand...

But it's not just my opinion, the Vice President of Tata Engineering basically said the same thing.  If you don't believe me that's fine but you probably should listen to him:


> In 2009, Tata Motorsâ€™ vice-president (engineering systems) S. Ravishankar told DNA Money the project is facing difficulties in terms of vehicle range and cooling. Ravishankar said, â€œAir is not a fuel, it is just an energy carrier. So a tank full of air does not have the same energy as a tank full of CNG. Any vehicle using only compressed air to run would face problems of range.â€


The company knows it's a huge problem and no one trying to develop these things before has been able to over come it because you can't change the laws of physics.  This has all the signs of someone high up in the company falling in love with the idea and the underlings not being able to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.  I would think a scientist or engineer should be able to calculate the potential energy of air at a certain pressure in a certain volume, and the energy used and lost to get it there, and see that this cannot work.  All the time and money wasted on this could have been put to better use elsewhere.  I just wish people would look more critically at these concepts and not fall in love with an idea.  This idea is so deeply flawed on such a basic level there is no logical reason that it has gotten this much attention.  Hydrogen has similar problems as well but much of that research has been pushed by oil companies trying to hold on to control of transportation energy.


----------



## mbcijim

woodsmaster said:
			
		

> 4350 psi is a lot. imagine if you crashed or severed a line. That much pressure would cut you in half very easily. kinda
> like riding a bomb, but I guess sitting on 20 gallons of gasoline comes with risks to.



Can't believe it took so long for anyone to point that out.  Concrete gets destroyed at 3,000 psi.  If that thing lets go, lookout. You can put firewalls between 20 gallons of gas and a passenger, but what about pressure?  Can you firewall pressure? Interesting enginneering question.


----------



## JRP3

Actually I did mention that in an earlier post:


> the need for expensive high pressure tanks, which also pose a potential explosion risk from violent decompression in an accident


  One of the many problems with this concept.


----------



## jebatty

20 gallons of gasoline in a flimsy metal can isn't exactly a puff of smoke. If those can be protected from collision explosion, I would expect a tank that can safely store high pressure air can be similarly protected.


----------



## woodgeek

I think they have some system where they fill the tank with some fibrous material that makes them more fail-safe.


----------



## JRP3

jebatty said:
			
		

> 20 gallons of gasoline in a flimsy metal can isn't exactly a puff of smoke. If those can be protected from collision explosion, I would expect a tank that can safely store high pressure air can be similarly protected.


Of course the difference is the gas tank is not always trying to explode from the inside out.  Not to mention that gas cars catch fire every day, about 200,000 of them each year.


----------



## benjamin

BeGreen said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way we can get ourselves out of this mess is by not only pursing viable technologies but also by not wasting time on technologies that are destined to fail.  Wasting electricity is not a viable way forward.  Also, a car the size and specs of the Minicat would not need 1000lbs of batteries at all.  This thing barely does 60 mph and it will not get the range they claim, (and have not demonstrated.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The range thing... is your 'going out on a limb' opinion, as stated in your previous post. You could be right, or wrong. We'll see. I respect Tata and don't think they will bring this car to market unless they feel it offers a real solution. Let's wait and see.
Click to expand...


I don't think they'll bring this car to market either, just like the other companies that have promoted the technology.  

I'll bet they don't reach their claimed range either.  Maybe it's possible with enough heat exchangers and motor stages, but why spend that kind of money on a refillable spray can?

You don't have to speak proper english to understand that compressed air is a lousy power source for cars  (EXCEPT, maybe, the ones that go 0-60 fast).  I'd expect to see steam cars hit the market before air cars, but it's harder to attract suckers to a steam car company, maybe call them vapor engines?

Edit: HYBRID Vapor Engines


----------



## fossil

Oh fer cripe's sake...we're talking about exploring a concept here.  It may well go nowhere.  But the people doing the conceptualizing and exploring are a hell of a lot smarter about their business than any of us armchair engineers.  Rick

About Tata Motors
Tata Motors is India's largest automobile company, with consolidated revenues of Rs.1,23,133 crores ($ 27 billion) in 2010-11. Through subsidiaries and associate companies, Tata Motors has operations in the UK, South Korea, Thailand, Spain and South Africa. Among them is Jaguar Land Rover, the business comprising the two iconic British brands. It also distributes Fiat cars in India, and has an industrial joint venture with Fiat in India. With over 6.5 million Tata vehicles plying in India, Tata Motors is the country's market leader in commercial vehicles and among the top three in passenger vehicles. It is also the world's fourth largest truck manufacturer and the third largest bus manufacturer. Tata cars, buses and trucks are being marketed in several countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia and South America. (www.tatamotors.com)


----------



## benjamin

fossil said:
			
		

> .we're talking about exploring a concept here.
> 
> ... But the people doing the conceptualizing and exploring are a hell of a lot smarter about their business than any of us armchair engineers.  Rick
> 
> (www.tatamotors.com)



"This will be a game changer"  "debut 2012"  These statements aren't exploring a concept, they're making some bold claims that are probably not true.  I couldn't find anything relevant on Tata's site, or anything else credible.  Looks like we're all fools...

Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't smarter than any of us armchair engineers.  I'm not saying Tata is stupid because they spent a few bucks on a crazy idea.  If I ever need to replace my Yugo, they're the first place I'll look.


----------



## fossil

benjamin said:
			
		

> fossil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .we're talking about exploring a concept here.
> 
> ... But the people doing the conceptualizing and exploring are a hell of a lot smarter about their business than any of us armchair engineers.  Rick
> 
> (www.tatamotors.com)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This will be a game changer"  "debut 2012"  These statements aren't exploring a concept, they're making some bold claims that are probably not true.  I couldn't find anything relevant on Tata's site, or anything else credible.  Looks like we're all fools...
> 
> Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't smarter than any of us armchair engineers.  I'm not saying Tata is stupid because they spent a few bucks on a crazy idea.  If I ever need to replace my Yugo, they're the first place I'll look.
Click to expand...


Yeah guy, whatever.  The term "game changer" was the OP's phrase, and the first post in the now inordinately long thread has a link to an Aussie article about the concept car.  Your Yugo aside, if you ever buy a Jaguar or a Land Rover, you'll be doing business with Tata Motors.  No, they're not stupid.  Rick


----------



## benjamin

So now it's a concept car.  I don't consume enough advertising.  I didn't pick up on the mixing of present and future tenses in the original article, which may have been months out of date when it was written.


----------



## JRP3

I'll point out that a bunch of really smart engineers pursued a concept called the Aptera, that failed, which I also predicted.  And the Aptera actually worked.


----------



## jebatty

This thread is getting very humorous, and I'm proud that a few of the contributors know it all and have been successful prognosticators in prognosticating the failure of other technologies ... which bringa me back once again to the flux capacitor. At least it was proven to work on the silver screen that the flux capacitor works. I've searched the electronic surplus stores far and wide, but the best I can find is a 200 farad behemoth that says "capacitor" and someone penciled in "flux" in front of that. Does anyone know where can I get one, a real one?


----------



## Delta-T

jebatty said:
			
		

> This thread is getting very humorous, and I'm proud that a few of the contributors know it all and have been successful prognosticators in prognosticating the failure of other technologies ... which bringa me back once again to the flux capacitor. At least it was proven to work on the silver screen that the flux capacitor works. I've searched the electronic surplus stores far and wide, but the best I can find is a 200 farad behemoth that says "capacitor" and someone penciled in "flux" in front of that. Does anyone know where can I get one, a real one?



Albania...very secretive people. Ask for the "Shrimp Cocktail...extra tail", they'll know what you mean  ;-)


----------



## karl

I've enjoyed following this thread and I think it's time to chime in.   Considering virtually all electricity in the world is generated by steam turbines, be them coal, gas, nuclear, etc, I think you should consider the losses to electricity.  Steam turbines aren't terribly efficient, less efficient than a piston engine.  Then there are huge losses from transmission, and finally losses from batteries losing their charge over time.  It's safe to say that it requires much more energy to power a car by electricity than gasoline for the same amount of given work from the car.  

Air on the other hand, will stay in a tank indefinitely.  There should be no losses by transmission if it done by tank, and little if it is done by pipeline.  The main loss I see is the heat generated by compression, which may be recaptured by the chilling effect of its subsequent use.

None the less, it won't work.  At least not in the U.S.  The powers that be have chosen electricity as our savior and there is little we can do to change that.  Hybrid cars don't work terribly well and the efficiency numbers never materialized, so now we are moving to plug in hybrids.  The U.S. spent billions of dollars developing hydrogen fuel cells.  To date the only manufacturer to build one is Volks Wagon.  The cars are only used in China.  We developed it and they are reaping the pollution free benefits.  We have tons of natural gas in this country.  It burns cleaner than gasoline, we already have a pretty good infrastructure to distribute it to large areas, it will lesson our need for foreign oil, and it is a developed technology.  However, it doesn't have a chance.  The politicians have selected electricity and that's whats moving forward, good or bad. Also, why is that economy cars built in the 1980's with carburetors got regularly got 30-50 MPG?  Remember the CRX?  The problem is that everybody has the "Do something" mentality instead of the "Do something right" mentality.

