Not an informed argument here by me, but could you elaborate on that? I thought that gases tended to heat when compressed (bike pump!) and give up that heat if they’re stored some place where the environment is cooler than the heated gas. Surely this is an energy loss? I’d like to know more detail rather than just argue with you.
I don’t think so. If you have an engine which is 90% efficient but fills the city with toxic smoke, that’s a bad thing. Inefficiency isn’t the only cause of pollution. Reducing inefficiency doesn’t necessarily mean reducing pollution.
It certainly is a good thing. That’s one reason why this car is a good idea.
You’re assuming that using these cars is going to increase significantly the amount of electricity we use. I need to see evidence for that.
Yes.
Excellent.
We have yet to see if this car is less efficient. But that aside, do you really think that the increase in electricity will produce exactly the same pollution (local and global), as the current petro-chemical industry currently does to support petrol cars?
Not at all. As I said, moving people from petrol vehicles (which can only be powered by an energy source which pollutes), to cars using electricity (which can be powered by an energy source which does not pollute), is the first step towards reducing pollution on a greater scale. But while we insist on using petrol cars, which pollute both on a local and a global scale, we cannot reduce that pollution.
As I said, the point is moving people from petrol vehicles (which can only be powered by an energy source which pollutes), to cars using electricity (which can be powered by an energy source which does not pollute), is the first step towards reducing pollution on a greater scale. But while we insist on using petrol cars, which pollute both on a local and a global scale, we cannot reduce that pollution.
You cannot run a petrol car on a renewable eco-friendly energy resource. You can run this car on such an energy resource.
Because you have the option to use an eco-friendly, renewable energy source.
No it doesn’t. It reduces the local pollution, and it reduces the demand on an industry which pollutes perhaps more than any other. It also provides the option for using a vehicle which does not rely on a polluting energy source.
, and may in fact lead to an increase in the total amount of pollution. It just makes it conveniently go somewhere else so you can pretend it’s not happening.
It is independent of fossil fuels. You could supply it with solar, wind, or hydro electricity. Taiwan already gets 35% of its electricity from hydro power.
Unless these kinds of innovations are taken up, our current dependence on fossil fuels will not end until the last chunk of coal has been burned. There’s no point in waiting for the miracle invention which will suddenly create clean and renewable energy overnight. It’s not going to happen. Resisting small changes such as this vehicle promotes, only slows down the entire process of releasing ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels. We need intelligent devices such as these to wear down the public antipathy and apathy towards alternative energy sources.
People have to get used to using less, not more. They have to get used to using less than they’re already using. You want a cleaner and more efficient car? You can have it today! But it won’t have the speed, range, or power of a petrol car, so no one is going to buy it. People have to be encouraged to use these kinds of vehicles, not discouraged. Unless people get used to the idea of using a car which can be powered by a renewable energy source, no one is going to do it. Rejecting every single advance in the right direction because it’s not the miracle cure which does everything, won’t get us anywhere.
Good question. But with regard to the car in question, you still get over 160 miles out of a full tank, which is good going in anyone’s book for a car that size (and price).
OK, it creates demand for electricity instead of for petrol. I get that now.
But where does the extra electricity come from? Right, sustainable sources, great. Still with you.
But, the efficiency question is still central. If you burn 200 times more fossil fuels, destroy the ozone layer, add 20 degrees to global warming while managing to obscure the sun, eradicate most other forms of life through acid rain, and make the air unbreathable for 90% of the population then you haven’t really won the battle have you?
Obviously the above is an absurd hypothetical solution, we hope, but switching to alternative technologies has to lead to a net decrease in pollution to make sense. If your new technology is so much less efficient that you actually need to burn more fuels to get the same usable power then it’s not a solution. Unfortunately, a great many so-called green schemes are environmentally damaging but marketed to people who don’t stop to think.
Efficiency means using less to get the same result. You can’t tell me that’s not a good thing.
