If one is going to compress ambient air, they will also need a large, heavy, drier to remove the condensate, particularly where the temperature drops below freezing. ;)
mike
>> >
>> The physics of the technology pretty much cap the energy storage > efficiency
>> at 50% max, and it's going to be hard to break the 35% barrier. The ratio > of
>> specific heats problem (the same thing that makes a basketball "deader" > than
>> a superball) won't go away as long as this universe is in existence.
>> Adaptive air motors are possible but always tricky. Using only the "top
>> half" of the pressure charge means hauling around a lot of dead weight. >>
>> Batteries don't have to be bad for the environment at all. The heavy > metals
>> that are most to blame for batteries' bad rep are completely recyclable. > The
>> larger batteries get the less likely they will escape the recycling > stream;
>> even standard car batteries are rarely dumped any more.
>>
>> Air powered cars have been around longer than electric cars - there are
>> reasons they haven't caught on. In a time when efficiency is seen as more
>> important than ever, the inherent inefficiency of compressed air makes > this
>> a tough sell.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
> All true, but batteries are every bit as heavy as air tanks, in their
> current state of development. Air is as good an alternative source of > energy
> as any other, and it's the combination of various technologies that will
> save us, not one specific one. Air is perfectly clean and endlessly
> renewable, so efficiency can take a back seat till better options come
> along. Lord knows it's better than alcohol. It's "alternative thinking"
> that's important, not necessarily relative efficiency. In other words, > don't
> shoot it down cause it's not perfect. What's most important at this point > in
> time is that it's CLEAN. Unless you're off the grid on solar and wind,
> electricity is anything BUT clean.
>
>