Why not look at energy consumption whole, instead of picking on automobiles?  Mandate that every home built in the U.S. be constructed in a super insulated manner.  Perhaps a Larsen truss system.  When I heated with natural gas, I used more btus in a month for heat than I do to drive my car.


----------



## lukem

woodsmaster said:
			
		

> 4350 psi is a lot. imagine if you crashed or severed a line. That much pressure would cut you in half very easily. kinda
> like riding a bomb, but I guess sitting on 20 gallons of gasoline comes with risks to.



Diesels with a common-rail setup will run about 26,000 - 35,000 PSI in the injectors...so 4,350 isn't astronomical.


----------



## begreen

> Considering virtually all electricity in the world is generated by steam turbines, be them coal, gas, nuclear, etc, I think you should consider the losses to electricity.



Not to belittle the point, but don't forget hydropower. 17% of China's power comes from hydro and 99% of Seattle's power is hydro.


----------



## Delta-T

the great upside to electricty is that its pretty much adaptable to any situation. Very few things with moving parts are resistant to electric power. Steam is still the best way to convert heat to electricty. Its very hard to use coal in a piston engine. If we look at these problems in terms of timelines, electricty is still pretty young. We're beginning to see the weeknesses of our current grid technology and the way we use power all together. I bet data centers consume a huge % of the available power and a huge portion of that is just cooling....talk about inefficiencies. I like the idea of air power. Is it good for all? Heck no, but neither are mopeds (not so good on dirt roads, or in places with more than 2 months of winter). Does that make them bad technology? I think not. Air power works very well for tools, so I'm sure, scaled up, it works for vehicles too. If its low maitenance, has few moving parts, and is easy to build...its a win. How many billion upon billions have been spent to build a 4 cylinder, 4 stroker that can get more than 100HP/liter? And how long did that take? Nuff said.


----------



## Delta-T

it also just occured to me that if the byproduct of these air powered cars is cold air...pretty easy to add air conditioning without having to run a compressor....nice to have in places like India.


----------



## JRP3

karl said:
			
		

> Considering virtually all electricity in the world is generated by steam turbines, be them coal, gas, nuclear, etc, I think you should consider the losses to electricity.  Steam turbines aren't terribly efficient, less efficient than a piston engine.


False.  Combined cycle natural gas turbine plants run at 60% efficiency, internal combustion vehicles are barely 20% efficient.





> Then there are huge losses from transmission, and finally losses from batteries losing their charge over time.


False and false.  Average transmission losses are around 7%, not huge, in fact very small.  Lithium battery chemistries used in EV's have almost no self discharge over time. 





> It's safe to say that it requires much more energy to power a car by electricity than gasoline for the same amount of given work from the car.


As you can probably see since your initial data was all wrong your conclusion is equally so.  You must take into account that gas does not just appear in your gas tank with no energy input, petroleum refineries are one of the largest industrial consumers of grid electricity, then the fuel has to be transported and pumped before it gets into your tank.  Petroleum for transportation fuels is a horribly inefficient system that has only worked for so long because of cheap abundant oil, which is no longer going to be the case.


> Air on the other hand, will stay in a tank indefinitely.  There should be no losses by transmission if it done by tank, and little if it is done by pipeline.  The main loss I see is the heat generated by compression, which may be recaptured by the chilling effect of its subsequent use.


You're missing out that the air is compressed by electricity, and compressing air is a high loss proposition, so if you think grid electricity is inefficient, (which it's not really), then using it to compress air would be even more so.


> None the less, it won't work.  At least not in the U.S.  The powers that be have chosen electricity as our savior and there is little we can do to change that.  Hybrid cars don't work terribly well and the efficiency numbers never materialized, so now we are moving to plug in hybrids.


Last I checked the Prius worked very well and produced 50 mpg vehicles, putting in a larger pack that can be charged from the grid will further improve on that.


----------



## Jags

JRP3 said:
			
		

> Average transmission losses are around 7%, not huge, in fact very small.



Your the first person I have heard that states a lost of 7% in electrical TRANSMISSION is very small.  That is a loss before it even reaches its destination.  I consider that huge. I wouldn't accept being shorted 7% of a gallon of gas before it is pumped into my vehicle.  7% of our electricity usage for the USA is a STAGGERING number.


