Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » Tesla Motors Picks New Mexico for plant « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 157
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, even though Tesla, an electric car maker, has a tech facility in Rochester Hills, they are building their plant in Albuquerque instead of here. Another 400 jobs we won't bet getting. I wonder why?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikem
Member
Username: Mikem

Post Number: 3060
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe this is why:
quote:

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 19, 2007

...Tesla will get incentives from the state that include the high-wage-job tax credit, the manufacturer's investment tax credit and help from the Job Training Incentive Program, Richardson said.

The governor also has committed $3.5 million in capital projects funding during this legislative session and another $3.5 million next year. The money would go to Bernalillo County for building and infrastructure investment related to the plant.

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County have agreed to help with development of infrastructure to the site.

And Richardson said state agencies will investigate the purchase of 100 of Tesla's Albuquerque-produced vehicles over two years for the state fleet.

Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 158
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually that is not that big of a package when you consider we spent far more than that to get Google to come here even though the 1000 jobs will probably never materialize. I suppose we would have had a better chance if they made their decision before the election like Google did, which would allow Granholm to use it as a campaign ploy.

(Message edited by perfectgentleman on February 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 2453
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why worry about a plant for a vehicle that will never sell?

Anyone of their competitors could design and build an electric car for $50-70K today. Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford all have the technology to do it. Unfortunately there aren't enough consumers willing to pay a 100% premium for an electric car. Most people are bitching about the 10%-15% extra a hybrid vehicle costs.

This company will go the way of Tucker and Delorean. An interesting sidenote in the automotive world.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 159
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well if thats true then all the Libs out there who are constantly pushing electric vehicle technology should shut up. The car is not meant to be a high volume model anyway. If we are going to sell Michigan as a forerunner in alternative vehicle technology it would have been nice to have this plant. If gas shoots up to $4.00 per gallon then the situation could change.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jiminnm
Member
Username: Jiminnm

Post Number: 1188
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am not a big Richardson fan, but one thing he has done in his 5 years as governor here is go after business and economic development. This was a new concept to New Mexicans, as the previous approach had been to go after Fed government and military facilities. That has become a losing game. When I moved here 8 years ago, only two of the top 10 employers in the state (Intel and WalMart) were non-governmental entities. The remaining eight were hospitals, universities, and governments. That may still be true, but the situation is changing fast.

Tesla saya that the facility should be capable of producing 10,000 electric cars a year (sedans and a smaller model). The roadster is being produced by Lotus in England. The facility will be built near to a Tempurpedic factory currently under construction, and not too far from the Eclipse factory (small jet manufacturer that just delivered their first jet).

I'm sure that the state and city incentives are important, but we also have a fair amount of undeveloped property waiting for something to be built on it. I also expect that employers can pay less here than in other places and NM is a right to work state. So, those were probably important factors.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jiminnm
Member
Username: Jiminnm

Post Number: 1189
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Anyone of their competitors could design and build an electric car for $50-70K today."

I don't doubt that's true Ndavies, but why don't they do it? Toyota can't meet the demand for the Prius, and the other hybrids made by them and Honda are all over the roads here and don't spend much time in dealer inventory (as opposed to GM's situation, where they have a backlog of months of cars in inventory and dealers are screaming that they can't get cars people want to buy). I don't see that many Ford hybrids on the road either.

According to the founders of Tesla (one of whom also founded PayPal, which he sold to eBay for a fortune), their roadster will be a very limited production model selling for $100K. It's designed to compete with other sports cars and will offer incredible performance not seen in an electric car (0-60 in 4 secs). The sedan will sell for about $50K and is designed to compete with BMW and other luxury sports sedans, and will also offer similar performance (0-60 in 6 secs). The smaller version, still under design, is expected to sell for about $30K and compete with fairly typical family cars. All power plants should have a range of 250 miles and charge overnight.

I don't think they're going into this business to put others out of business, but to meet a need they see that others aren't meeting.

"Well if thats true then all the Libs out there who are constantly pushing electric vehicle technology should shut up."

Perfectgentleman, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 160
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is interesting that becoming a right to work state in Michigan does not even seem to be on the table due to political reasons. I don't even hear it debated other than when Granholm used her stance on it to paint Devos as anti-labor.

We all know damn well that the big unions have a stranglehold on this state and it is harming our ability to compete. I am not saying unions should be banned, but why not give workers and business owners the option of not having them?

As most of the job creation is coming from small start-up companies, it is obvious they cannot afford the high wages and benefits unions demand. They also do not like the adversarial environment that is created by the collective bargaining process.

