Uh-oh, now someone will tell me that I didn't remember my high school physics right! Sorry, it was a long time ago and the only physics experiments I've done since then involved firing rifles.

It's probably worth mentioning that a 300lt tank is pretty significant. That's about the size of your average sedan's boot. Given the pictures we've seen of these prototypes, either the tank is cunningly hidden underneath, or else it's accidentally oops omitted from the image. Or perhaps the engine is magically as small as a walnut and the tank's in there.

I think it's an awesome idea if coupled with renewable energy, though an atrocious idea if coupled with fossil fuel generated electricity (better just to burn the stuff directly in the car). I'm just sceptical about the engineering and economics of it. They've had the better part of a decade to secure the patents, so there's no reason they can't put the technical details out there - except of course if it's just geek dreamware...

The car is refuelled by plugging it into the compressed air supply found at most service stations...

What service station now has a compressed air supply sized to recharge an air car? The only use they currently have for compressed air is running pneumatic tools and the hose used to fill up tires. For those purposes a 150 psi 5 h.p. compressor with maybe a 50 gallon tank would be all I'd expect to see. No way would that be up to the job in terms of pressure or volume.

Sure in theory they could be installed, but as with hydrogen car proposals there is a "catch 22": The stations are not going to spend many dollars on high volume high pressure compressors if they don't have lots of customers for the air, and will enough cars be sold if there is no place other than at an "at home" recharging station to get high pressure air?

To say that the wind power to compressed air storage is a commercial entity is not correct. The Iowa site referenced isn't even under construction yet. The project isn't scheduled for operation until 2011.

The fill-up time and cost have to be clarified. A normal tire fill-up at the gas station takes several minutes. Even if the gas station has a gigantic air compressor, a few minutes sounds optimistic. $2.00 for a fill-up sounds optimistic as well.

This energy storage mechanism has some advantages over hydrogen vehicles, which are present major obstacles in energy losses, transporting hydrogen, complex energy cells, and the high potential for major explosions.

How do you heat the interior, defrost the windows, and power the lights and radio?

I remember the Aircar being presented while I was writing my thesis in the field of thermodynamics in 1995. The car was then due out "within months". This has been the claim ever since!!! It sounds like a good idea - using compressed air as batteries, but if it is such a good idea why does it never come any closer to appearing on the road? I was originally very optimistic, and I understand the theory behind the concept but I have become less and less optimistic each year as there is never any realism in the predictions of when the vehicle can be commercialised. I repeat - 1995!!!! That is 12 years ago!

Compressed air (or any compressed gas) is a very poor, inefficient technique for energy storage. When the gas is compressed it is an adiabatic process and the gas temperature rises according to a standard adiabatic compression formula. It is then sent to a storage tank where it sits until the energy is needed. While in storage it cools to ambient temperature. In the process it loses energy.

When energy is needed the compressed gas is fed to an expansion engine. During expansion it cools (again according to the adiabatic compression formula). The gas exiting the expansion engine is substantially cooler than ambient. The temperature difference between cool gas and ambient is a form of waste energy.

I have heard of compressed gas being used for large scale energy storage, but only where underground caverns are used to hold the gas, and the peak pressure is very little above atmospheric pressure, and the cavern volume is very large.

As a boy sixty years ago I used to get excited by articles in Popular Mechanics about ideas like this. I think there were attempts to make compressed air powered automobiles in the late 19th and early 20th century. So this idea has been known for over a century. Still there is no successful implementation. Maybe it really doesn't work.

LETS DO THE MATH!

A 300 Liter tank is equal to about 11 cubic ft. or 0.3 meter cubed (1m x 1m x 0.3m). This is not a really large volume, but at 4560 psi, this is a lot of energy that could be released in a very short time. If the tank ruptured with a hole of 2 square inches (12.9 sqr cm), the force of the escaping air would be 9120 lbs. This would be enough to propell the car at a 3g acceleration - very fast! Safety of the air tank is very important here.

To get a source for 4560psi air would require special compressors, perhaps a cascade system where one high efficiency scroll type compressor would feed into another, with two or three stages required. Single stage compression is too inefficient for this psi. So the cost of the equipment to provide large volumes at this pressure would be $30,000 to $50,000, which is quite a bit to invest in for limited application. Then you have the maintenance of said compressors. Thus the source of the air would be a problem. The new type high efficiency compressor noted in the article is for small volume applications, we don't know if it can be scaled to large sizes required for station supply.

