Jeremy wrote:

> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Dan G wrote:
> >> Nevertheless, this type of thinking is what will save us from fossil
> >> fuels.
> >
> > No it won't.
> >
> > They are *less* efficient that EVs, so need MORE energy to keep them
> > running.
> >
> >> The compressed air cars are doing pretty well,
> >
> > Where exactly ? Except in your fantasies ?
> >
> >> and if you use solar power to charge them up, it's free energy.
> >
> > Damn you're an ignorant ***** of the first order. Use the same cutesy
> > 'solar energy' in EVs and you'll easily go *TWICE* as far - probably more >
> since EVs can reclaim energy by regenerative braking.
>
> As long as they are still viable, it doesn't matter that they're less
> efficient than EV's,

Efficiency is *everything*. You can make alleged 'green' cars that are less
efficient than current ICE powered ones too such as hydrogen powered ones but it
makes no sense because that energy still has to come from somewhere. Usually
somewhere with a big chimney.


> because the environmental impact is far less than fuel
> burning cars, and even EV's.

How the heck do you think the air gets compressed in the first place ? Just
because it has no tailpipe emissions doesn't make a car 'green'.


> I personally think that if it is a viable
> technology, then it is far more attractive than EV's even if they require
> more refills.

Well, you're wrong. It will sink without trace. Compressed air vehicles a
re used only where they have specific advantages such as in potentially
explosive environments like mines.


> Although EV's are potentially a safer alternative to fuel
> burning cars they still have a large environmental impact. The problem is
> that it is far down the road and not as visible to the public. Has anyone
> ever thought of what kind of negative impact the manufacturing of fuel cells
> has, or what the impact of disposal will have? What will be done with all
> the chemicals?

What chemicals ?


> I think EV's are a short term solution, but in the long term
> it's a dangerous technology.

Dangerous in what way ?

Graham

 

Jeremy wrote:

> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Dan G wrote:
> >> Nevertheless, this type of thinking is what will save us from fossil
> >> fuels.
> >
> > No it won't.
> >
> > They are *less* efficient that EVs, so need MORE energy to keep them
> > running.
> >
> >> The compressed air cars are doing pretty well,
> >
> > Where exactly ? Except in your fantasies ?
> >
> >> and if you use solar power to charge them up, it's free energy.
> >
> > Damn you're an ignorant ***** of the first order. Use the same cutesy
> > 'solar energy' in EVs and you'll easily go *TWICE* as far - probably more >
> since EVs can reclaim energy by regenerative braking.
>
> As long as they are still viable, it doesn't matter that they're less
> efficient than EV's,

Efficiency is *everything*. You can make alleged 'green' cars that are less
efficient than current ICE powered ones too such as hydrogen powered ones but it
makes no sense because that energy still has to come from somewhere. Usually
somewhere with a big chimney.


> because the environmental impact is far less than fuel
> burning cars, and even EV's.

How the heck do you think the air gets compressed in the first place ? Just
because it has no tailpipe emissions doesn't make a car 'green'.


> I personally think that if it is a viable
> technology, then it is far more attractive than EV's even if they require
> more refills.

Well, you're wrong. It will sink without trace. Compressed air vehicles a
re used only where they have specific advantages such as in potentially
explosive environments like mines.


> Although EV's are potentially a safer alternative to fuel
> burning cars they still have a large environmental impact. The problem is
> that it is far down the road and not as visible to the public. Has anyone
> ever thought of what kind of negative impact the manufacturing of fuel cells
> has, or what the impact of disposal will have? What will be done with all
> the chemicals?

What chemicals ?


> I think EV's are a short term solution, but in the long term
> it's a dangerous technology.

Dangerous in what way ?