Demonstrate that the pneumatic car leads to a net decrease in pollution and you have a winning proposition, but that’s not been done.
The other aspect is that it could lead to a reduction in pollution in future by spurring development of green technologies. Also true, but…
-
If 45% of Taiwan’s electricity needs are met by renewables as claimed, and you increase the demand for electricity sufficient to power millions of road vehicles, then will Taiwan build new hydro or nuclear stations? How many dams can you build on an island this size? And is it economically feasible to use the other technologies? I expect that the increased demand for electricity would be met by burning more fuels of one kind or another. You have to weigh the impacts of both much more deeply than you have done to make a decision - and start by considering the efficiency of this method of power transmission.
-
I remember attending a meeting organised by Friends of the Earth once to discuss a new bypass that was being built to deal with the increase in traffic. Another village demolished, another hill bisected, all so people can make more journeys. Their argument was that building more roads, or making cars cheaper, simply encouraged people to travel more and consume more resources. The argument made by them and others time and time again is that instead of just addressing the supply side of the issue, action must be taken to address the demand side.
If people don’t insist on driving cars then we don’t need to use so much energy or other resources. If it’s OK for you to insist on driving around when you don’t need to then it’s OK for the other 6+ billion people in the world to also have the same aspiration. Why exactly do you need a car, other than because you’ve chosen to live far from your work and thus become part of the problem?
It may or may not create a demand for electricity greater than the demand currently required by petrol cars. You’d have to find out how many kWh the compressor uses.
Yes. Ideally you work on a car which uses very little electricity, so that people can power it themselves through their own renewable supplies, but I think that’s a little way off yet.
[quote]But, the efficiency question is still central. If you burn 200 times more fossil fuels, destroy the ozone layer, add 20 degrees to global warming while managing to obscure the sun, eradicate most other forms of life through acid rain, and make the air unbreathable for 90% of the population then you haven’t really won the battle have you?
Obviously the above is an absurd hypothetical solution, we hope, but switching to alternative technologies has to lead to a net decrease in pollution to make sense. If your new technology is so much less efficient that you actually need to burn more fuels to get the same usable power then it’s not a solution. Unfortunately, a great many so-called green schemes are environmentally damaging but marketed to people who don’t stop to think.
Efficiency means using less to get the same result. You can’t tell me that’s not a good thing.[/quote]
I haven’t seen any evidence yet that using these cars would result in a net increase in pollution. I do think that if petrol cars in Taipei were replaced with these cars tomorrow, then there would be a net decrease in local pollution, and a significant decrease in the amount of petrol required by the city, which would be a step closer to reducing the city’s dependence on fossil fuels. I can’t see this as a bad thing.
Even if the net pollution output caused by the electricity source remained the same, the local pollution level in the city would still be dramatically reduced. I have difficulty understanding why this should be viewed as an undesirable outcome. Talk me through it.
Well I believe I’ve demonstrated that it leads to a net decrease in local pollution in the city for a start, and I believe that’s a major advantage. I also believe that these cars would
Actually I quoted 35%.
Millions? In Taipei? I didn’t think there were millions of road vehicles in Taipei. I suppose there could be.
I would suggest Taiwan build both. Mining and processing the uranium is not an environmental problem for Taiwan, they can buy it preprocessed from Australia, and mining and processing uranium in Australia is not an environmental problem. I don’t know how many dams you could build in Taiwan. I suggest we should find out. And surely with this island sitting on a volcanic hotbed there has to be some means of harnessing geothermal power.
Only if it was decided to do this.
[quote]2. I remember attending a meeting organised by Friends of the Earth once to discuss a new bypass that was being built to deal with the increase in traffic. Another village demolished, another hill bisected, all so people can make more journeys. Their argument was that building more roads, or making cars cheaper, simply encouraged people to travel more and consume more resources. The argument made by them and others time and time again is that instead of just addressing the supply side of the issue, action must be taken to address the demand side.
