Doesn't necessarily follow. The energy to charge the batteries has to come from somewhere.
Still, it's a 'cool' idea...
Of the 7.9 billion gallons they say is used to run AC they estimate they can save 3.9 billion. Guess that 4 billion would go to charge the batteries. ;^)
No, it just takes half the amount of power to run. It says the gas consumption annually would go from 7.9 billion gallons to 3.9 billion gallons.
AC Compressors suck down way more power than these Peltiers, you definately should cut down the power requirements by at least 50% to run A/C using these vs gas based..... Will be interesting to see where this goes.
...they say the country stands to save 3.9 billion gallons of fuel annually,...
They acknowledge there will still be fuel consumption, reducing it 50%, though.
These things draw 35watts per peltier chip, * 5 gives 185 watts (at least). At 12 volts this is 15 amps, maybe doable, but a good load on the alternator.
takes alot less to run an alternator than to run an a/c compressor. i've got a jeep that i increased gas mileage (and power output) by yanking the a/c and upgrading the alternator.
"Doesn't necessarily follow. The energy to charge the batteries has to come from somewhere."
I don't know the specifics, but I do know charging the battery isn't near the drag of running a compressor. The alternator is always "running", and a voltage regulator system decides whether the batter needs a charge or not. So, even though it's not free to charge the battery, it's close.
yup , they're on a good course
Watt, er, what would be a cooler idea is to figure out a way
to use the engine/exhaust heat with additional peltiers to
generate the power needed to run the cooling peltiers.
The energy to charge the batteries, or rather the energy to run the generators that feed the peltiers are accounted for in the 4 billion gallons of fuel left over. Apparently this system is twice as efficient as standard AC, which of course means they still require energy, but only half as much.