Graham

 

"Dan G" <none@12345.org> wrote in message
news:0eudnWLuJvWLcsHbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:KYWdnX-MydcrT8HbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@sedona.net...
>> Do you have any particular reason for concern about battery disposal
>> (recycling) as currently carried out? In the US we go through roughly a
>> hundred million lead-acid car and truck batteries every year, and those
> are
>> about as toxic as batteries come. I think if it were a problem we'd be
>> hearing about it.
>>
>
> " I think if it were a problem we'd be hearing about it."
>
> Uh, huh? What makes you think that? Certainly not any historical
> precedence.
>

How about the thousands of reporters who are drooling to find such a story
and the lawyers waiting to get rich off it? Think Love Canal....

Nike

 

"Dan G" <none@12345.org> wrote in message
news:0eudnWLuJvWLcsHbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:KYWdnX-MydcrT8HbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@sedona.net...
>> Do you have any particular reason for concern about battery disposal
>> (recycling) as currently carried out? In the US we go through roughly a
>> hundred million lead-acid car and truck batteries every year, and those
> are
>> about as toxic as batteries come. I think if it were a problem we'd be
>> hearing about it.
>>
>
> " I think if it were a problem we'd be hearing about it."
>
> Uh, huh? What makes you think that? Certainly not any historical
> precedence.
>

How about the thousands of reporters who are drooling to find such a story
and the lawyers waiting to get rich off it? Think Love Canal....

Nike

 

I think that the issues pollution of gasoline powered vehicles shadow that
of batteries and that's why it's not typically discussed. It will only be
at the forefront of the consumers mind when they don't have to worry about
fuel burning cars. I do agree with you about the noise for sure. I saw
the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being said, I
don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with noisy
diesel engines for a long time.

And I do agree that even if air cars are viable, they are still a ways off
in terms of perfecting the technology. I think companies are talking about
it now because they're trying to drum up interest for investor dollars.

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:KYWdnX-MydcrT8HbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@sedona.net...
> "Jeremy" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
> news:FG37i.237824$aG1.12783@pd7urf3no...
>> As long as they are still viable, it doesn't matter that they're less
>> efficient than EV's, because the environmental impact is far less than
>> fuel burning cars, and even EV's. I personally think that if it is a
>> viable technology, then it is far more attractive than EV's even if they
>> require more refills. Although EV's are potentially a safer alternative
>> to fuel burning cars they still have a large environmental impact. The
>> problem is that it is far down the road and not as visible to the public.
>> Has anyone ever thought of what kind of negative impact the manufacturing
>> of fuel cells has, or what the impact of disposal will have? What will
>> be done with all the chemicals? I think EV's are a short term solution,
>> but in the long term it's a dangerous technology.
>>
>>
>
> I disagree about ignoring the inefficiency. Worse, even a simple
> requirement like passenger heat is not presently in TheAirCar design. The
> manufacturer claims TheAirCar is quieter than conventional combustion
> engines (listen to the low speed demo and you may doubt even that) but
> admits it lacks the silence of EVs. EVs have so many advantages and are
> well enough proven that competing technologies can't just say, "We can do
> half that stuff at half the efficiency!" and expect a following. The
> manufacturer's promo material shows lift trucks powered by air, but
> battery powered lift trucks have been popular for many decades. The
> company doesn't even speculate when production will begin. In the
> meantime, production EVs have actually been on the road. Compressed air is
> way too little, too late.
>
> Do you have any particular reason for concern about battery disposal
> (recycling) as currently carried out? In the US we go through roughly a
> hundred million lead-acid car and truck batteries every year, and those
> are about as toxic as batteries come. I think if it were a problem we'd be
> hearing about it.
>
> Mike
>
>

 

I think that the issues pollution of gasoline powered vehicles shadow that
of batteries and that's why it's not typically discussed. It will only be
at the forefront of the consumers mind when they don't have to worry about
fuel burning cars. I do agree with you about the noise for sure. I saw
the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being said, I
don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with noisy
diesel engines for a long time.

And I do agree that even if air cars are viable, they are still a ways off
in terms of perfecting the technology. I think companies are talking about
it now because they're trying to drum up interest for investor dollars.

