Cars running on empty, er, air

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Yes, it's true. You can run a car on nothing but air, compressed air that is. Rather than burning gasoline to create the gases that drive a piston up and down (and provide motive to your motor), some automakers plan to use air compressed to around 4,500 pounds-per-square-inch instead. After all, pressurized air is just as good at driving a piston up or down—and potentially cheaper.

Such cars are not as fast as regular ones or anywhere near as powerful, but a tank of compressed air is enough to travel at least 60 miles, which is more than most Americans drive in a day. And as long as you don't need to go faster than 35 miles-per-hour, you won't need to burn any other fuel—meaning all that the only thing that comes out of the tailpipe is the same air that went into the engine.

Motor Development International (MDI) in Luxembourg has started working with Indian industrial conglomerate Tata to turn that company's forthcoming Nano car--the world's cheapest at roughly $2,000--into a compressed air vehicle. MDI has also paired with Zero Pollution Motors in New Paltz, N.Y., to make a similar vehicle available to U.S. consumers by 2010 , assuming all goes according to plan, at a price tag of around $18,000.

The buggies  may be cheap but pollution is another story. Setting aside other manufacturing issues, it takes electricity to compress the air. That electricity could well come from leveling a mountain in, say, West Virginia, to mine the coal needed (if produced by a coal-fired power plant), not to mention the carbon dioxide and other smog emitted while the coal is burned. But it still could be better than burning all that gasoline.

Credit: MDI

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe