Does anyone know the current status of the Tata Motors / MDI CAT car?

I found this dated January 2008 saying that Tata will start pre-production this year http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=124319

Nègre's company, Moteur Developpment International (MDI), has been working on the vehicle since the early 1990s, showing concepts at alt-energy conferences and collecting dozens of patents. The car has been produced in prototypes called the Minicat for in-town driving and the Citycat with a longer driving range thanks to an additional diesel or ethanol tank on board. It uses an electric motor paired with compressed air of the type used by deep-sea divers. The pressurized air makes the car's pistons move — and the pistons compress the air into a reservoir that lets it keep working.
The plan is to offer refills of the compressed air at service stations. Tata has invested nearly $30 million in the project and reportedly will start pre-production of the CAT car this year. How it stacks up next to Tata's own just-introduced Nano, the $2,500 "people's car," should be interesting. The CAT car is expected to be priced closer to $6,000. Nègre has an answer for that in the OneCAT concept, which would come in a "basic and cheaper" version with no backseats — and no top or windows.

NYT in July says next year http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/business/worldbusiness/09greencar.html....

Mr. Negre’s engine will be offered as an option in Tata Motor’s new production model, the Nano, next year. The Nano, a minicar with an ultralow price tag, was introduced in January and is primarily aimed at the Indian market. Mr. Negre said a full tank of compressed air would cost about $3 and provide about 200 kilometers, or 125 miles, of driving. The tank could be filled by gas station compressors used for inflating tires, or a built-in compressor powered by plugging in to an electrical outlet, he said.

Ford currently makes the (European) Focus and Mondeo. Cars that, over there, knock it out of the park. Unfortunately, American management doesn't feel Americans would like a well made, tight, efficient, car.

They'd better come up with a world beater. It's the only thing that could save Ford from Ford management.

Compressed air? Didn't this website crunch the numbers on this idea recently and give it the boot? How light does this car have to be? What kind of terrain can it traverse? Let's face it, a car run on compressed air will need to super light, accelerate from 0-60 in a minimum of 3 minutes, and driven on flat terrain with smooth, new ashpalt. The whole time you'll be hypermiling it while attentively glued to an array of feedback displays. If you pass, it must be downhill on a long straight-away going past a car doing a consistant 45 mph.

Where's the beef?! People want gurgle, pop, and zing. They want to punch it past a slower vehicle in turbo charged nano second. Crank up the AC and stereo, while talking on a blue tooth munching on some fast food. Get real!

I wonder how long the car industry will survive the 1st phase of peak oil (bumpy crude oil plateau since 2005).

British Car Market Runs Out Of Gas
New car registrations in Britain fell 18.6% in the year to August, signalling the weakest market since 1966.

http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_2995532.html?menu=business.mark...

Once the 1st physical fuel shortages arrive at the filling stations and shelves in shops start to be empty, our focus will turn on how we can maintain food production and distribution as well as basic services, not which cars we drive. Car pooling will allow us to keep going for a couple of years, provided there is no big bang in the Middle East. Read here how the strategic situation has changed during and after the war in Georgia:

The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy
http://defence-data.com/current/page40964.htm

Russian units raid Georgian airfields for use in Israeli strike against Iran – report
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5559

Kazakh oil and gas worries
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/89452.php

Iranian Trump Card. Russia Can Take Control of Persian Gulf
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10032

And we can expect dramatic, yet unknown, climate change events in the next years, possibly connected to the disappearnace of the Arctic summer sea ice.

September 4, 2008
Record ice loss in August
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Maslowski calculated this event may happen in 2013
Causes of Changes in Arctic Sea Ice; by Wieslaw Maslowski (Naval Postgraduate School)
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslows...

Once the Arctic summer sea ice is gone, disintegration of glaciers flowing from the Greenland icesheet will accelerate and when this process goes beyond the grounding line, sea level rises wil start immediately.

SATELLITE IMAGES SHOW CONTINUED BREAKUP OF TWO OF GREENLAND’S LARGEST GLACIERS, PREDICT DISINTEGRATION IN NEAR FUTURE
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/boxice.htm

Then it will dawn on all of us that we'll have to abandon coal much earlier than previously thought. So where will the carbon free primary energy come from to drive millions of cars? This is not a technology but an energy problem.

#1 priority will soon be to replace and/or retrofit our EXISTING coal fired power plants. There is no room for any new demand for electricity for cars.

I recommend to re-tool our car factories and parts suppliers to mass-produce components for the renewable energy industry. This chance was already missed when Mitsubishi closed, a company also manufacturing generators for wind farms.