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:KYWdnX-MydcrT8HbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@sedona.net...
> "Jeremy" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
> news:FG37i.237824$aG1.12783@pd7urf3no...
>> As long as they are still viable, it doesn't matter that they're less
>> efficient than EV's, because the environmental impact is far less than
>> fuel burning cars, and even EV's. I personally think that if it is a
>> viable technology, then it is far more attractive than EV's even if they
>> require more refills. Although EV's are potentially a safer alternative
>> to fuel burning cars they still have a large environmental impact. The
>> problem is that it is far down the road and not as visible to the public.
>> Has anyone ever thought of what kind of negative impact the manufacturing
>> of fuel cells has, or what the impact of disposal will have? What will
>> be done with all the chemicals? I think EV's are a short term solution,
>> but in the long term it's a dangerous technology.
>>
>>
>
> I disagree about ignoring the inefficiency. Worse, even a simple
> requirement like passenger heat is not presently in TheAirCar design. The
> manufacturer claims TheAirCar is quieter than conventional combustion
> engines (listen to the low speed demo and you may doubt even that) but
> admits it lacks the silence of EVs. EVs have so many advantages and are
> well enough proven that competing technologies can't just say, "We can do
> half that stuff at half the efficiency!" and expect a following. The
> manufacturer's promo material shows lift trucks powered by air, but
> battery powered lift trucks have been popular for many decades. The
> company doesn't even speculate when production will begin. In the
> meantime, production EVs have actually been on the road. Compressed air is
> way too little, too late.
>
> Do you have any particular reason for concern about battery disposal
> (recycling) as currently carried out? In the US we go through roughly a
> hundred million lead-acid car and truck batteries every year, and those
> are about as toxic as batteries come. I think if it were a problem we'd be
> hearing about it.
>
> Mike
>
>

 

> Efficiency is *everything*. You can make alleged 'green' cars that are
> less
> efficient than current ICE powered ones too such as hydrogen powered ones
> but it
> makes no sense because that energy still has to come from somewhere.
> Usually
> somewhere with a big chimney.

If efficiency was everything, everybody would by buying a honda, VW or
toyota, yet by some miracle GM and Ford are still hanging in there with
their SUV's and inefficient engines. In fact, by some accounts, engines
have become less efficient in the last 20 years.

> How the heck do you think the air gets compressed in the first place ?
> Just
> because it has no tailpipe emissions doesn't make a car 'green'.

I never said that no tailpipe emissions makes a car green. But It's likely
far 'greener', at least in this case.

> What chemicals ?

What chemicals? Uhhh... there's lots used in batteries. Batteries are not
exactly environmentally friendly. Not the battery itself, the manufacturing
process, or the disposal.

> Well, you're wrong. It will sink without trace. Compressed air vehicles a
> re used only where they have specific advantages such as in potentially
> explosive environments like mines.

Ahh, the definitive answer! Thanks for that. Stop stating your opinion as
fact.

>> I think EV's are a short term solution, but in the long term
>> it's a dangerous technology.
>
> Dangerous in what way ?

I consider negative environmental impact dangerous.