The UAW and other unions are losing members as companies abandon the facilities that employ these workers. I am not saying this is moral or right, but it is reality. In addition, many non-union auto workers in the south make decent wages, much more than they were making before the transplants came in.

We need to abandon our outdated thinking on these issues and send the message loud and clear to the business community that Michigan has changed. Granholm's old line about "you can't compete with $1 an hour" is defeatist bullshit. Nobody can compete with that but many other states are doing quite well at attracting investment and getting good-paying jobs in return.

Creating a tax on services, which has only been tried in 2 states and failed miserably, is exactly the wrong message to send. The service sector is where much of the growth is so she wants to penalize it with taxes - typical left-wing bullshit!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 2455
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you read the rest of the paragraph I stated why they don't.

quote:

Unfortunately there aren't enough consumers willing to pay a 100% premium for an electric car. Most people are bitching about the 10%-15% extra a hybrid vehicle costs.



I think tesla is being incredibly naive. Tesla sees it as an unmet market. The other auto-manufacturers see it as a currently nonprofitable, nonexistent market.

I'm going to be very surprised if the second tesla vehicle sees the light of day. Once they find out how much road certification can cost, those low build numbers are going to put them in a world of hurt. I don't think any of those silicon valley engineers have worked in an industry as highly regulated as the automotive industry is.

I can't wait until they find out how many of these vehicles they'll have to smash into a wall before they can sell them. It's going to take them quite some time to meet the safety regulations.

Honda, GM, Ford, DCX and Toyota all have electric vehicle platforms that could currently be sold but aren't. They aren't because there is not enough of a market to justify the prices they need to charge. Tesla is currently ignoring or are unaware of some of the ongoing costs associated with keeping these vehicles on the market.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rjlj
Member
Username: Rjlj

Post Number: 266
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This car will sell and they already have orders. You can't compare it to the Tucker and Delorean because the story has not been written yet. Any amount of jobs in Michigan is a good thing. “To change is difficult. Not to change is fatal.”
Top of pageBottom of page

B24liberator
Member
Username: B24liberator

Post Number: 19
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I was talking to my California sister a couple of weeks back and she mentioned the corporation she worked for was expanding again, possibly out of state, and that they talked about this expansion during a meeting recently-- My sister said when the manager in charge of the site search, mentioned the midwest, the Vice-Prez of whatever division said: "What? It snows there doesn't it? I don't own a snow shovel, and I never intend too!" Which of course, set of a round of guffaws as they then began to focus on some other California or Texas site-- So you see, it's more than taxes or quality of life issues-- Even our damn weather becomes a factor to some people. I've always said if it wasn't for Mr. Carrier, the south (and west) would still be the underpopulated places they used to be during the early part of the last century!
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 651
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Why worry about a plant for a vehicle that will never sell?

Anyone of their competitors could design and build an electric car for $50-70K today. Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford all have the technology to do it. Unfortunately there aren't enough consumers willing to pay a 100% premium for an electric car. Most people are bitching about the 10%-15% extra a hybrid vehicle costs.

This company will go the way of Tucker and Delorean. An interesting sidenote in the automotive world.



Really? Their first production run of 100 Tesla Roadsters sold within a month. They already have 350 reserve orders that they will begin to fill this year.

They aren't a DeLorean, they aren't trying to mass produce these things for the general car-buying market. They are a small company with a small factory and a small workforce that will turn out a few hundred cars each year for a niche market that has pretty much no other real competition. They'll do just fine. There aren't tons of consumers willing to pay six figures for a Lambourghini either, but they haven't gone out of business, have they? Tesla is targeting the rich and socially-conscious market, they aren't targeting the average joe who doesn't have that kind of money to spend.

Look at some pictures of the Tesla Roadster, there will be no shortage of rich people who want one. And considering the guys behind Paypal, Google, and Ebay are all major investors, I wouldn't be too worried about Tesla's future. The founders of Google and the former president of Ebay aren't exactly known for making foolish investments.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 2457
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

They aren't a DeLorean, they aren't trying to mass produce these things for the general car-buying market.



Delorean was a mass market vehicle??????? In what delusional world. Delorean was after exactly the same market these guys are after. The in technology at the time was stainless steel not electric. Delorean wasn't known for making foolish investments until he tried to start his own car company. In the end he had to turn to Cocaine to fund his car company.

