Ok, we won't be burning gasoline in a vehicle, we'll be burning it to compress air when refueling.
For similar reasons I don't get the fuss about electric "zero-emission" cars. Zero? Like electricity just magically comes out of nowhere...
For similar reasons I don't get the fuss about electric "zero-emission" cars. Zero? Like electricity just magically comes out of nowhere...
"Solutions" covered by the press aren't really solving the problem, they're just shifting it around. "Wow! We have an air-powered car!" - without an explanation where the energy to compress that air is going to come from...
But if you assume the problem is "How can we relieve market pressure on our most constrained resource?", air and electric cars are a solution. The hope is that by diversifying the sources of energy used for transportation, we can continue to use oil for other purposes that we haven't found cost-effective replacements for yet -- like plastics and jet fuel.
So while the cars won't solve the energy crisis by themselves, maybe they'll buy us enough time to reach the "then a miracle occurs" discovery that does solve it. Or, failing that, maybe they'll help civilization make a slow transition to reduced consumption, rather than a sharp crash.
"Zero-emission" is a reasonable description, as the car itself doesn't give off emissions while running. If you're going to include the emissions given off in the process of producing the fuel, a gasoline-based solution is suddenly much worse, as you need to include the emission costs of finding, extracting, refining, and transporting the gas.