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:465D01F6.F2609AB0@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Dan G wrote:
>> >> Nevertheless, this type of thinking is what will save us from fossil
>> >> fuels.
>> >
>> > No it won't.
>> >
>> > They are *less* efficient that EVs, so need MORE energy to keep them
>> > running.
>> >
>> >> The compressed air cars are doing pretty well,
>> >
>> > Where exactly ? Except in your fantasies ?
>> >
>> >> and if you use solar power to charge them up, it's free energy.
>> >
>> > Damn you're an ignorant ***** of the first order. Use the same cutesy
>> > 'solar energy' in EVs and you'll easily go *TWICE* as far - probably
>> > more >
>> since EVs can reclaim energy by regenerative braking.
>>
>> As long as they are still viable, it doesn't matter that they're less
>> efficient than EV's,
>
> Efficiency is *everything*. You can make alleged 'green' cars that are
> less
> efficient than current ICE powered ones too such as hydrogen powered ones
> but it
> makes no sense because that energy still has to come from somewhere.
> Usually
> somewhere with a big chimney.
>
>
>> because the environmental impact is far less than fuel
>> burning cars, and even EV's.
>
> How the heck do you think the air gets compressed in the first place ?
> Just
> because it has no tailpipe emissions doesn't make a car 'green'.
>
>
>> I personally think that if it is a viable
>> technology, then it is far more attractive than EV's even if they require
>> more refills.
>
> Well, you're wrong. It will sink without trace. Compressed air vehicles a
> re used only where they have specific advantages such as in potentially
> explosive environments like mines.
>
>
>> Although EV's are potentially a safer alternative to fuel
>> burning cars they still have a large environmental impact. The problem
>> is
>> that it is far down the road and not as visible to the public. Has
>> anyone
>> ever thought of what kind of negative impact the manufacturing of fuel
>> cells
>> has, or what the impact of disposal will have? What will be done with
>> all
>> the chemicals?
>
> What chemicals ?
>
>
>> I think EV's are a short term solution, but in the long term
>> it's a dangerous technology.
>
> Dangerous in what way ?
>
> Graham
>

 

> Efficiency is *everything*. You can make alleged 'green' cars that are
> less
> efficient than current ICE powered ones too such as hydrogen powered ones
> but it
> makes no sense because that energy still has to come from somewhere.
> Usually
> somewhere with a big chimney.

If efficiency was everything, everybody would by buying a honda, VW or
toyota, yet by some miracle GM and Ford are still hanging in there with
their SUV's and inefficient engines. In fact, by some accounts, engines
have become less efficient in the last 20 years.

> How the heck do you think the air gets compressed in the first place ?
> Just
> because it has no tailpipe emissions doesn't make a car 'green'.

I never said that no tailpipe emissions makes a car green. But It's likely
far 'greener', at least in this case.

> What chemicals ?

What chemicals? Uhhh... there's lots used in batteries. Batteries are not
exactly environmentally friendly. Not the battery itself, the manufacturing
process, or the disposal.

> Well, you're wrong. It will sink without trace. Compressed air vehicles a
> re used only where they have specific advantages such as in potentially
> explosive environments like mines.

Ahh, the definitive answer! Thanks for that. Stop stating your opinion as
fact.

>> I think EV's are a short term solution, but in the long term
>> it's a dangerous technology.
>
> Dangerous in what way ?

I consider negative environmental impact dangerous.


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:465D01F6.F2609AB0@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Dan G wrote:
>> >> Nevertheless, this type of thinking is what will save us from fossil
>> >> fuels.
>> >
>> > No it won't.
>> >
>> > They are *less* efficient that EVs, so need MORE energy to keep them
>> > running.
>> >
>> >> The compressed air cars are doing pretty well,
>> >
>> > Where exactly ? Except in your fantasies ?
>> >
>> >> and if you use solar power to charge them up, it's free energy.
>> >
>> > Damn you're an ignorant ***** of the first order. Use the same cutesy
>> > 'solar energy' in EVs and you'll easily go *TWICE* as far - probably
>> > more >
>> since EVs can reclaim energy by regenerative braking.
>>
>> As long as they are still viable, it doesn't matter that they're less
>> efficient than EV's,
>
> Efficiency is *everything*. You can make alleged 'green' cars that are
> less
> efficient than current ICE powered ones too such as hydrogen powered ones
> but it
> makes no sense because that energy still has to come from somewhere.
> Usually
> somewhere with a big chimney.
>
>
>> because the environmental impact is far less than fuel
>> burning cars, and even EV's.
>
> How the heck do you think the air gets compressed in the first place ?
> Just
> because it has no tailpipe emissions doesn't make a car 'green'.
>
>
>> I personally think that if it is a viable
>> technology, then it is far more attractive than EV's even if they require
>> more refills.
>
> Well, you're wrong. It will sink without trace. Compressed air vehicles a
> re used only where they have specific advantages such as in potentially
> explosive environments like mines.
>
>
>> Although EV's are potentially a safer alternative to fuel
>> burning cars they still have a large environmental impact. The problem
>> is
>> that it is far down the road and not as visible to the public. Has
>> anyone
>> ever thought of what kind of negative impact the manufacturing of fuel
>> cells
>> has, or what the impact of disposal will have? What will be done with
>> all
>> the chemicals?
>
> What chemicals ?
>
>
>> I think EV's are a short term solution, but in the long term
>> it's a dangerous technology.
>
> Dangerous in what way ?
>
> Graham
>

 

Jeremy wrote:

> I saw the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being said,
> I
> don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with noisy
> diesel engines for a long time.