If people don’t insist on driving cars then we don’t need to use so much energy or other resources. If it’s OK for you to insist on driving around when you don’t need to then it’s OK for the other 6+ billion people in the world to also have the same aspiration. Why exactly do you need a car, other than because you’ve chosen to live far from your work and thus become part of the problem?[/quote]
I agree totally. This is why I’m all for a car with such a dramatically limited range as this one. The further people can drive, the more they will drive, and more frequently. With a vehicle like this, people have to plan their trips with greater care, and they can’t just go running about all over the place. It restricts their movement and encourages high urban density, which is a major step forward towards improved environmental care. People who want to travel long distances would then have to use mass transport methods such as buses and trains.
I don’t have a car. I don’t even have a scooter. I have friends who live in Seoul who lived there for 10 years before they bought a car, and that was only after their kids were about 5 and 8 years old respectively. People don’t need cars in most urban environments. It’s just selfish.
A few interesting facts from the company’s website:
[quote]Brake power recovery
The MDI vehicles will be equipped with a range of modern systems. For example, one mechanism stops the engine when the car is stationary (at traffic lights, junctions etc). Another interesting feature is the pneumatic system which recovers about 13% of the power used.[/quote]
[quote] Alto: 1,64m Peso: 550Kg
Plazas: 3 asientos frontales. Carga útil: 270Kg[/quote]
So it’s 1.64 metres high, has three seats, weighs 550kg (!), and can carry 270kg. I’m impressed.
From the website I found the following snippets of information:
[color=darkblue]On board motor to fill the tanks with compressed air when parked at home: 5kW
Filling time with this motor/compressor:
Driving distance 100-200km[/color]
Would that mean that the car require 30kWh (6 hours x 5kW) to drive 100-200km - or is that calculation totally irrelevant?
Now, this information is picked here and there, and they are opeating with various air-tank sizes, so the information can be based on variations of specifications for the car.
The motor/compressor is mentioned a couple of places with 5kW power, but the filling time varies from 2-3 hours to 6 hours.
Edit for additional information:
http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Projects/Hydrogen/Hydrogen.htm
[quote]…One Kilogram of gasoline (1.33 Liters) produces about 13 Kwh of energy.
(Or one liter produces about 9.75 Kwh.)…[/quote]
HAve to run
Then we know that a full tank of air for the compressor car “cost” 30kWh, and that equals approx. 3 liters of gasolin.
The compressor car can drive 100-200km (let’s say 150km) on these 30kWh, and that would translate to a gas consumption of 2 liter/100km - looks like pretty low consmption.
Then, the car is very light, so we would have to compare this to a small car - not the typical family sedan.
Here is a list of standard small gasolin powered cars, and their gas consumption:
ToyotaPrius 1,5 HB 4.3 l/100km
Citroën C1 1.0i 4.6 l/100km
Peugeot 107 1,0i 4.6 l/100km
Toyota Aygo 1.0 HB 4.6 l/100km
Smart Coupe 0,6 4.7 l/100km
Diesel powered cars start from 3.0 l/100km
It seems the compressor car comes out ahead in this unscientific comparison
Amazing, I have never seen such elaborate posting over what seems to me a very simple debate, well done chaps :bravo: 
[quote=“X3M”]Then we know that a full tank of air for the compressor car “cost” 30kWh, and that equals approx. 3 liters of gasolin.
The compressor car can drive 100-200km (let’s say 150km) on these 30kWh, and that would translate to a gas consumption of 2 liter/100km - looks like pretty low consmption.
Then, the car is very light, so we would have to compare this to a small car - not the typical family sedan.