The concept sounds good on paper, but seems to have too many complicating factors. Just like hydrogen, the largest capital cost is for the primary energy production and storage.

I've seen an air car on video and it is EXTREMELY noisy. It's like a cross between an air-cooled VW and a jackhammer. I don't think anyone would want to subject themselves to such noise pollution.

The following details the history of the Air Car including "Industrial Production in Various Countries" in 2003!!. Only one minor detail has been omitted - the fact that the production never actually took place although a number of licenses were sold and a number of international investors were possibly cheated out of their money:

http://www.zevcat.com/media/MDI_History.pdf

The name of the company has changed many times (due to legal proceedings?), and the names Zero Emission Vehicle with Compressed Air Technology "ZevCat", the "AirCar" and "Motordeaire" etc have all been used at different times. Interestingly MDI "Moteur Development International" has the same logo as an import company www.mdi.fr which imports all kinds of things. I smell a scam. Anyone who can confirm my suspicions?

Hype cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Or, I like some of the variations on the definition of "hype" here:

http://www.allwords.com/word-hype.html

"Hype" is what sells almost everything in our culture.

Try this:

"1. Intensive, exaggerated or artificially induced excitement about, or enthusiasm for, something or someone.

Thesaurus: hoop-la (US), ballyhoo, build-up, excitement, publicity.

2. Exaggerated and usually misleading publicity or advertising; a sales gimmick.
3. A publicity stunt, or the person or thing promoted by such a stunt.
4. A deception."

Or this:

"1. A hypodermic needle.
2. A drug addict.
3. Something which artificially stimulates, especially a drug."

Or this:

To inject oneself with a drug. See also hypo1.

Form: hype up (usually)

This is what sells political campaigns and movies and wars and other consumer products. Hype.

And yet once in a great while some kind of dream comes true.

Who dreams that dream? When does it come true? When does it lead to a lower circle of Hell than one already inhabits?

I am skeptical.

Of course, if compressed air would work, liquid air should work even better:
http://www.mtsc.unt.edu/CooLN2Car.html

Unfortunately, even in liquid form, the air takes up a huge volume. As can be seen by the "car" above, most of the vehicle become fuel tank, and even with the weight of the vehicle pared down to a minimum, the performance is very poor.

I once did a study of liquid air/compressed air going all the way back to the birth of the idea, and fould that attempts at using air as a storage medium go back to the birth of the century. One of the cars in the first "motor race" in Chicago was a compressed air car, and it actually completed the race (albeit with a very light chassis car and frequent recharging)

The only advantages that liquid air offer over a well designed battery storage system are (a)no rare minerals or complex chemistry is needed, it's good old fashioned pneumatics, and (b) the storage technology does not degrade with use, i.e., virtually unlimited cycle life.

These are not to be dismissed, but batteries (lithium ion and lithium polymer in particular) are increasing in cycle life, and the materials can be recycled, and are being reduced as much as possible by efficiencies of manufacturing. This reduces the "advantage" of compressed air/liquid air as a storage medium, in particular when you take into account the volume requirements of the compressed or liquid air tank.

Of much greater interest is the application of liquid air/compressed air in stationary storage systems. This to me still shows real possibility. The volume of the tank is not nearly so great a liability in a stationary installation.
The advantage of no decline in performance over many charge/discharge cycles is a big factor in a stationary installation.

Liquid air is not as good as lithium ion batteries on a Kwh per pound basis, but is better than lead acid batteries by a considerable margin. But in a stationary installation, weight, like volume, are not priority factors as they would be in a transportation application.

Even given this, compressed air and liquid air have not been competitive as a energy storage medium in most cases, even in stationary situations (there have been some exceptions, the most noted in a CAES (Compressed Air Energy Storage) system in Alabama. This system uses underground cavarns of very large volume.

But we can pretty much assume that if compressed air/liquid air has not as of yet been accepted as a stationary storage medium where it's weaknesses of weight/volume inefficiency can be overlooked, it will find the hurdles of space efficiency/weight efficiency much more daunting to overcome in a moving vehicle.