The diesels fitted in modern European cars are a lot quieter than Americans will
be used to hearing.

Diesel powered cars are around 50% of all new sales in some European countries
now.

Graham

 

Jeremy wrote:

> I saw the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being said,
> I
> don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with noisy
> diesel engines for a long time.

The diesels fitted in modern European cars are a lot quieter than Americans will
be used to hearing.

Diesel powered cars are around 50% of all new sales in some European countries
now.

Graham

 

A friend told me that as well. Not sure why this is the case.

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:465E2912.5F269E6F@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>> I saw the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being
>> said,
>> I
>> don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with noisy
>> diesel engines for a long time.
>
> The diesels fitted in modern European cars are a lot quieter than
> Americans will
> be used to hearing.
>
> Diesel powered cars are around 50% of all new sales in some European
> countries
> now.
>
> Graham
>

 

A friend told me that as well. Not sure why this is the case.

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:465E2912.5F269E6F@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>> I saw the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being
>> said,
>> I
>> don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with noisy
>> diesel engines for a long time.
>
> The diesels fitted in modern European cars are a lot quieter than
> Americans will
> be used to hearing.
>
> Diesel powered cars are around 50% of all new sales in some European
> countries
> now.
>
> Graham
>

 

Jeremy wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Jeremy wrote:
> >
> >> I saw the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being
> >> said, I don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with
> noisy
> >> diesel engines for a long time.
> >
> > The diesels fitted in modern European cars are a lot quieter than
> > Americans will be used to hearing.
> >
> > Diesel powered cars are around 50% of all new sales in some European
> > countries now.
> >
> >A friend told me that as well. Not sure why this is the case.

Because they're cheaper to run of course.

Graham

 

Jeremy wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Jeremy wrote:
> >
> >> I saw the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being
> >> said, I don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with
> noisy
> >> diesel engines for a long time.
> >
> > The diesels fitted in modern European cars are a lot quieter than
> > Americans will be used to hearing.
> >
> > Diesel powered cars are around 50% of all new sales in some European
> > countries now.
> >
> >A friend told me that as well. Not sure why this is the case.

Because they're cheaper to run of course.

Graham

 

"Jeremy" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
news:R588i.252833$DE1.73653@pd7urf2no...
>A friend told me that as well. Not sure why this is the case.
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:465E2912.5F269E6F@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> I saw the demo and was surprised to hear how noisy it was. That being
>>> said,
>>> I
>>> don't concider noise a drawback. After all we've been living with noisy
>>> diesel engines for a long time.
>>
>> The diesels fitted in modern European cars are a lot quieter than
>> Americans will
>> be used to hearing.
>>
>> Diesel powered cars are around 50% of all new sales in some European
>> countries
>> now.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
>
I am hearing conflicting reports, with Europeans mostly saying the noise
level ouside the cars is about the same, reduced a bit by under-hood
measures to dampen the racket. Noise levels inside the vehicle are much
reduced.

In the US we have mostly direct injection with conventional injector pumps.
In Europe diesels are going to common rail injection, the high pressure
counterpart of our multiport fuel injection for gasoline engines. The
advantages in startup and response are supposed to be impressive, and the
injector pump is much quieter. Not much can be done about the main source of
the characteristic diesel rattle, though. The high combustion pressures are
part of the nature of the beast.

Disclaimer - most of this is from a few months in a diesel forum a couple of
years ago. It may be outdated or have limited perspective.

Mike