Forget your car dreams. In urban areas, time is running out for all Capital cities to adopt the Transperth solution, electric rail on freeways:

B series departing Murdoch bound for Mandurah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zwmpI8bDo

It should be noted that Henry Ford was little more than a crank wandering Detroit with a cranky idea and a design scrawled on a napkin....until he met John and Horrace Dodge.

Horrace scrapped Ford's entire drive train, redesigned it from scratch and John agreed to supply them on credit, over $10,000 worth on the initial run. Once the Dodges bought into it, others stepped in and Ford the Great was born.

A car in every pot. A bird that is coming home to roost.

A car of this type requires a vastly different cost structure to build and be profitable for the manufacturer, I think.

It's a very good idea since it has the feel of appropriate technology to it (it could be a neighborhood vehicle, for instance), but it's an idea that I think needs to surface post-collapse, once the labor and material costs have adjusted to the new economic context.

I don't see it being profitable until then, but I'm open to being shown to be mistaken.

As others say, the idea [as described] is a non-starter.

Something which could be useful [which I posted in TOD years ago] is the expansion motor [eg steam/air engine] driven by dry ice. This could be frozen from other waste combustion sources by intermittent renewable energy. You are effectively storing [in refridgeration to ~ -40C] intermittent renewable energy sources in concentrated transport form, so conversion losses are less crucial. This would give far more range than compressed air but would still work best for planned scheduled transport like ships, trains or rail transport [similair limitations as coal driven].

It's nice to think about new technology. However, the old technology still works pretty well. And it is very cheap.

The tata-nano runs 50 mpg (20 km/l) if not better and costs US$ 2500. Even if oilprices triple (!) it would still be cheaper to buy a car like this iso any new-technology-based-car.

And if that is too expensive for you, then you can always ride a solex.

Very old technology (from after ww2!) It gets you around 100 mpg or better.

So if you use a nano if there are more of you or for longer distances (or the train if available & practical) and a bike or a solex for cruising through town, you basically have cut your petrol use with 75%.

And if you need to do some shopping or get your kids to school, then this one will be just perfect:

We are all about focusing our technology on war, folks. Trinkets like the Tata and the alleged air car and solar cars and the like keep some folks distracted. That serves some purpose for the war effort. Luxury SUVs do the same for another market segment.

Ford and GM are both run by npeople who know better than to think that affordable transportation for the masses is really an issue now. Most of us are "the masses" and are simply too expensive to keep around for much longer.

I drive a Zap Xebra PK -- electric. It is a good experiment for me in a particular direction toward sustainable transportation. I may go back to walking and biking within five years or so, if I'm still around.

I no longer see solutions for us all. Different people try out different things, but we are mostly making the planet far more toxic and far more violent each day. Our appetite to consume resources, create pollution, and destroy life seems to grow exponentially.

Ford's public relations machinations do not change the fact that they are a Corporatist entity completely embedded in the fascist war machine.

Of course Tata Motors is no different. The political and business leadership of China or Russia or Europe or Australia or wherever are into the same game for full spectrum global dominance.

Our species devotes our big brains to killing and consuming and dumping waste. Look at how much better we become at killing large numbers of our own species every day, and on purpose, too. Then look at how much better we are at killing large numbers of all the living species each day. This is called progress.

I wish the air car boosters success in experimenting with air cars. The nonsensical hype surrounding it is much like the nonsensical hype surrounding every "Green" product or service I've seen so far in my life. Plenty of hot air from Wizard of Oz-like PR hacks combined with realities that simply are not at all what was promised.

It is all about War. Now more than ever. We focus our economy on being able to kill more, consume, more, and dump more waste. We focus on creating Hell on earth for the next generation: more violence, more toxins. Thast is what we do, as opposed to the hype sold by educators, pharmaceutical companies, car manufacturers, energy companies, and environmental nonprofit groups. "It's the War, stupid!" is our most honest motto.

Can the air car be made into an up-armored Humvee? That's the key question. Otherwise, it may transport a few stupid, distracted happy idiots to and from their jobs engineering better cluster bombs Monday-through-Friday, and then to church, mosque, synagogue, or secular recreation on whatever Holy Day may or may not work for them.

I may be missing something, but on its face this seems like a net energy loser.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction - so if it cost zero energy to compress the air in the first place, the system would be in balance.

But that cost isn't zero, so when you add the compression energy cost, you end up with a negative EROEI.

