 | The Bullroarer - Friday 5th September 2008 | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | Peak Oil in "The Diplomat" |  |
126 comments on The Ford Global Challenge - A Green Car That Runs On Air?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
126 comments on The Ford Global Challenge - A Green Car That Runs On Air?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Good grief! The 'Air Car'! Why not an 'Air Helicopter' or an 'Air Cruise Ship'? The only way an air car can be 'green' is if the manufacturer paints it green.
I have some 'fuel' for an air car. It comes out of a hole in my butt ...
the solution to the automobile problem is the junkyard.
Actually, I think the idea of returning to blimps and zepplins is not so far fetched. Think of all that surface area for solar PV to drive their engines. Sure they would be slow but faster than a ship I think and have the advantage to go straight to their destination.
OK as long as they use hydrogen, not helium, which is a really critical irreplaceable resource which is being scandalously wasted.
It is so light that it rises straight to the top of the atmosphere, and is swept away by the solar wind.
It is vital for many engineering uses.
Certainly technology to handle hydrogen has advanced since the days of the Hindenburg. Is this a viable option now? Also, I was wondering what those engineering uses of helium are that would not also work with Argon?
There is a big 'fear factor' involved in the use of hydrogen, but the Hindenburg incident seems to have been caused more by the materials used than directly by the use of hydrogen.
In many respects the flammability of hydrogen is less of a problem than that of kerosene, as the kerosene being heavier pools.
Substituting argon means that you are using one rare element for another, and anyway is unsuitable in supercooled applications:
http://www.balloon-printing.com/FunStuff_Filler/facts_about_helium.htm
It doesn't make sense to waste a truly irreplaceable element, and hope that you can somehow do without.
Actually argon is not particularly rare at all, it's about 1% of the atmosphere. Of course, it's slightly heavier than air, which is why it's still with us, so it's of no use in airships or party balloons.
I always thought that the only 'smart' application in an H2 economy would be flying. I would imagine very large Zeppelins circling the planet on fixed routes in high altitudes; never landing, always at full speed, being accessed by smaller shuttles carrying passengers and cargo from and to the ground. Solar energy would be the propellant and collected from the cloudless sky via a thin film PV skin. H2 would provide buoyancy and at the same time serve as energy carrier for day and night operation. Traveling above 300km/h would provide additional lift and controllability. The longer travel times would be compensated by comfort and convenience known from large cruise ships. I would be the first to use such an infrastructure for my long distance traveling! r
PS: whenever I have the opportunity I visit the Zeppelin museum in Friederichshafen just across the lake - and I'm always fascinated walking around in the 1:1 model of the Hindenburg (http://www.zeppelin-museum.de/Text_TuK.htm)
I actually had a few shares in CargoLifter, and would love to take a trip in one of the new Zeppelin NT ships.
Just need to go for a visit some day.
Airships can't fly in bad weather.
Hi,
That's the point of Rolf_w's comment fly above the weather. As it is, all air craft get grounded in severe weather as they can't take off, but having a network of what is in effect a fleet of low orbiting blimps/weather balloons is technically feasible. There is also the idea of having these things covered in pvs and 'moored' to ground power take off points. As they are above cloud cover and atmosphere, they become much more efficient, + distribution looses are just the length of connecting/mooring cable (carbon fibre/composite something light and strong) - the added thing is that at the edge of the troposphere temperature is a cool -55 Deg.C adding further to electrical efficiency - possible superconductivity etc. But hey, no harm in fantasising eh?
L,
Sid.
They can fly over the weather. they just cannot take off and land so easily in bad weather. I suppose one could run out of champagne if aloft too long. Now, that would be a tragedy. ;->
Winds at that altitude can reach 100 mph. Just figuring out where they are would be a challenge:)
Considering the the German´s managed world wide flights in them with early 1900´s technology, I think we might manage quite well with GPS and modern weather tracking. Computers should be able to put those winds to good use.
Agreed. A number of 'outdated' forms of technology need to be revived. New technology can ionterface with the old. to make the old work better, safer:
- Trains
- Streetcars
- Sailing ships
- Blimps and Zeppelins
- Shipping canals
A lot of 'old fashioned' jobs need to be rediscovered, too. People need interesting things to do, besides work in a store in a mall ... or sit in an office sending emails back and forth to others doing the same thing.
"I think the idea of returning to blimps and zepplins is not so far fetched"
As a card carrying member of The Chums of Chance I would have to agree.
Ref: Against The Day by Thomas Pynchon
P.S. As to blimps, any schmoe with a 22 could take one out IMO as the glide ratio is rather weak.
Cheers!