Here is a list of standard small gasolin powered cars, and their gas consumption:
ToyotaPrius 1,5 HB 4.3 l/100km
Citroën C1 1.0i 4.6 l/100km
Peugeot 107 1,0i 4.6 l/100km
Toyota Aygo 1.0 HB 4.6 l/100km
Smart Coupe 0,6 4.7 l/100km
Diesel powered cars start from 3.0 l/100km
It seems the compressor car comes out ahead in this unscientific comparison[/quote]
Excellent work. This agrees with the data on the website, which states that this vehicle has a mileage which is significantly superior to analogous petrol cars:
One Euro is about 44NT. Can you drive a small car 100 kilometres on 44NT?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
One Euro is about 44NT. Can you drive a small car 100 kilometres on 44NT?[/quote]
Can anyone drive a petrol or diesel powered car for the long term cost of wind farm electricity, hydro electricity, solar electricity, fission or fusion generated hydrogen generated electricity?
Can anyone drive a petrol car or a diesel car that costs fewer emmisions than the above forms of harnessed electricity, excluding fission and fusion which are different forms of pollution?
Thanks, X3m for doing the research to come up with some meaningful numbers. If they were verified by some external source (and I have no reason to doubt that they couldn’t be) then that would appear to close the argument. As far as I can see, the car is more efficient than other vehicles of the same size so it would reduce net pollution even without switching to alternative energy sources.
This defies common sense, which says that adding a storage/release system should reduce efficiency, but stopping the engine at lights and recovering energy lost through braking would make a big difference. Battery-driven and hybrid cars do the same thing and it has to be good.
I’m still not impressed with the quality of the debate though. For instance…
That rather depends on the local cost of electricity. What is the cost of 30kwh in Taiwan?
What is the cost of 3l of petrol in Taiwan? In the USA? In Europe? 3l of fuel for household use, instead of use in a car? Wildly different from each other, because of the different tax regimes. If the energy used to propel your vehicle were to be taxed equally, no matter what technology were in use, then we would get a fair and accurate picture of the true operating cost.
At the end of the day, your 30kwh has to come from somewhere. Without artificial price manipulations, renewable energy is not cost-competitive anywhere in the world - yet. I’m not saying this is a good thing, just that it’s a reality to consider.
The cost of energy, used to produce and transport everything we use, is the most important factor in the whole global economy. YOU (Or I) might be able to afford to run a vehicle powered from renewable sources, but can the average person in average countries afford the extra costs associated with virtually everything if the global economy switches from cheap and dirty to clean but expensive? I doubt it, desirable though it might be.
So riddle me this: if renewable energy is acknowledged even by the people making the stuff to be more expensive than burning oil, how can it be cheaper to run a car on renewable energy than one that burns oil? The only answer I can see is that governments tax dirty technology. I don’t have a problem with them doing this, but it doesn’t make renewables truly cheaper, so please spare me the propaganda and deal with the facts.
And if you’re going to tax dirty technology, or cigarettes, or other undesirable activities, then where do you draw the line?
Transport policy is not just about energy and pollution, and many people on the green side of the fence who have bothered to think about things have reached the conclusion that making car ownership more widespread is a bad thing. Reliance on personal transport has a huge negative impact on communities. A simple example would be the case of the guy who drives to the gym and runs on a machine because he can’t run on the streets without getting run over - by all the people who are busy driving somewhere they might not have to if the world was a saner place. Make it easier for people to drive and they will, just like there are aircon units everywhere. People think they’re necessary despite the fact that some people manage to live comfortably without them. Why is it necessary to wear a sweater in an office in Taipei in July? Because people do stupid things if you let them, that’s why.
So you legislate to limit unnecessary journeys, throw in a bit of tax to slow people down, and what happens to your alleged cost advantage?
Instead of trumpeting the answer to universal personal transport, why not find some measure to applaud that makes the problem smaller instead of bigger? Campaigns to run the aircon at a reasonable level, projects to reduce reliance on cars, even the recent moves to ban incandescant lightbulbs, all would actually make the world a better place instead of just benefitting the priviliged few who only care about what happens in the street outside their front doors.