The pioneers of many of these alternatives would be advised to first demonstrate the application in stationary installations first, and work to transportation alternatives later. That is the way it was done with steam and electric motors. Only gasoline engines moved to transportation almost immediately, demonstrating the astounding powr to weight ratio/power to volume efficiency of the gasoline engines.

RC

Compressed air is similar to hydrogen - it is an energy storage medium, not an energy source.

I am always bemused by such statements. It implies that oil, coal or natural gas are more than just a storage medium and are in fact an energy source. Rubbish! It seems to me that an awful lot of effort over an awful lot of years went into storing that ancient sunlight in what ultimately became that fossil fuel.

We're in love with our petrol because it's a wonderful energy storage medium, not because it's a source of energy! That's why we're having a debate about air-cars. We are only really debating about how good/bad the energy storage medium is, not the source of that energy.

http://science.reddit.com/info/639xw/comments/

thanks for your support!

If we have an insulated pressure tank (or at least the amount of heat lost before reuse can be neglected, what is
the thermodynamic limit to storage efficienct (work-out/work-in)? I susupect it is 100%, entropy is increased by conductance of heat (deltaQ/T). So the key is adiabatic (w/o heat transfer) compression/expansion and have enough insulation that you don't lose heat. That seems incompatible with low volume or weight per unit of energy. If you let the air-tank cool, you will get much less mechanical energy out, and might have a problem with ice formation in your engine.

It still might be useful for cheap portable energy, where absolute energy efficiency isn't crucial (think lawn mowers here).

Here's a collection of links that I've been going through trying to get an understanding of the 'reality' of MDI's engine/car and the Di Pietro engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engine

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MDI_Air_Car
http://www.mdi.lu/eng/affiche_eng.php?page=accueil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moteur_Developpement_International
http://cyber-media.com/aircar/

http://pesn.com/2006/05/11/9500269_Engineair_Compressed-Air_Motor/
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EngineAir
http://www.engineair.com.au/

several years ago I stumbled across the aircar and signed up for email notification of the release of their product. Still waiting and sure it is a hoax. The only report I have read of its motorability said it ran out of air after only a few miles.
It will get more attention as oil depletes and people get desperate, just look at the number of hits on google for this search.
434,000 for "car runs on water."

I don't think the car can't be built. For instance there is also a shop in France already producing small numbers. The competitiveness may be grossly depending on tax issues and things like that. The big question is: does it make sense with regard to efficiency of energy use. In contrast to conventional vehicle drives, the energy balance is not yet suffciently transparent.
Some posters have mentioned the energy loss occurring due to heat loss during compression. An important additional source of loss has not been mentioned yet, as far as I understood. Certainly the pneumatic motor has some limited range of working pressure that must be considerably lower than the tank fillup pressure (or else the tank size must be greatly increased to provide ample dead volume). During operation, the compressed air has to be expanded to that working pressure - almost certainly by mere throttling. The pressure drop is a significant loss which is entirely due to the use of a compressed gas.
I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to discuss air-driven vehicle technique as long as the working cycle isn't clear in a quantitative manner.

They could have made the car a bit less ugly. that could hamper sales. Who would be seen in it?

Sorry to post this here as it is off topic but does anyone have more information about this?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=letting-microbes-do-the-dirty-work

"You're looking at an increase equivalent to the same amount of energy as conventional oil reserves in the world today," says petroleum geologist Steve Larter of the University of Calgary in Canada, a member of the team investigating the microbial process. "It's potentially a game changer if it can be demonstrated."

Youtube: Air Car from France (1 of 2)

Youtube: Air Car from Australia (2 of 2)

Compressed air vehicles were experimented with in the late 19th and early 20th century. For the most part these were converted steam locomotives. One streetcar experiment had compressors and hot water tanks at each end of the line. The streetcar was charged with both the compressed air and hot water. Its implied the water was heated by the air compression and this stored thermal energy was transfered to the street car tanks.
There is the claim that the heat of compression is lost to the atmosphere as the tank cools. If the aircar had an heat exchanger like those in common air conditioners then heat would be absorbed from the air. Of course the heat exchanger for an air car would be much larger roughly the size of the boiler in Stanley Steamers.
When I first saw the MDI air motor I jumped to the conclusion that it is unneccesarily complicated. It uses an offset crank so the piston has more time at the TDC where it can absorb heat from the cylinder head. Considering the small surface area involved and the short time period not much energy could be absorbed per stroke. It would have been better to have used a scaled up version of the CO2 motors used in some model airplanes. CO2 is injected at the top of the stroke and exhausted via a port at the bottom of the stroke. Since not all the expanded gas leaves the cylinder it is recompressed and therefore heated on the up stroke. This residual heated gas mixes with the next charge giving up some of its heat and making the motor more efficient. Nothing new here so move along.