Or am I missing something?

The idea got a start because compressed air was used in the starter motor in race cars, and there is considerable experience with this.

It is not nearly as efficient as using a battery, but saves on that substantial cost, and so with many years when battery technology was stuck looked quite attractive, but the technology is moving forward nicely now, and if it is got going is a niche player, for instance France could use them, re-charging when they have surplus nuclear power as city run-abouts.

It's probably an idea whose time has passed though.

The compression side of compressed air cars is not that bad.
It's about 37% efficient and the storage medium is cheap. Also heat could be recovered from the compression side.

Compressed air storage is cheaper than batteries, environmentally friendly and long lasting. The tank space requirement is no worse than some kinds of batteries, so it would match a short range battery car.

http://www.efcf.com/reports/E18.pdf

Of course once you go through all the trouble of compressing air, the question becomes...why not just go ahead and liquify it by cryogenic cooling:

http://www.mtsc.unt.edu/CooLN2Car.html

http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm

I have been following and doing research on this for years, and have come to the conclusion that it is not well suited for transportation alternatives, but may have a future in stationary energy storage applications to help solve the "variability" problems of wind and solar. Cryogenic air is a better energy storage option than the so called "hydrogen economy" and can rival batteries in stationary storage. I recently did a longer essay on this subject that has some fascinating math on the issue of conversion efficiencies, which are as good or better than most alternatives, but the devil is still in the details, because exactly how components are arranged and at what cost they are procured means everything. This one is an engineering problem, as the thermodynamics seem sound.

RC

I'm no scientist, but if all our cars were to run on air, would that affect our oxygen supply at all, especially with deforestation. And how long would it take to develop technology like this, 10-20 years for a prototype? I'm a fan on getting all cars to run on Natural Gas like Mr. Pickens' plan. It's good to see that the car companies are finally seeing an upside in developing new technology so not to rely on oil anymore. It's too bad we won;t be around to see what the world will be like in 100 years. I'd imagine it would be very clean...

http://www.stockresearchportalblog.com/

I was going to post this when the topic of electric vehicles came up. But this same logic applies to the concept of air cars.

One energy fact that is a constant thread throughout TOD is the incredible scope of the problem in replacing transportation fossil fuels.

One partial solution often discussed is electric vehicles. Usually the vehicles are sub-compact or compacts. While these vehicle types are what we are most familiar with and the easiest to understand, there is a lack of data which gives the perspective required to properly understand how electric vehicles can integrate into our transportation mix.

I don't have the data, what I have are questions which might lead to others doing the research and sharing it with us:)

My question is what percentage of ground transportation fossil fuels (we can leave air transportation out) are used for each vehicle class? The transportation industry has standardized vehicle classes based on the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) This class starts with light trucks and goes all the way up to the largest over-the-road tractors.

Here is a great description of the truck types and classes.

http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/downloads/050205%20Truck%20Type%20Appendix.pdf

The truck classes start with class one and go up to class 8. The vehicle types we typically discuss are lighter than class one. Let's call them class zero, which covers the sub-compact and compact vehicles.

Next, we need to factor in off-road vehicle classes. Examples of these are farm tractors and construction equipment (bulldozers, backhoes etc). Then we can move onto specialty transportation classes such as trains and ships. My commute includes a ferry ride and the rates go up rapidly in lockstep with the cost of diesel fuel.

Commercial vehicles are only cost effective to operate if they drive/operate/run a large number of miles per day. Unlike personal use, class zero vehicles, a high percentage of commercial vehicles operate 8 or more hours per day. They obviously have a substantially lower average MPG. Class zero vehicles are primarily commuting vehicles and have the highest average MPG. There are many more class zero vehicles than the other classes combined. What we don't know is ratio of class zero vehicle fuel use to the fuel use of all other transportation classes combined. It is as if we are shooting at a target and don't know where the bulls eye is.

Another aspect of this discussion is the limitation of electric vehicles types due to the ratio of battery weight to vehicle weight, and the average trip miles or operating hours required by the various vehicles classes. It seems likely that there is a weight break point where battery powered vehicles become untenable due to the total vehicle weight, thus limiting their application in the total ground and water transportation vehicle type mix.

I think we will may find that class zero vehicles use a surprisingly small percentage of transportation fossil fuels. (Yes, I know, thinking is not the same as facts:) If that is true, then electric vehicles are not a significant solution to solving the problem of decreasing oil and natural gas used for transportation. Another question is demand destruction. Do class zero vehicles have a greater rate of demand destruction than all other transportation types and classes? If they do, the impact of electric vehicles is reduced even more.

If class zero vehicles use a small percentage of total transportation fossil fuel, and current battery technology limits their use to class zero vehicles, are we going to discover that electric vehicles will have an impact similar to solar and wind energy. There is a niche for them, but they won't be primary solutions.

So, that's the challenge. Do we have the data to support the investment in electric vehicles? Could those investment dollars be better spent on other potential solutions? I'm not asking yet about the charging infrastructure, battery efficiency/cost, and the types of electricity generation/transmission required to support electric vehicles. I'm trying to come to grips with the contribution percentage electric vehicles will make in reducing the total amount of fossil fuels used in ground and water transportation.

Any takers:)

I have been interested in compressed air cars for a while because I work with compressed (bio) methane for vehicle fuel.

If it is possible to run an air engine purely on the energy of releasing the stored gas then why not use methane instead of air and have the added advantage of a combined heat source rather than carrying liquid fuel like so many 'air powered' cars seem to.

Compressed air for cars is a non-starter. Has it been investigated for fixed site buffering of electric power? You could build the compressed air tanks underground and insulate them well so that only a little heat was lost. This would vastly raise the efficiency. If you only need to store the power a few hours (afternoon to late evening) then the insulation should work well to retain the heat. I haven't thought this through. Perhaps the temperatures get too high for the materials to retain their strength?

I'm not sure how many of you guys have read "The long Emergency", but I am going to guess at least a few. My question is really this: how many of you guys sort of romanticize the effects of peak oil, and maybe look forward to them? Sometimes I find myself excited about certain possible outcomes, like using horses to get around, fishing with nets off of small sail boats, and trading goods along the coastline (I live in a small port town in CT). Other times I am sickened by my own excitedness, because I remember all of the other likely hardships that will come also, like population declines, global resource wars, poverty, starvation, political meltdown, etc. I think many of you fall into the same boat as I do, in that you are possibly excited for the "settled" period, but not really so much for the transition. I don't wanna get killed "Road Warrior" style, I just want to live like Bilbo Baggins and go on quests. haha... good thing I have a katana and am sick at making stuff with simple tools.

Has anyone heard about the Air Force trying to switch its fleet to run on coal to liquids fuels? Seems like they know something...

-Ashton

My thought is that we should stop buying cars and instead buy the service, ie from rental companies. Rent a small car for driving to work, the socccer field and store. Exchange the small ICE/EV for the SUV or minivan for trips.

I personally have a diving compressor aboard our Research Ship. It is a German built Bauer Junior. It has three pistons operating in sequence and produces pressures up to 135 Bar (3600 psi).

It is run by a 5 hp Honda single piston petrol engine and uses about 1 liter of fuel to fill 3 SCUBA tanks, size 100.

Like all things mechanical this unit operates at an efficiency less than 100%, actually far less..... approximately 80% or so.

Regardless of whatever motive power is chosen, compressing air to run a vehicle involves losses due to inefficiencies.
The Thermodynamic Cycle
An explanation of a few basic thermodynamic principles is necessary to understand the science of reciprocating compressors. Compression occurs within the cylinder as a four-part cycle that occurs with each advance and retreat of the piston (two strokes per cycle). The four parts of the cycle are compression, discharge, expansion and intake. They are shown graphically with pressure vs. volume plotted in what is known as a P-V diagram (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Intake

At the conclusion of a prior cycle, the piston is fully retreated within the cylinder at V1, the volume of which is filled with process gas at suction conditions (pressure, P1 and temperature, T1), and the suction and discharge valves are all closed. This is represented by point 1 (zero) in the P-V diagram. As the piston advances, the volume within the cylinder is reduced. This causes the pressure and temperature of the gas to rise until the pressure within the cylinder reaches the pressure of the discharge header. At this time, the discharge valves begin to open, noted on the diagram by point 2.

With the discharge valves opening, pressure remains fixed at P2 for the remainder of the advancing stroke as volume continues to decrease for the discharge portion of the cycle. The piston comes to a momentary stop at V2 before reversing direction. Note that some minimal volume remains, known as the clearance volume. It is the space remaining within the cylinder when the piston is at the most advanced position in its travel. Some minimum clearance volume is necessary to prevent piston/head contact, and the manipulation of this volume is a major compressor performance parameter. The cycle is now at point 3.

Expansion occurs next as the small volume of gas in the clearance pocket is expanded to slightly below suction pressure, facilitated by the closing of the discharge valves and the retreat of the piston. This is point 4.

