At first I was impressed that a tank of compressed air could power a car to a range of 125 miles ("Driving on Air," May 5, p. 58). Then I began to wonder how much electricity would be required to run a compressor that could fill the tank to capacity. The thrust of the article was really to point out how green this vehicle was, but in order to generate enough electrical power for a large number of such cars we would have to burn a lot of dirty fuel-unless we increase wind, solar, hydro or nuclear power generation capacity. It reminds me of the excitement created by biofuel production of ethanol from corn. Aside from the inconvenience of having to "rest" the car during refilling, as well as accepting the other limitations imposed by the vehicle, has anyone seriously looked at how nonpolluting this new technology really is?
展开▼
机译：最初，给我印象深刻的是，压缩空气罐可以为汽车提供125英里的行驶动力（“ Driving on Air”，5月5日，第58页）。然后，我开始怀疑要运行一台压缩机，需要多少电力才能使储罐满负荷运转。这篇文章的目的实际上是指出这辆车有多绿色，但是为了为大量此类汽车产生足够的电力，我们将不得不燃烧大量脏燃料，除非我们增加风能，太阳能，水力发电。或核发电能力。它使我想起了玉米生物燃料生产乙醇产生的兴奋。除了在加气过程中不得不“休息”汽车带来的不便，以及接受汽车施加的其他限制之外，还有人认真考虑过这种新技术的真正污染吗？
展开▼