I wish EngineerPoet could comment on this technology. IMO, it is one of the worst Thermodynamic cycle efficiency that you can design.

Great comments. RE: the potential 3 G's of acceleration, the way I picture it is 2 G's straight up, probably for several hundred feet, though that's a guess. Time enough for your life to flash before your eyes several times along with a damn good view out the windshield.

You really do quickly reach a point of diminishing returns in compressed air. Once example of high efficiency would be a low-friction pneumatic shock absorber type system - efficiency reasonably approaching 100%. As you stuff more air into a small space, so much is lost in heating, and phase change of the water, etc that the efficiency plummets... as others have pointed out with actual numbers.

For that reason, it would seem that the best use of compressed air would be in a regenerative braking system... say in a passenger bus that stops a lot. In that case, a relatively low-pressure system could probably go to zero and back up to 40 with high efficiency and get by on a much smaller liquid-fuel motor. Although I tend to think a direct mechanical flywheel might beat it in efficiency.

Compressed air is good for some stuff, but highly compressed air is an inefficient way to store energy. I do vote yea for the low pressure start-stop bus idea though, that might work well and drastically lower the amount of liquid fuel needed for non-electrified public transport like busses. And there will be a lot of areas in which electrified public transit won't happen all that quickly. A tiny engine with efficient start-stop regeneration using compressed air might be ideal.

Buying stock in air car companies is probably a bad idea...

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/992431.stm :

Mexico City, one of the most polluted cities in the world, could see air-powered taxis on its streets by 2002.

Factories producing a car billed as non-polluting are due to open in Mexico next June, and the first taxis are expected to roll off the production line eight months later...

That would have been June 2001.

For deliverable energy, an air cylinder as tall as a car is wide is challenged by a butane barbecue-igniter. A worked example.

--- G.R.L. Cowan
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

I can picture grandma trying to fuel her air car at a station. Then we have the millions who can't even keep their tires properly inflated. Then there's the question of insurance cost, which sounds like it would be expensive. The thermodynamic objections sound quite serious. Like fuel-cell cars, I think the air-car will remain a concept car; too many factors don't add-up.

As a number of people have pointed out above, compressed air cars will most likely be poor performers from an energy efficiency point of view even if they can be manufactured with a reasonable driving range. One possible economic advantage relative to electric cars is low cost. Air tanks are likely to have low up front costs and very long lifetimes compared to electrochemical batteries. Also, if the compressed air at filling stations came out of large storage tanks then it would be possible to run the air compressors using variable output from renewable resources. That is if wind or solar power in excess of the current electricity demand is available then the power could be used to compress air. Stationary compressors would be logistically easier to manage than a large fleet of mobile automobile batteries in a V2G scheme.

Hi, it's my first post on TOD. I know Jerome from Dailykos, and maybe a few others here to.

There's a problem with your assumption of 10 km/lt fuel consumption for a small city car. That converts to 23.5 MPG which is more typical for a midsize sedan (saloon to you Brits). I'm talking about a regular gasoline, non-hybrid, non-diesel car that typically has a 150-160hp 4 cylinder engine. The MDI air cars are much smaller and slower. They're in a completely different universe of comfort and performance. A small city car would be something like a Smart ForTwo or a 660cc Kei car from Japan. Those usually get 40-55 MPG, and they still have better acceleration and top speed than these air cars. It's hard to do an apples to apples matchup, but I'm pretty familiar with the auto market, so I'll have more on that soon. There are a few EVs that come close to their gasoline twins, but most are NEVs and don't compete.