When P1 is reached, the intake valves open allowing fresh charge to enter the cylinder for the intake and last stage of the cycle. Once again, pressure is held constant as the volume is changed. This marks the return to point 1.

Comprehending this cycle is key to diagnosing compressor problems, and to understanding compressor efficiency, power requirements, valve operation, etc. This knowledge can be gained by trending process information and monitoring the effect these items have on the cycle.

Not included in the above are frictional losses...

Since the favored approach involves Electromotive power provided by the grid overall efficiency is about as follows:

Generation ~ 35%
Distribution ~ 95%
Motor ~ 90%
Compressor ~ 75%

Air motor ~ 80%

Over all ~ 18%

So what makes more sense?

Ultra Capacitors......

They are ~ 95% efficient, last more than 100,000 cycles.. are solid state... and are installed in busses now, and are currently in sizes suitable for electric bicycles, and micro cars... eg the HyperCar ala Lovins.

Also, it must be accepted that nothing improves efficiency as much as shifting from personal mobility to mass transit. While my truck has a 100 hp engine, the 35 seat bus has 250 hp, and hauls 7 times more people, were we using light rail the power requirement for 35 people would drop to 50 hp or less.

Since ~ 90% of fuel use is for transportation, it is vital that we inculcate the lessons learned from the nationwide rail electrification project which showed that electrifying and double tracking 36,000 miles of the US rail network, combined with a mass shift from trucks to rail, would save 6 Mbbl/ day in domestic consumption. If mass transit for commuters, or shifts to living locally occured, we'd save far more.

This would go a long way to reducing the trade deficit, and would obviate the necessity for controlling the planet to secure fuel to run the economy.

Given that Iran will likely cease to export ~ 2012, Russia ~ 2015, and KSA shortly thereafter see latest updates on ELM... changing the US appetite profile is not an option, but rather a given.

Warmly,

Dr. George W. Oprisko
Executive Director
Africa GeoPower, Ltd.

What I find discouraging about this thread is that the underlying paradigm is business as usual. My guess is that BAU will have died long before they could have made a difference.

Todd

Challenge this: 1990 Geo Metro. 54 mpg highway, 46 mpg city. The fanciest bit of technology in this vehicle is the computerized engine controller. Except for brakes, no power anything. Our "air conditioner" is a spray bottle filled with water.

Claims that busses and trains run empty most of the day, are rubbish.

They rely upon a belief that the system cannot and will not adapt to traffic patterns. This may be true in AUS and NZ where the 1 meter gauge imposed by the UK still rules, but everywhere else, the gauge is 1.5 meters and not only do trains carry freight, they carry passengers at high speeds.

There isn't enough fuel available for AUS - NZ to continue driving from Whangarei to Auckland along side a perfectly maintained, but unused railway, or whatever is the equivalent in AUS.

I did not set exact efficiency targets for busses, and if you don't like the 36 seat version, IVECO makes a very nice 22 seat version with a 3 Liter turbo diesel that gets 8 km/ liter. Perhaps Aus - NZ don't have these, but backward Namibia has dozens... all run by entrepreneurs....

There will be no alternative... it is either mass transit or the ox cart.

INDY

In case the math escapes you 22 seats at 8 Km/ liter equates to 2 seats, (the norm with a personal car) at 88 Km / liter or 216 mpg.

The 36 seat bus gets 6 km/ liter which equates to 265 mpg

MPG figures given for 2 pax personal vehicle equivalent required to match the seat-mile performance.

Lest we forget, eliminating 11 cars in favor of one IVECO mini bus, or 18 cars infavor of one bus, will eliminate traffic jams, and attendant fuel wastage.

INDY

It doesn't matter how inneficient the road vehicle is, when it's the only thing between you and walking, most people will choose the easy way out.

What is very apparent is the return for investment that is the whole crux of making a people carrier, be it for 22 people or just one person.

People will ALWAYS want to go where they want to go, not where the public transport nearly gets them eventually.

When all the oil is gone or just too hard to economically produce, then the next player will step up to the platform and if it is a hay burner using waste hay from the food industry, then so be it, people power will always justify the means, trust me.

Supposing the air car was the preferred means of transport, and the inter heater was fueled by Ethanol, this just leaves the compression of air to be catered for by wind/solar/photo voltaic or whatever method dominated on the energy playing field.

Nothing is improbable when it comes to transport, and the 0 to 60 MPH in 4 seconds is just as impractical as living to be 110.