Quote:
The cars could also be fitted with small "windmills", incorporated into body "scoops" for example, which could be connected to dynamos which also could provide electricity for that purpose - and no wind is necessary for this, just driving along would activate these "windmills".
There you've just explained your lack of understanding of the laws of energy and mass. You are trying to create a perpetual motion machine.
I'm against hydrogen as a storage medium for many of the points that you've already (validly) mentioned, plus others.
My point was that if we use existing energy infrastructure, the pollution problem becomes worse.
We generate electricity at 35% efficiency, consuming coal and water. Transform/transmit it at 90%. Compress it at 75%. Expand it at 75%...17 percent (if you are lucky) of the energy in the coal.
Solar panels ?
Let's say your car is 2 metres wide, 4 metres long, and 1.5 high. A box, with surface area 28m2. Lets say half the sides face square on to the sun (impossible), and lets say the sun is providing 6KWhr/m2/day (
insolation figures for Oz ).Then assume 20% solar cell efficiency, 75% compressor efficiency.
The stored energy will be 45MJ, almost exactly the same as a single litre of petrol. Albeit that you can use it at twice the efficiency of that litre of petrol.
My point with reticulation is that if we decide that we are not going to use existing coal/nuke infrastructure, and building a new coal power station to fuel the "Compressed Air Economy" then we will be reliant upon some other means of getting compressed air, probably some sort of renewable.
Wave and Wind are ideal for providing directly compressed air, rather than conversion to electricity, transmission, distribution, compression etc. Then you need reticulation.
As to using air powered turbines...turbines are exactly the wrong power source for extracting tractive effort out of expanding air.
