N_Jay

It may be cheaper than buying pure gasses in bottles, but is it not cheaper the fossil fuels on an energy basis.

In other words, they are saving money, but not saving energy.

jcman

I believe they are smarter then us and saving on both IMHO, also considering the other materials of silver and nitrogen not needed vs. kilowatts. Trust me I know these costs.

N_Jay

We are arguing nits.
It is irrelevant to the power equation for a vehicle.

jcman

N_Jay we are men of thought and intellect so we add to the forum in many ways with known knowledge and newly researched findings, believe me I find your threads interesting and needed.....It keeps this forum going and not boring.

jcman

Opps and yes I agree, it is irrelevant to power a car for gain......but I've often wondered about what was powering the NASA STS missions outside of solar panels....it's there but not for us.

N_Jay

Hydrazine

EDIT:

Oops, MMH/N2O4

On the electrical side, they started with fuel cells, but I understand they have retrofitted batteries. (Since the 70's Batteries have passed fuel cells in weight/size efficiency.)

jcman

I know about Hydrazine for the main engines or maybe the small generating ones, many many tests and testing over the years. One thing I believe is some of todays aerospace is 40yrs ahead of anything we will ever know or see at a consumer level, my son the engineer as been at Crain Areospace, PCC Airfoils and currently with Rolls Royce AS in Indy....he don't say a thing but talks about future possibilities, so I keep telling him to invent something soon so I can retire with new toys and hobbies and a R8.

N_Jay

Aerospace is not the far advanced than other industries. They just have more money to spend and a need to select a different point on the size/weight/cost/efficiency compromise curve.
Once locked in, a technology may be used for 20 or more years (even when other industries have made it obsolete.)