The Air Car Blows Back Into the Picture

Zero Pollution MotorsFact or fiction: Zero Pollution Motors plans to start building its air-powered car by 2011 at the latest. (Zero Pollution Motors)

In 2000, I wrote about Motor Development International, a European company that had developed 2-cylinder cars that could run on tanks of compressed air.

Guy Nègre, a French engineer and president of M.D.I., said he would soon be building his environmentally friendly cars all over the world, at dedicated plants in Mexico, South Africa and the United States.

It’s fair to say that the experts I contacted back then were skeptical. Andrew Frank, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Davis, said this about compressed air: “It’s a losing game because the efficiency is just not there.”

Nevertheless, the air car appears to be staging a comeback. Operating in a vastly improved environment for clean technology, M.D.I., now based in Nice, France, made a splash last year when it announced a partnership with Tata Motors of India, builder of the forthcoming Nano. The press clearly loves the story, because it involves a vehicle that “runs on air.” The car? Well, in videos from France it looks pretty much the same, but it is actually new and improved, I’m told, with an onboard heater that kicks in at 35 miles an hour.

Shiva Vencat heads the United States operations of M.D.I. under the name Zero Pollution Motors. “We initially designed the car to run only on compressed air,” he said. “But people had an issue with the range of 50 to 60 miles. The heater, which can burn ethanol, vegetable oil or other fuels, warms up the air, increases its volume, and extends the range. It has a viscosity sensor so it can adjust to whatever fuel you put into it.”

Mr. Vencat said the six-passenger, fiberglass-and-foam-bodied air car will sell for $18,000 to $20,000 in the United States. He added that M.D.I. has more than 300 investors and has sold the rights to build 40 plants around the world. He envisions a network of small $20 million factories, each building cars at a rate of one every half hour. Plants in the United States will open in late 2010 or early 2011, he said, with the first possibly located in Newburgh, N.Y. Then again, back in 2000, Mr. Nègre said he would be building cars in 2001.

Zero Pollution Motors claims that the new and improved air car can now leapfrog any known battery technology. The company’s Web site says, in fact, that its pneumatic vehicle can travel 848 miles (with the equivalent of 106 miles per gallon) on one tank of air, though an asterisk indicates this is “estimated performance and subject to change.”

There’s still plenty of skepticism.

Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer in the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, says that heating the air will “maximize the thermal efficiency of the operation,” but he’s “highly dubious” of the claimed range.

“Historically speaking, the side of the road is littered with cars that have limited range or long refueling times,” he said. “And with cars like this there are upstream emissions, because you have to compress the air with something.”

But even Mr. Kliesch said he holds out hope for the success of a car that fulfills fantasies going back to Jules Verne. After all, who doesn’t like the idea of a car running on air?

Comments are no longer being accepted.

I would just like to point out the amazing job that Mercedes is doing in the race for more enviromentally friendly vehicles. They took their everyday cars and replaced the engines with clean burning diesel engines that receive 45 mpg.

Equipped on the C 350 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY, the new diesel engine is capable of propelling the C-Class from 0-62 mph in just 7.0 seconds and helping it attain a top speed of 155 mph. But what makes the powerplant truly unique is in the field of fuel consumption, where it helps the C-Class consume an NEDC average of 5.2 liters of fuel per 100 km (or 45 mpg, for my American readers). In addition, CO2 emissions weigh in at 138 g/km, enough to comply with future EU5 emissions standards.

eMercedesBenz took an in-depth look at the new vehicles and also released several photos of the new car.

//www.emercedesbenz.com/Sep08/10_001382_World_Premier_Of_The_Mercedes_Benz_C_250_CDI_BlueEFFICIENCY_Prime_Edition.html

Great Job Mercedes-Benz!

Have you heard about this? If it works, I’d love one, even if it is made of fiberglass and foam.

Sounds like a stock swindle to me.