----------



## JRP3

So you think a 7% loss is staggering, how do you feel about the 80% loss of the energy in your tank that's wasted in the engine, not moving the car one inch?  Then we can start to talk about all the energy lost in creating and transporting that gasoline to get it into your tank as well.  7% is nothing.


----------



## fossil

Jags said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average transmission losses are around 7%, not huge, in fact very small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your the first person I have heard that states a lost of 7% in electrical TRANSMISSION is very small.  That is a loss before it even reaches its destination.  I consider that huge. I wouldn't accept being shorted 7% of a gallon of gas before it is pumped into my vehicle.  7% of our electricity usage for the USA is a STAGGERING number.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the real world, shipmate.  Transmission (long distance) and distribution (local) losses across what we casually refer to as "the grid" makes it the single biggest user of the power generated and fed to it.  It's the kind of problem engineers have been working on since there were engineers.  Could be worse, though, there are 101 counries with less efficient power transmission/distribution systems than ours:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/e...power-transmission-distribution-losses-output


----------



## jebatty

The 7% transmission loss factor may be optimistic for the US. Generally transmission loss is significantly higher in the US than many other countries because transmission distance is much larger in the US than those countries. Following is information I gathered in 2009 which was directly related to electricity from coal but as to most factors is equally applicable to US electricity generation generally, whether coal, natural gas, or nuclear. I hope all the links are still active.

DOE - CO2 Report

In the United States, about 40.5 percent(6) of anthropogenic CO2 emissions was attributed to the combustion of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity in 1998, the latest year for which all data are available.

Coal has the highest carbon intensity among fossil fuels, resulting in coal-fired plants having the highest output rate of CO2 per kilowatthour. 

CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity generation comprise nearly 80 percent of the total CO2 emissions produced by the generation of electricity in the United States, while the share of electricity generation from coal was 51.0 percent in 1999 (Table 3).

Fossil Fuel Power Plant

Subcritical fossil fuel power plants can achieve 36â€“38% efficiency. Supercritical designs have efficiencies in the low to mid 40% range, with new "ultra critical" designs using pressures of 4,400 psia (30 MPa) and dual stage reheat reaching about 48% efficiency.

Older nuclear power plants must operate below the temperatures and pressures that coal fired plants do. This limits their thermodynamic efficiency to the order of 34â€“37%. Advanced designs, such as the Advanced gas-cooled reactor and the Supercritical water reactor, operate at temperatures and pressures similar to current coal plants, producing comparable efficiency.

Newton

. . . this ideal maximum [thermodynamic] conversion efficiency is never achieved, so a
generous estimate would be 50%. In addition,  the "true" cost is a much more complicated calculation. The "true" cost takes into account the cost of mining and transporting the coal, and the operating costs of the generation (plant cost, salaries, environmental costs, and so on). The bottom line is that the conversion of coal into electricity is very inefficient.

Estimate of 30% efficiency of 30%, or 9% efficiency, for transforming the heat energy of the coal into electrical energy and transmitting it to your home â€“ [does not include the energy used in mining, transporting, and handling the coal before it is burned]

Fossil Energy

DOE estimates: only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity, the rest is lost as waste heat.

Energetics

DOE: America operates a fleet of about 10,000 power plants. The average thermal efficiency is around 33%. Efficiency has not changed much since 1960 because of slow turnover of the capital stock and the inherent inefficiency of central power generation that cannot recycle heat.

Transmission Losses

the overall losses between the power plant and users can easily be between 8 % and 15 %,

Comparison

In any country, the network, through losses, is the biggest consumer of electricity. In Europe, these losses amount to 4-10% of electricity generated, with an average of 7%.


THEN END USE EFFICIENCY
No one disagrees that carbon-based electric generation works to provide electricity. What rarely is discussed, however, are the tremendous inefficiencies and wastes inherent in that form of electric generation, and the â€œcostsâ€ of those wastes to society and the environment.

America operates a fleet of about 10,000 power plants. The average thermal efficiency of these power plants is about 33% (DOE). In the US line losses range between 8% and 15%. So, starting with a pound of carbon-based fuel (or any energy producing fuel, including nuclear), net delivered energy to the end user ranges between 18-25% of the energy contained in the pound of fuel.