IT MDI – Energy – What’s it about?
It’s great to feel the excitement, interest and intrigue about the MDI “air car” as posted on The Oil Drum – Australia and New Zealand. However, a large number of those comments are in my view mistaken and made without the required knowledge and expertise. In this posting I wish to clarify a few matters.
To call the MDI vehicles an “air car” is a misnomer. It is no more an “air car” than a “gasoline car”, or a “diesel car” or an “ethanol car” or a “rapeseed oil car” or a “what-have-you car.” The point being that the MDI engines (there is a whole series of them) are being designed to accept a very wide range of primary energy inputs including fossil fuels, bio fuels, waste heat recycling from other processes and thermal solar energy.
Transport is only on aspect of the applications of the MDI technology. Power generation at the point of use, on customer premises is another. Power generation applications are at least as important as the transport applications.
“Is it for real?” many people ask. I did understand that question when it was asked ten years ago. We are now well beyond that stage. I speak as one of the few people in the world to have driven an MDI vehicle. After due diligence, my company acquired the rights to the MDI technology for Australasia in 1999. MDI has sold similar rights for over 40 MDI licensed manufacturing plants globally. This year, as noted on TOD, Tata Motors, the 5th largest automotive manufacturer in the world, acquired a licence for India. So yes it is for real and we intend to eventually cover a range of applications including cars, buses, small to heavy trucks, industrial tractors, farm machinery, marine and light aircraft applications.
It is important to realise that we are not dealing here with just a new engine or car. The MDI development extends to a radically new manufacturing process and new business models. IT MDI – Energy Ltd, the result of a joint venture between MDI and my own company, IndraNet Technologies (IT), aims to deploy an entirely new class of integrated energy, transport and communication infrastructures, creating entirely new industries and new markets in Australasia and beyond.
To understand the importance of our initiative one must stand back and consider the global situation as it is currently emerging. Most readers and contributors to TOD are aware of “Peak Oil”. Yet most of the comments I have seen on the so-called “air car” seem to me to misunderstand the situation.
The world is currently passing through the peak of yearly oil deliveries. Very soon it will also pass the peak of natural gas supplies and immediately thereafter that for coal and uranium. Within 20 years, 30 years at most, all supplies will be in relentless decline. The most recent data makes this very clear (e.g. IEA, ASPO, EWG). However, talking in those terms does not go to the heart of the matter. What matters much more is available supply per head of global population. The peak for oil and gas combined (hydrocarbons) per head was passed in 1979. We are already 28 years into the Post-Oil Era. Another way of looking at this is to say that the world has wasted 28 years in sheer denial and not developing and deploying viable alternatives.
However, looking at supplies per head still does not go to the heart of the matter. Few people would confuse the cost of raw material inputs to a process with annual sales of the end products and net profits after depreciation. And yet this is what most people do with energy. It is rather pointless to focus on yearly crude oil inputs to the global economy. What matters is net energy available for all forms of economic activity, that is to say, the net energy available when one has deducted all the costs and depreciated all of the energy capital involved in getting energy supplies to market. As for any other investment, the key parameter is EROI, the Energy Return on Energy Investment. The point is that EROIs for all fossil fuels are in sharp decline. This means that those of us working in this field now consider that net energy from oil and natural gas will be about nil probably within 10 years and net energy from all fossil fuels including coal is on track to be about nil well before 2040. Unless alternatives are deployed in time at nil net energy everything grinds to a halt. The precautionary principle tells us not to try such a route.
I am the sort of person that prefers to call a spade a spade and to consider realities straight. The above considerations do not yet go fully to the heart of the matter. Combine the consequences of the peaking of fossil fuels and uranium, with the consequences of climate change and that of the numerous other forms of ecological damage caused by close to 7 billion humans and it is clear that humankind as a whole has placed itself on a fast track to extinction (e.g. humankind already substantially exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity).
For well over a century most of humankind has been living in a fake world, a kind of fantasyland; fake because it is entirely predicated on a series of myths - the myth of “cheap fossil fuels for ever”; the myth of neo-classical self-interested economic utility; the myths related to a dualistic approach to the world and fellow humans (in jargon terms dual thinking refers to the use of Aristotelian logic; in colloquial terms, roughly, it means thinking in terms of either/ors - as in “is the guy across going to do me in or shall I?”). This fake world has begun crashing around people’s ears in a kind of eerie slow motion.
