Written in response to the article "The Air Car" by Jacob Boer, which appeared in The Flip Side Volume 1, Issue 9 (March 31st - April 13th, 2004).

Boer's article "The Air Car" made zero-emission driving appear to be a simple political problem while neglecting to address some of the fundamental physical considerations in creating a "zero-emissions" vehicle.

Excessively praising MDI for its technological development of a "zero-emissions" car and using quotations from MDI's FAQ misleads the reader. The truth, however, is that the super-cooled compressed air that runs the Air Car is created largely by the burning of fossil fuels in local power plants.

It is ridiculous to say that the Air Car is a zero-emission car and claim that it is the solution to our emission problems. I acknowledge that while driving, the single byproduct of operation is air. However, when it comes time to "fill your tank," you plug it in the wall and draw electricity. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 2/3 of all electricity generated is accomplished by combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the simple minded person feels better about driving a "zero-emissions" vehicle and yet fails to realize that emissions have simply changed in location.

Also, Boer states, "the energy needed to compress enough air for a whole tank costs less than $2." He also mentions, however, that range is approximately 60 miles (highway speeds). With the price of diesel at, say $1.70, and the 2003 VW Golf TDI getting 49 miles per gallon, you do the math. It is not significantly cheaper to operate this vehicle than current fuel-efficient sedans. Besides, who wants to fill their tank 3 times on the way to Madison? Yeah, that's practicality at its best.

Emissions reduction and fueling our next-generation energy-hungry society are very complicated problems that cannot be so simply solved by the "Air Car." The problem at hand (i.e. the creation of renewable energy) is much more complicated and is governed by the fundamental laws of physics. Next time, before you lead readers to believe that a car driven by super-cooled compressed air will solve emissions problems, please investigate further how this is accomplished. If it sounds too good to be true, it most likely is.

Jacob Boer Responds:

I agree with you completely that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." The car's environmental advantages over fossil burning cars are obvious: The only thing that comes out of the exhaust is breathable air. The thing you have to realize is if the electricity is generated by renewable energy sources such as windmills and biomass plants, the cars do become virtually "zero-emission" vehicles.

Also, I did mention in my article that the two dollars of electricity needed to charge the tank is if you use the onboard compressor (4 hour charge time). This will be standard in every car. In addition, MDI has special service pumping machines that will fill your tank in less than three minutes.

What America must realize is that the amount of oil in the world is finite. Either in ten, twenty, or thirty years, our--and our children's supply--will be gone forever. It is imperative that new ideas and new technologies be supported and funded immediately. To say "It is not significantly cheaper (so why bother?)," is just plain naïve. We can do this the easy way or the hard way, but America will have to give up its oil addiction.