But even these figures do not relate the â€œtrueâ€ cost of electricity produced from fuel-based power plants.  The â€œtrueâ€ cost must also take into account the cost of extracting, mining and transporting the fuel, the operating costs of the generation, and the costs of disposal of the waste products. The bottom line is that the conversion of fuels into electricity is very inefficient. And for those who have a concern about CO2 emissions, well, carbon fueled power plants, especially coal are exceptionally â€œdirty.â€

One also could argue that conversion of wind or solar into electricity also is inefficient (line losses are inherent in the US electric power grid and would apply on average to any form of electrical energy distribution). Average efficiency of wind turbines (energy output in watts/energy in wind) is about 35% (theoretical limit is about 60%), a little better than that of solid fueled power plants. Average solar electric efficiency (energy output in watts/divided solar energy delivered) ranges between 12-18%, although DOE reported in 2006 that new cell technology achieves efficiency slightly in excess of 40%, much better than solid fueled power plants.

The inefficiencies in wind or solar systems (as well as hydro-electric), however, do not share many of the â€œtrueâ€ cost elements of solid fueled plants, such as extracting, mining and transporting the fuel, the costs of disposal of the waste products, and CO2 emissions. In these respects wind and solar systems are not only more efficient, but also they are environmentally â€œclean,â€ as compared to solid fueled plants, a fact well-recognized.

The bottom line clearly is that the â€œbenefitsâ€ of solid fueled electric power generation come at a considerable cost, and efforts to improve the generation of electricity from wind, solar and hydro are extremely important.


----------



## JRP3

To update a bit in 2010 we were down to 45% coal power in the US, and that will continue to drop.  Frankly I don't see a way forward without next generation nuclear in the form of liquid fluoride thorium reactors, LFTR's.  We had one working in the 50's I think but didn't pursue it because you don't get material for nuclear warheads from it, so we went with conventional nuclear plants.  LFTR's can't melt down, produce much less radioactive waste, and the waste that is produced only lasts for 100-300 years, as opposed to 10's of thousands of years for conventional nukes.  We also literally have tons of thorium sitting around as mining wastes.  Worth looking into:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8


----------



## Jags

JRP3 said:
			
		

> 7% is nothing.



With line loss being the single biggest user of electricity generated, I will have to disagree.  I don't need a comparison to a different kind of energy source as a "my daddy will beat up your daddy" argument.  7% of the electricity in the USA is a STAGGERING number.  Non-refutable.


----------



## jebatty

> With line loss being the single biggest user of electricity generated, I will have to disagree.



I don't know what you mean by "disagree." If line loss is 7%, and if line loss is considered a "single user" be definition, what other single user is greater than 7%? Maybe just semantics.  I agree 7% is a staggering number, regardless of whether or not line loss is considered a single user.


----------



## Jags

jebatty said:
			
		

> With line loss being the single biggest user of electricity generated, I will have to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "disagree." If line loss is 7%, and if line loss is considered a "single user" be definition, what other single user is greater than 7%? Maybe just semantics.  I agree 7% is a staggering number, regardless of whether or not line loss is considered a single user.
Click to expand...


I disagree with it being "Nothing".


----------



## stoveguy2esw

i can remember being out in the desert of southeast new mexico on manuvers setting up our Faarp near some high tension lines, at night you could look at them closely and actually see a dull florescing of the lines.  you had to look hard at them to make it out though from practically beneath them.

could also if you looked closely watch satallites in orbit passing overhead the are we were in was not too far from white sands so we figured they were soviet birds, so we all flipped them off if we picked one out on the chance they were watching us   ;-)


----------



## JRP3

Jags said:
			
		

> JRP3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7% is nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With line loss being the single biggest user of electricity generated, I will have to disagree.  I don't need a comparison to a different kind of energy source as a "my daddy will beat up your daddy" argument.  7% of the electricity in the USA is a STAGGERING number.  Non-refutable.
Click to expand...

7% of transmitted power is lost to line transmission, that means 93% of it is used elsewhere.  How is line loss the single biggest user of electricity?  How is 7% larger than 93%?  A large majority of generated electricity is used, a small percentage, 7% is lost in transmission.


----------



## Jags

JRP3 said:
			
		

> 7% of transmitted power is lost to line transmission, that means 93% of it is used elsewhere.  How is line loss the single biggest user of electricity?  How is 7% larger than 93%?  A large majority of generated electricity is used, a small percentage, 7% is lost in transmission.



Because no other single entity consumes 7% or more of the produced electricity.  And asking a question like "how is 7% bigger than 93%" is simply hot air.  Its not, you and I both know its not and the question has no basis in refuting the 7% line transmission loss as a large waste of energy.  You can retain your opinion of "its tiny" if you wish.  At the rate of over 3.5 Million MwH/year for the US consumption, 7% of that number is ginormous.

Jags out.


----------



## fossil

Jags said:
			
		

> ...Because no other *single entity *consumes 7% or more of the produced electricity...