If you look at Tesla's business model, it looks exactly like Delorean's and Tucker's. They're trying to go outside the current system to bring new technology in.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rjlj
Member
Username: Rjlj

Post Number: 267
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agreed Warriorfan. Also, if you make it out to California, there are tons of hybrid and electric cars out there. I was surprised to see a RAV4 electric car that they made very few of when I was in L.A. last. Many states are far ahead of Michigan in terms of promoting energy saving vehicle's and alternative energy with Cali leading the way in the U.S. Once again, Michigan lagging behind.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 2458
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 2:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So why doesn't Toyota continue to sell the RAV4 electric? Where's honda's electric vehicle disappeared too? What about the Ford Ranger electric, or GM's EV-1? Could it be they couldn't generate enough sales to be profitable with it? No market no sales.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 161
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Clearly most domestic and foreign automakers feel that electric cars are important for many reasons, some of which are not based on traditional market drivers.

The global warming scare, the possibility of CAFE standards being increased by the Dems in Congress, the potential for another spike in gas prices are creating anxiety and the electric car is seen as a possible alternative in the near term. Whether this is a good thing or not could be debated. The GM Volt received tons of publicity at the last auto show.

Some of the electric vehicles from the past had limited range and many other problems. Battery technology is improving and other hurdles are being overcome. Electric vehicles may never be in the majority but there is interest out there from many sectors.

(Message edited by perfectgentleman on February 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8360
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 2:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Really? Their first production run of 100 Tesla Roadsters sold within a month. They already have 350 reserve orders that they will begin to fill this year.



Common in niche markets that dry up extremely fast.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 151
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 3:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why do I think that the same folks who say that the electric car won't sell are the same folks who were saying a few years back that no one would ever buy a hybrid? Tesla is already selling cars and they have already gone through crash-testing for their vehicles, so what makes them naive? They wouldn't be expanding if their cars had been a failure.

The main factor driving up costs are the batteries. Battery technology is improving daily and the nay sayers for electric vehicles are still using arguments from the days when the cars were still using lead acid batteries. Lithium batteries can give you 120 mile range, highway speeds and reduce the charge time to 4 hours. There are companies that have already solved the thermal runaway problems that have plagued lithium ion laptop batteries.

Battery prices are also coming down daily. The $50-$70k vehicles will be affordable soon. Remember cell phones when they first came out? What did they cost? Now they are throw-away items.

Lithium Polymer technology is a promising improvement to the current lithium ion batteries that promises to drop the price and increase the power of batteries even more. Lipoly batteries are already available for electric RC airplanes.

Look to the future and you will see that increasing demands to reduce pollution, rising oil price, instability in oil supply, and increasing political instability of oil producing countries makes an electric car very attractive. The technology will be there to make in happen. Electric cars are part of the future. The question is who will be building them?

BTW, Tesla is not the only electic car manufacturer. It is only the best at the moment, there are many others currently selling cars or in development - including the Chevy Volt.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 652
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 3:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Delorean was a mass market vehicle??????? In what delusional world. Delorean was after exactly the same market these guys are after. The in technology at the time was stainless steel not electric. Delorean wasn't known for making foolish investments until he tried to start his own car company. In the end he had to turn to Cocaine to fund his car company.



There were tens of thousands of DeLoreans produced, at half the price (adjusted for inflation) of the Tesla Roadster. Clearly, John DeLorean was aiming for a larger market, not quite the exact same market Tesla Motors is after. And the DeLorean was underpowered and performed poorly (0 to 60MPH in 10.5 seconds!!!) and suffered severe quality issues. Tesla's Roadster most certainly is not underpowered. And since when is "stainless steel" a technology? You're really comparing the metal used to this groundbreaking engine technology?

If Porsche and Lambourghini can sustain themselves on the "filthy rich" market, so can Tesla. DeLorean's reach exceeded his grasp, I don't think Tesla is looking to mass produce the Roadster like John DeLorean did, when he built that huge fucking factory in Ireland. The things that killed the DeLorean are not applicable in this instance.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 152
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ranger EV's used lousy sealed lead acid batteries that failed often and left a very bad impression on EV owners. The EV-1 had similar problems. Then they were made available with Ni-MH batteries that were much better but very costly. The Rav 4 was introduced with the Ni-MH batteries. None of these were ever offered to the general public for purchase.

The technology has improved and is improving.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 653
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 3:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Common in niche markets that dry up extremely fast.




Tell me, just how is it that the Roush Mustangs are still around? Shouldn't that market have dried up extremely fast according to you? "Rich people" who like cool unique cars isn't a niche market that is drying up, in fact, it is getting bigger. The Tesla Roadster is expensive, but it looks awesome and has a kickass performance and gets the equivalent of nearly 140 MPG, that's going to appeal to a lot of wealthy people. If Maseratis and Aston-Martins can do it, so can Tesla.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8361
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 3:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Tell me, just how is it that the Roush Mustangs are still around? Shouldn't that market have dried up extremely fast according to you? "Rich people" who like cool unique cars isn't a niche market that is drying up, in fact, it is getting bigger. The Tesla Roadster is expensive, but it looks awesome and has a kickass performance and gets the equivalent of nearly 140 MPG, that's going to appeal to a lot of wealthy people. If Maseratis and Aston-Martins can do it, so can Tesla.