[quote=“Loretta”]
So riddle me this: if renewable energy is acknowledged even by the people making the stuff to be more expensive than burning oil, how can it be cheaper to run a car on renewable energy than one that burns oil? The only answer I can see is that governments tax dirty technology. I don’t have a problem with them doing this, but it doesn’t make renewables truly cheaper, so please spare me the propaganda and deal with the facts.[/quote]
Renewables should be cheaper by percentage, for example, try building your own dynamo consisting of some electrical wire, a spindle and a few other materials as many kids do as a science project at school, there you have a source of power. Compair that with the challenge of burrowing into the earth’s crust and drawing out your own oil, assuming you find it in the first place, and then refining it into a substance that you can burn. It’s obvious that producing your own renewable electricity source is much easier and so cheaper. The only reason that oil is cheaper to the masses is that we all rely and depend on it, supplying the greatest demand and reducing the cost of production by all demanding the same thing. Electricity is cheaper as it’s almost free. All we have to do is supply the demand which can be done by increasing the tax on dirty fuel, causing the initial price of electricity to be at least the same if not cheaper. The resulting favor will be for cheaper electricity, and competition to provide will do the rest. This is not propaganda either, just simple economics.
Not an informed argument here by me, but could you elaborate on that? I thought that gases tended to heat when compressed (bike pump!) and give up that heat if they’re stored some place where the environment is cooler than the heated gas. Surely this is an energy loss? I’d like to know more detail rather than just argue with you.[/quote]
I am not referring to the energy loss in filling it up. I’m not quite sure what the loss would be. I mean compressed air in itself is a very stable and lossless (over time) storage of energy. A large amount of energy can also be stored in a small area.
Can you imagine this application transfer to scooters!!
Also, even a moderatly inefficient 1mx1m solar panel running full time should have enough energy to pre-store enough gas to run that car at least once and perhaps several times per day. In theory if everyone’s house (in a sunny country like Aus anyway), has enough roof space to completely deal with running several household vehicles.
I had a friend who managed to run all the systems on his boat, including a watermaker, on a 1m electric panel while sailing from San Diego to Hawaii. From memory it produced 19v, 2-3amps.
To power even a 110v drill required an invertor which drained his batteries very quickly and it could take a day or two to recharge.
A pump is motor-driven, but I also have no idea of what would be required other than the 220v mentioned earlier. It sounds a bit dubious but in the absence of any hard figures I’ll shut up about it. 
Assuming you have a supply of electricity, does anyone have any idea how this would stack up against putting the same amount of electricity into a battery/motor combination?
ead-acid is very heavy and not always very efficient, NiMH sounds like the way to go but won’t hold the charge for long. (comparison) And then there’s the problem of how you make (and dispose of) the batteries. Some pretty damaging chemicals at work there, aside from the cost.
Compressed air sounds a lot less environmentally damaging but I’m interested to know more about how efficient it is.
For instance, you pump up your bicycle tyres and the pump gets hot. Compressing air causes heating. Presumably your tank of hot air then cools, losing heat, which is energy. So energy is lost.
When you discharge a gas that is under pressure, such as a camping stove cylinder, the tank gets cold. Presumably this means that the gas is drawing heat from the local environment to replace the heat lost earlier, somehow. I’m kind of lost here.
Presumably the lost heat needs to be recovered in order to get back the same amount of energy you put in? Or painting your cylinder black and putting it on the roof of the car in a sunny clime will increase the amount of energy it contains? Heating the gas will increase the pressure, cooling it will decrease the pressure and therefore the available power, right?
Anyone know?
[quote=“sulavaca”]try building your own dynamo consisting of some electrical wire, a spindle and a few other materials as many kids do as a science project at school, there you have a source of power
It’s obvious that producing your own renewable electricity source is much easier and so cheaper.
This is not propaganda either, just simple economics.[/quote]
No you don’t, no it isn’t, yes it is, and no it’s not.
A dynamo does not produce power, it converts kinetic energy into electricity. What is the source of power for your dynamo? You could burn oil, you could dam a river, you could put thousands of mice in little wheels driving it, but on its own it isn’t a source of anything.