That's all the statement was meant to convey.  No other *single sector *of the economy...transportation or whatever...consumes as much power as is lost in transmission/distribution.  It's simply one way to look at it.  Not difficult to grasp.  Rick


----------



## JRP3

Obviously I'm using the word "tiny" in relation to 7%.  Of course it's a large number because the total is a large number, but 7% is a tiny percentage of the whole.


----------



## Jags

fossil said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because no other *single entity *consumes 7% or more of the produced electricity...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all the statement was meant to convey.  No other *single sector *of the economy...transportation or whatever...consumes as much power as is lost in transmission/distribution.  It's simply one way to look at it.  Not difficult to grasp.  Rick
Click to expand...


Thank you.  Your wording is more gooder.


----------



## jebatty

> How is line loss the single biggest user of electricity?  How is 7% larger than 93%?  A large majority of generated electricity is used, a small percentage, 7% is lost in transmission.



You win, game over.


----------



## JRP3

fossil said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because no other *single entity *consumes 7% or more of the produced electricity...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all the statement was meant to convey.  No other *single sector *of the economy...transportation or whatever...consumes as much power as is lost in transmission/distribution.  It's simply one way to look at it.  Not difficult to grasp.  Rick
Click to expand...

OK, I get it, didn't read and comprehend properly.  Any proof of that claim?  I've been looking for data but can't find it.


----------



## jebatty

Please take the time to read what others post, it helps. Look at my post above and the link to Transmission Losses between 8-15%. That's my source. Willing always to consider other credible sources.


----------



## kenny chaos

Man this is a riot!  Can I play?  Why is the left fielder? :lol: 
Kenny


----------



## JRP3

jebatty said:
			
		

> Please take the time to read what others post, it helps. Look at my post above and the link to Transmission Losses between 8-15%. That's my source. Willing always to consider other credible sources.


I was looking for numbers that backed up the claim that grid transmission losses were the largest single consumer of grid electricity.  I've seen other claims stating the same thing, and I'm not saying I don't believe it, I was just thinking there would be data showing as much.  In other words if transmission losses are the largest consumer of electricity then the second largest consumer must be known, and I was wondering what it was.


----------



## fossil

Well, here's an interesting bar graph:

http://www.energyliteracy.com/?p=134

ETA: His label "Lost in Generation Transmission" seems to indicate that he's taking into account the efficiencies of the generating facilities in addition to the transmission/distribution losses (mostly heat because of resistance)...it doesn't specifically address the question we're wondering about here, but I find the graph interesting in any case.


----------



## begreen

Here is another interesting one. Note the conversions losses. 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_3.pdf


----------



## JRP3

Notice that chart uses 7% for transmission and distribution losses.  To bring this back to the original topic, all the losses involved in generating and transmitting electricity will only be compounded by an air car, making it an inefficient use of electricity for transportation.


----------



## jebatty

> all the losses involved in generating and transmitting electricity will only be compounded by an air car, making it an inefficient use of electricity for transportation.



Interesting but nearly irrelevant. Your point would make much more sense if it was directed at other extremely inefficient uses of electricity, the incandescent light bulb, for example, which has losses of 90% to heat, only about 10% for light, and certain elements of the public heatedly argue to preserve this albatross against any effort to conserve electricity by switching to more efficient lighting. Similarly, the gas guzzling motor vehicle with 18 mpg or less and a single person being transported vs a 36 mpg+ vehicle transporting 4 persons and 8 times or more the efficiency. And the list goes on.

I know that I'm not going to sway your opinion, just like the horse and buggy advocate could not be swayed by the early gasoline engine or electric motor vehicles. And I will let the science, engineering and the market work it out for the air vehicle without dismissing it as a hair brained idea from the get go. Also makes me think of the demise of the Swiss watch, the typewriter, the dial phone, the vacuum tube, two cans with a string stretched between them, and .... 

Let innovators and inventers do their work. Probably for every real good idea there are 1000 or maybe 100,000 ideas that don't work out. I would let the 1000 or 100,000 give it their best, because somewhere in there may be a paradigm changing revolution in thinking, in a product, or in a technology, and I would hate to throw that out with the bathwater.

Cheers.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

mbcijim said:
			
		

> woodsmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4350 psi is a lot. imagine if you crashed or severed a line. That much pressure would cut you in half very easily. kinda
> like riding a bomb, but I guess sitting on 20 gallons of gasoline comes with risks to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe it took so long for anyone to point that out.  Concrete gets destroyed at 3,000 psi.  If that thing lets go, lookout. You can put firewalls between 20 gallons of gas and a passenger, but what about pressure?  Can you firewall pressure? Interesting enginneering question.
Click to expand...