In the short term using compressed air as an energy storage medium is a great idea if a 40 to 60 mile range can be achieved. Compressed air technology is well understood and there seem to be few technical difficulties. At the moment, achieving the same range with batteries will be expensive. The price of the GM Volt is estimated in the $40,000 range while the air car will be half that. Admittedly charging batteries directly from existing electric power supplies is more efficient than using the same power to run a compressor to refill the air tanks. But it would take a lifetime of use to make up for the price difference between the two vehicles.

I bet it can fly too.

I’m waiting for the BMW 650 E (100% electric). I don’t want ANY kind of combustion engine, air or otherwise!

Why not use a rechargeable LI-ion battery to heat the air and re-compress the air cylinder? Couldn’t the air be in a closed system, anyways, like the steam in a locomotive?

Analysis of the approach is a straightforward energy-in/energy-out thermodynamics calculation.

Why don’t you publish the results of a competent analysis of the air car rather than trying to keep the ball in the air and trying to intrigue non-technical readers?

This article, like most articles on the “air car,” certainly helps the promoters by pushing the skeptics (who are in the majority) to the end of the article. Before any writer publishes an article on the “air car,” they should establish that its promises are technically achievable and that it is not simply another in a long line of investment scams.

Of course someone will mention the problem of upstream emissions. “This won’t help the environment because you still need to produce the electricity to power the pumps!” While the second half of that statement is entirely true, the first half is mostly false. While you will need to produce power somewhere to power the external compressors. What this overlooks is that its much easier to regulate and reduce emissions from a single power plant than 10,000 cars. By pushing the emissions back from many sources to a single source you create an environment that is much easier to regulate.

This kind of story is misleading to the general public. Some form of energy is required to compress the air. An electric motor is one of the greenest ways to compress the gas but there is mechanical inefficiency in this step as well as inefficiencies in the generation of the electricity, whether by wind, solar or nuclear.

Maybe a gas, eledtric, wind, solar, hydrogen,and air hybrid is the solution!

If it runs on hot air it must be a Republican car.

On Jupiter, the air is already compressed. So if we bring back air from Jupiter, we can power whole fleets of these things.

Or, we could bring our air down to the bottom of the ocean where the water pressure will compress it for us. My submarine is gone be called HMS Bodacious.

You got to be thinkin out the box. Out the box, peoples. Blue planet.

An auto running on hot air would have an unending source of energy from Washington, D.C. and that coming out of the bushwhitehouse and the mc cain/palin campaign would run an entire world fleet, several submarines and perhaps an aircraft carrier or two.

Let’s hope that the claim for this car is not “hot air!” I’d buy one!

Yes, the usual question– what runs the motors t hat compress all that air? Fairy dust?

How does the air get compressed in the first place? That’s not a zero emission process.

Let’s see…
Requires an engine for more than trips longer than 50-60 miles.
Will run the motor when the engine is going over 35 miles/hr.

So far sounds a lot like the Volt… but then

Because compressing air typically generates a significant amount of energy loss in terms of heat generated via the compression process the cost in terms of energy wastage to recharge could be very substantial.

TANSTAAFL (There Ain’t No Such Think As A Free Lunch)

I hope it works, but it sounds right now like the whole thing blows… I’ve seen in Amsterdam little enclosed 3 wheeled pedal powered cars. Why not build those here for city use? If everyone slowed down just a bit, they’d be feasible….

If I’m going to compress something to run my car it is much more likely to be the gas coming out of the NG pipeline already at my doorstep.

There were comments about inefficiency and one person thought there was combustion, but you never did explain how the compressed air moves the car forward.

I think this dubious science. I crunched the numbers, and I figure that a standard SCUBA tan possesses about 5500 Joules of energy, or just about 1.5 Watt-hours- this is very, VERY small. (I figure 18 liters of 4500 psi air) A small golf cart will run for about 10, maybe 20 seconds on that much energy.

Maybe they’ve got some high tech way of getting significantly higher pressures, but I doubt it. Not only would it have already revolutionized SCUBA diving, but it would also make driving one of those things absurdly unsafe in the event of an accident.