If it’s obviously easier and cheaper then why do the companies specialising in it say that it’s not?
It’s propaganda if it’s based on the idea that you can get something for nothing. At least have the decency to acknowledge the gaps in your knowledge like the rest of us do.
Oh, and it’s simple economics that keeps the world burning oil. Simple economics is the problem.
[quote=“Mr He”]Increasing coal production in order to meet this demand would not be very enviromentally friendly.
The coal plants currently in use worldwide release a few chernobyl’s worth of nuclear radiation - mainly uran and thorium - on an annual basis.
That said, i completely agree with your analysis.[/quote]
You could attach a tube to your arse and propel yourself by external combustion possibly fuelled by curry and beer. Will someone please invent this?
[quote=“Lord Lucan”][quote=“Mr He”]Increasing coal production in order to meet this demand would not be very enviromentally friendly.
The coal plants currently in use worldwide release a few chernobyl’s worth of nuclear radiation - mainly uran and thorium - on an annual basis.
That said, i completely agree with your analysis.[/quote]
You could attach a tube to your arse and propel yourself by external combustion possibly fuelled by curry and beer. Will someone please invent this?[/quote]
I don’t drink as much beer as you do and hardly every eat curries, so me thinks you would be a better guinea pig for this experiment.
[quote=“Loretta”][quote=“sulavaca”]try building your own dynamo consisting of some electrical wire, a spindle and a few other materials as many kids do as a science project at school, there you have a source of power
It’s obvious that producing your own renewable electricity source is much easier and so cheaper.
This is not propaganda either, just simple economics.[/quote]
No you don’t, no it isn’t, yes it is, and no it’s not.
A dynamo does not produce power, it converts kinetic energy into electricity. What is the source of power for your dynamo? You could burn oil, you could dam a river, you could put thousands of mice in little wheels driving it, but on its own it isn’t a source of anything.
If it’s obviously easier and cheaper then why do the companies specialising in it say that it’s not?
It’s propaganda if it’s based on the idea that you can get something for nothing. At least have the decency to acknowledge the gaps in your knowledge like the rest of us do.
Oh, and it’s simple economics that keeps the world burning oil. Simple economics is the problem.[/quote]
Firstly, it is greed and lazyness that keeps the world burning oil. That said,
Of course I assumed you can fill in the blanks by yourself, but if you need a hand, then I suppose I can try. A dynamo produces power in the form of electricity, and it does that by consuming a different form of energy and converting it. It’s kind of like producing a loaf of bread, in that it has to come from something, it doesn’t just appear from thin air…well acording to some of the most modern of theories anyway. The sun may only produce as much power as it consumes, so is it a source of power or a consumer, a rather philosophical question when understood in depth? A dynamo in a motionless state may not produce power and may not consume any either making it a rather inert object altogether when compaired to many other wonders of the universe, oh, but we aren’t talking philosophy right, so we must make some assumptions along the way. I assumed for example that one might understand that a dynamo must be used in conjunction with some sort of constant, almost costless and clean form of input, for it to produce free and clean electricity, constantly.
It is not simple economics that keeps the world burning oil, in fact the economics are quite complicated. So complicated in fact, that I’m not sure any single person in the world understands the entire chain of economics envolved at any particular moment in time. Simple economics in the case I was refering to refers to the idea of free power provided by a simplistic form of technology. I’m a little tired of giving examples of why free energy need not be a complicated process to be honest, especially when I don’t see it as an enourmous challenge when compaired to oil and coal “production”. I still think that mostly lazyness alone fuels the demand for petrol/gas when there are much more energy efficient and clean forms of transport. Beat bicycle power first for efficiency, then if the world is too lazy to peddle, beat electricity or hydrogen, then if the world is too lazy to fill up their cars or finds it too expensive to produce, you can carry on debating what to do next. Oh, that’s where we are aren’t we?
Forget that last question, as I don’t need it answered. Carry on gentlemen, don’t mind me as I am signing off this thread unless it requires moderation.