Dont know what the tank is made of but pieces of it(and the car and its occupants) would be every where if it ruptured. One big bang and the company is bankrupt.Hell they are making a big deal out of volts that caught fire in storage 3 weeks after an accident.


----------



## Delta-T

keep in mind that some of those transmission losses are to heat, and its not really lost, its being used by our local non-migrating birds to keep their toes warm. think of all the frozen little birds we'd have if there were no losses....sad, toeless birds.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

If you're not comparing the conversion losses to the inefficiencies of drilling oil, pumping, shipping to a refinery,refining into gasoline, shipping all the way to the gas pump, retrieving (driving to the gas station), pumping, and then converting gas into power in your car, then the conversion losses are entirely irrelevant.  We are not talking about storing/generating electricity- we are talking about driving a car.


----------



## begreen

JRP3 said:
			
		

> Notice that chart uses 7% for transmission and distribution losses.  To bring this back to the original topic, all the losses involved in generating and transmitting electricity will only be compounded by an air car, making it an inefficient use of electricity for transportation.



I find it hard to believe that the sum total costs and impacts of mining, transport and manufacturing a full set of batteries - per car, that is using rare-earth metals in its motor is going to be less than a simple air engine that is fueled by a solar driven, community compressor? Surely the costs into battery technology are greater than for an air system. A community charger for batteries is impractical due to the long time it takes to recharge each vehicles. That means lots of chargers which also have a cost and impact. I don't think this is so with a compressed air system which can refill a tank in minutes. 

Looks like we really do need a flux capacitor here because as far as I know, right now, electric cars are somewhat of a luxury item. Without the Federal tax rebate, their sales would be quite small. Why? Batteries, charging systems and rare-earth motors are costly. If the Tata MiniCat sells for under $18K without subsidies, it has a large cost advantage, particularly if the operating and maintenance costs are very low. Pragmatically, it can be made with India's natural resources, not dependent on other countries for lithium or neodymium. I have to believe that this is part of the underlying assumptions. Tata is not a big gambler. They have a track record of really trying to improve transportation in India. If they bring this car to market, I fully expect it will be well thought out and tested. If it doesn't prove out, then they won't.


----------



## JRP3

That solar driven compressor will provide much fewer "miles per charge" than charging a battery from those solar panels, which is a highly important factor.  Electric motors do not need rare earth elements, that is a fallacy that keeps being perpetuated.  Series DC motors, Sepex motors, Shunt motors, and AC induction motors, such as Tesla, (and many industrial machines use), don't require rare earth elements.  Nor do lithium batteries.  Regarding manufacturing inputs, I doubt high tech carbon fiber tanks capable of holding high pressure air are easily or cheaply manufactured either.  If you want to do low tech low speed limited range vehicles powered from solar power simple EV's using lead acid batteries are going to be hard to beat.  They can also be upgraded in the future with lithium cells, which would provide lower long term costs anyway.


----------



## JRP3

jebatty said:
			
		

> all the losses involved in generating and transmitting electricity will only be compounded by an air car, making it an inefficient use of electricity for transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting but nearly irrelevant. Your point would make much more sense if it was directed at other extremely inefficient uses of electricity, the incandescent light bulb, for example, which has losses of 90% to heat, only about 10% for light, and certain elements of the public heatedly argue to preserve this albatross against any effort to conserve electricity by switching to more efficient lighting. Similarly, the gas guzzling motor vehicle with 18 mpg or less and a single person being transported vs a 36 mpg+ vehicle transporting 4 persons and 8 times or more the efficiency. And the list goes on.
> 
> I know that I'm not going to sway your opinion, just like the horse and buggy advocate could not be swayed by the early gasoline engine or electric motor vehicles. And I will let the science, engineering and the market work it out for the air vehicle without dismissing it as a hair brained idea from the get go. Also makes me think of the demise of the Swiss watch, the typewriter, the dial phone, the vacuum tube, two cans with a string stretched between them, and ....
> 
> Let innovators and inventers do their work. Probably for every real good idea there are 1000 or maybe 100,000 ideas that don't work out. I would let the 1000 or 100,000 give it their best, because somewhere in there may be a paradigm changing revolution in thinking, in a product, or in a technology, and I would hate to throw that out with the bathwater.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...