Most experts consider that it is now far too late to avoid major disruptions to the world economy and possibly much worse. More imbecile a prolonged set of attitudes and business-as-usual (BAU) decision-making over the last 100 years is hard to imagine. In short BAU leads to highly non-BAU and highly unpalatable outcomes. It is high time to stop beating about the proverbial bush and begin to act intelligently for once, in order to take a radical turn towards sustainable ways of life.
There is no wiggle room in this matter. There are at best 30 years to invent and institute a global civilisation change and the immediate first 10 years of those 30 years are key. This entails the entire re-engineering of all global energy, transport and communication infrastructures – none of the present ones are sustainable. Historically it has taken 40 to 50 years to deploy new major infrastructures globally. To say that humankind is in serious trouble would be an understatement. The situation is seemingly intractable. In fact, there are solutions that can be deployed within the required time frame, just. However, they all require intelligence. The necessary changes are not just confined to the “what to do”. They also concern the “how to do it”, and more specifically the “how to think” to rapidly get out of trouble.
It is not that energy is scarce. Yearly the earth receives many orders of magnitude more energy from the sun than humankind could ever require. Humans create scarcity not nature and they do so because of how they have been thinking so far.
What is required is a change of paradigm. Currently most infrastructures are heavily centralised and structured hierarchically (think oil wells, coal mines, large refineries, large power stations, large car manufacturing facilities, etc.). A consequence of this arrangement is that most of the fossil energy we use goes to waste heat. For example, moving a person on a road is generally less than 10% energy efficient. I estimate that on average and roughly at least 80% of all energy we use is wasted. That means that humans spend over US$3.5 trillion per year on waste heat – not a very bright thing to do. This is a large “pot of gold”, big enough to pay for the complete re-engineering required for both industrialized and developing countries.
However, this pot of gold is not accessible to current centralised and hierarchical infrastructures. The people holding the gold are the end users who pay the bills at the petrol stations, and at the end of the month for electricity, gas and telecoms, and whose money in the main goes to paying for waste heat. This is where the change of paradigm comes in. The beauty of the situation is that solar energy is inherently distributed and energy, transportation and communications users are also distributed.
The paradigm shift can be summarised as a shift from thinking in terms of million barrels of oil per day and very low net energy technologies to megawatts per square kilometre of solar energy and high net energy technologies. The latter means point-of-use energy harvesting, matching the grades of energy sources and energy use (e.g. use low grade energy sources for low grade heating requirements), storing small amounts of energy in highly distributed fashion and non-hierarchical, networks of networks, mesh communication and energy networking. In brief, the solution is in emulating what nature does with solar energy. Nature does not harvest solar energy in one place and transport it thousands of kilometres away to use it wastefully. It does things locally and makes an abundant use of non-hierarchical meshed networks of networks for both energy transport and communications (e.g. within individual plants and within forests and ecosystems).
Within the available very short time frame very few technologies meet the requirements for sustainability. Most cost too much, take too long to develop and deploy, do not return high enough net energy (or have a negative net energy balances), harm ecosystems, impinge unduly on food supplies or fibre supplies (for textiles and/or building and furniture materials) or a combination of all of the above. To the best of my knowledge, the combined IT MDI integrated Information Communication and Energy Technology package (ICET) is one of the very few technology sets that, by design, meets sustainability and timeframe requirements.
As I have stressed in introduction we aim to deploy an entirely new class of integrated energy, transport and communication infrastructures, creating entirely new industries and new markets in Australasia. Once we have established it there we plan to share our know-how globally. I have elaborated on the above in a short book that is being presently edited and that we plan to make available on our website towards the end of January 2008.
Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International, one of the world’s largest oil and energy investment bank, is famous for having stressed at ASPO-3, in 2003, that in his opinion “the world does not have a Plan B” to substitute for oil and other fossil resources fast enough. We do have a “Plan B” that includes four main components:
 Reducing transport drastically and replacing it with advanced broadband communications (i.e. replacing the transport of people with that of data, voice and visuals) in energy efficient ways;
 Deploying high efficiency, distributed energy networks;
 Deploying novel forms of high efficiency transport for people and goods; with
 All of the above being based on solar energy (e.g. wind, thermal solar, photovoltaics, biomass, etc.).
To find out more please visit IT MDI – Energy’s website at www.itmdi-energy.com