I hope that you are contacting them with the intent of investing every penny you have in their operations.

I am not certain that they will fail but the odds of their failure are certainly higher than that of their success.

The odds are against this company surviving and thriving.

Roush is a poor example since they are using cars made by existing companies and modifying. Vastly, vastly different than buidling a car with an underused technology.

(Message edited by jt1 on February 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8362
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also, Maserati is owned by Fiat and Aston Martin is a part of Ford. Again completely different situations.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 153
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 3:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Underused technology? There are millions of electric vehicles in use today. None of this is new. The innovation is just making them work on the highways. Up until now the battery technology has not allowed us to do that, but the other components have been around for a very long time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8363
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 4:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Millions? I would like to see something support that. I very well may be wrong here but I highly doubt that there are millions of electric vehicles on the road.
Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 154
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Electric locomotives, electric streetcars, electric forklifts, electric utility vehicles, electric security vehicles, electric golf carts, electric scooters and wheelchairs, etc. etc.

Many Detroiters ride an electric vehicle every day: www.thepeoplemover.com

The technology involves a potentiometer throttle, motor controller, batteries, electric motor, and a battery charger. The technology is only slightly different if at all for an electric car - except the batteries that you use.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8364
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 4:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought you were speaking of auomobiles since that is what we are talking about.

There are severe differences in needs (maybe not needs but wants) when one if considering a car, not a forklift. With the exception of wheelchairs and possibly scooters the others are not seen as the personal necessities that many/most see in their car.

You're point is valid on the technology but the customer base drives the market (no pun intended). I guess we will see but if I was a betting man I would not expect to see people knocking down Tesla's door in the future.

I am curious what would happen if there was mass purchasing of electric cars. The federal government already believes that our electrical grid is overloaded. Tony Earley has stated that capacity in Michigan will require an additional power plant (and Michigan is stagnant in population).

Is there any consideration to the stress that could be put on the electrical grid if electric cars were suddenly selling like hotcakes?

Just a tangent of a thought but given on going concerns over spiking electrical consumption has there been an assessment of the impact of let's say 1-2 million electric cars in the US?
Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 155
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 5:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Electricity can be produced from many sources - wind, water, geothermal, methane gas from landfills, biofuels, coal, nuclear, hydrogen fuel cell, etc.

You can't run a car on most of these (hydrogen is the exception). By centralizing the electricity production, we would have more options available to us and could adjust according to changing needs.

Yes we would need more electricity sources. I don't think that would be a huge price to pay to have quiet and clean cars.

Oh, and I would argue that a forklift is definitely a necessity. Where would containerized shipping be without them? But my point was that the electric motor has replaced ICE motors in many applications. Replacing ICE's in cars is just the logical next step.

(Message edited by nainrouge on February 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2586
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 5:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Electricity can be produced from many sources - wind, water, geothermal, methane gas from landfills, biofuels, coal, nuclear, hydrogen fuel cell, etc.

You can't run a car on most of these (hydrogen is the exception).


Taxi-cab fleets in Milwaukee used LNG (methane--natural gas) way back during the 1960s, probably earlier. There was an LNG fueling facility near downtown on Brady Street (and Water Street?). Cabs in Madison were using LP gas (propane) since the very early 1980s. Dane County (Madison) government vehicles were using dual-fuel vehicles from about the same time, along with several other fleet operators across the US. BTOH, hydrogen (the exception?) is not widely used.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 148
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 5:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How about a car that runs on air?

http://www.theaircar.com/about mdi.html
Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 156
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 6:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard,

And your point in regard to the discussion about electric cars is....?

Okay TWO exceptions methane gas and hydrogen - although I don't see many cars fueling up on methane at my local landfill.

I know hydrogen isn't used much as a fuel for cars but I figured that some know-it-all would want to point that out (I guess I didn't see methane coming). I think that hydrogen fuel cells will be used more in the future to generate electricity for use in electric cars than they will be used IN cars, but that that is just my opinion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2588
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 7:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Methane gas from modern landfills are gathered by methane trap fields and piped to a shed where they are burnt whenever its concentration is high enough. One reason for burning it besides relieving the explosive possibility is found in this Christian Science Monitor article from today:
Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet
quote:

...
Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 157
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 7:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So burn that shit and make some electricity for my Tesla!

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.