Pointing out the inefficiency of the "air car" is quite relevant since that's the subject.  Changing light bulbs, which I support, can be done no matter what technology is used for transportation.  My point has always been that if we are going to use electricity for transportation the answer is not wasting a huge amount of it in "air cars" but using it much more efficiently in EV's.  "Air cars" have never done what they claim and they never will because the efficiency of the forces involved won't allow it.  The physics of compressing and expanding a gas are well understood, it's not cutting edge theoretical research.


----------



## begreen

Carbon is locally available. And low speed, short range is exactly why you initially criticized this car. (Though that is not proven. The original article claims for the car exceed your predictions.) Finally, in an urban area, where short range would be more acceptable, the 'fuel' would come from a few, grid powered air compressors or many grid powered electric chargers.


----------



## JRP3

Yes I criticized the speed and range, but realize that if those parameters are acceptable then a NEV type EV could easily achieve them, with a more efficient use of electricity, grid or solar.  I also provided a link to a very inexpensive version of such a vehicle with on board solar panels, the Sunnev.  Since no one has demonstrated the claimed range of the air car and no one has even claimed any possible mechanism to expand the known limitations of compressed air as an energy storage concept for a vehicle I'm more than skeptical they will ever achieve their claims.  `Yes carbon may be locally available, but the carbon fiber producing,  laminating and weaving equipment, plus the high strength epoxy resins required, probably are not, and are not cheap.
To put it into perspective if someone claimed they were going to build an electric car using lead acid batteries that would have the claimed specs of the air car, yet did not claim to have had some unheard of breakthrough in lead acid technology and had not demonstrated such, most people would not believe those claimed specs would ever be achieved, and rightly so.


----------



## begreen

I think you need to get up to date on India and their technology. Tata Advanced Materials would be a good start. 

http://www.tamlindia.com/


----------



## JRP3

Fair enough, you got me there.  They can build expensive carbon fiber tanks with poor energy density potential.


----------



## begreen

We can speculate until the cows come home. Let's wait and see what the final cost and performance of the vehicle is.


----------



## saggys

So where does the power come from to run these compressors to provide air for the vehicle? Sounds like one form of energy for another, like an electric car.


----------



## JRP3

I guess you didn't read the thread?  It's much less efficient than an electric car.


----------



## jimbom

Modern air technology has been around for decades. It is used to start huge diesel engines. It is used in self contained breathing apparatus. District air systems exist for large industrial activities. Lots of operating systems to examine right now in every state in the union.  Plenty of smart people work with these systems every day.  Those people would all like to be wealthy.  If this _game-changer_ was practical, many systems would be on the road and in our homes today.  After all, we have at least 180 years of experience using compressed air in Missouri.  Who knows how long it has been used in other parts of the world.

This is the best way I can think of for people to personally evaluate this _game-changer_.  Everyone has a fire department in their community. Go to your local firehouse and see how they recharge the high pressure carbon fiber air tanks that provide breathing air. Put your Kill-A-Watt meter on that little compressor system and ask how long it takes to top off those tanks. 

Wire to air efficiency is low in 145 psi systems. Compressing air to higher pressures is more inefficient.  Air to shaft horsepower efficiency is low.  Multiply them together to get the system efficiency.

Does anyone believe a technologically sophisticated society such as Japan would bury this _game-changer_ technology just so they could pay the oil/coal producing countries more money for their energy needs?

I am all for doing things more efficiently.  I hope someone makes a break through.  But the laws of physics limit the energy density and efficiency of air storage and conversion.


----------



## btuser

Compressed air at 4300psi has an energy density of about .5 MJ/kg. Compare that to gasoline at around 47 MJ/kg, or even sod peat at 12 MJ/kg. Then add an additional loss for compression at such a high psi and it's back to gas for me. Free AC but how am I going to heat my car in the Winter with one of these things? Its an idea, and can use a lot of the same parts (heck I'm sure almost any car could be converted) so sure, better than walking.  Not really a way forward, but maybe a lateral (and cleaner) move in the right direction.

There's 37 MJ/kg of energy in fat. Build me a car that runs on luv handles! Recent advancement in fast food delivery and horizontal liposuction techniques will combine to spawn a gold rush to claim an ocean of untapped energy America has been building for years.  America's obesity problem just became America's energy advantage. 

Instead of penny stocks, maybe they could list on the dollar menu?


----------



## begreen

jharkin said:


> Nice photos BeGreen. Did you go for vacation or work? I go for work every couple years (overdue to go again actually).


 
Lucky you. For me it was both. I went for work, but took the family. After working for a month we took a couple weeks to explore Rajasthan. Would love to have an excuse to go again. India is a fascinating country.


----------

