- Posted on Thursday, April 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
One Man’s Garbage Is …
A methane pump at the Orion Township, Michigan, plantBy Sharon Morton
GM Communications
You’d be surprised at what you can find in a great, big pile of garbage. Yeah, there’s all the usual stuff that we throw away on a daily basis. But, this garbage is actually producing enough energy to help power seven of GM’s facilities.
We are the largest direct, corporate user of landfill gas in the United States. Landfill gas is generated by rotting garbage in landfills. Our decision to use it as an energy source is a win-win situation. It’s good for the environment and also is a good business decision.
If unused, landfill gas is a waste product that is released at the landfill, which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. At our facilities, the landfill gas is piped to the plant and combusted in boilers, providing a cost-effective, renewable energy source.
Landfill gas is an important part of our renewable energy portfolio. In fact, we are one of the leading users of renewable energy in the manufacturing sector in North America. Using renewable resources reduces our reliance on fossil fuels like coal and oil.
General Motors has reduced its natural gas consumption by 21 percent since 2000 and is expected to achieve its goal of a 25 percent energy reduction by the end of 2006.
The sum of landfill gas capacity at the seven GM operations using the fuel is equivalent to the energy needed to heat over 25,000 households, which represents about 1.6 trillion BTUs per year. Each landfill gas installation at a GM plant generates annual savings of greater than $500,000.
GM facilities using landfill gas are: assembly plants located in Orion Township, Mich.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Fort Wayne, Ind.; Shreveport, La.; and a powertrain plant located in Toledo, Ohio. Two additional warehouse sites in Grand Blanc and Flint, Mich., utilize landfill gas by purchasing 13 million kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, which is generated from a landfill gas-to-electricity program.
So, in other words, the garbage you throw out today might be used to help build your next vehicle.
14 Comments
Sy Wong
So frequent are comments GM does not build cars customers want. No wonder. GM web has no way for customers to input their views of what they want. GM web is one-way out like commands from the fuhrer. You buy what we want you to buy. I do have a chev tracker but it was built by Suzuki GM sold.
My question is with all the fuel saving of hybrids, how come GM never mentioned weight reduction to save fuel. If GM and Boeing get together to design a light weight car with composites like the first Corvette, high school science says lighter cars uses less gas. As to safety, that light cars are more dangerous is hog wash. Car tests with the block of weight does not represent actual situations. I am sure any car will come out second best hit by an 18-wheeler or a locomotive. If most cars are light weight, the right test is to hit it with equivalent weight. A light car is simpler than a hybrid. Even it might cost more with composites, hybrid buyers might pay a premium just to save the environment. I may buy one also if it costs about the same as an ordinary car.
Keith
Sharon, Thanks for the interesting insight. It is good to know you can get a win-win out of the methane.
I’d be interested in some basic education wrt fuel economy options and GMs intentions. Does Ethanol rely on petrol to be made? If so its price will rise with oil, not fall as demand increases. How does diesel fit into the equation? Will GM do turbo diesel or diesel hybrid cars? What part of your mpg push is based on weight savings? Can you revive the polymer siding for Saturn and use it to save weight in green line vehicles? What kind of trades can GM do with 6 speed transmissions to save fuel? Etc.
Thanks,
-Keith
Chris
Good job, GM, for taking advantage of the gas produced from a giant trash heap. Also, I really enjoy this blog and think it is a step in the right direction as far as listening to the customer.
To Sy Wong….using lighter materials, carbon fiber, composites, titanium, whatever…will add price to the car. You say yourself that you “may” purchase one if it costs the same as an average car. How would that be possible if the materials used cost more, to save a little weight?
I’m all for trimming the fat from most cars weight-wise, but with all the safety features, stereos, keyless systems etc, it all increases the weight of a vehicle. If you didn’t notice, the weight of most carmakers vehicles is increasing. Not just GM.
Ben
While I appluad GM’s innovative use of landfill gases, there is the flip side too.
There is not one GM (model year 2006) vehicle that achieves 30 MPG in city driving. None. Why is it that a Honda Civic engine can get such fuel economy, yet the Chevy Aveo (which has a smaller engine, with nearly 40 less horsepower) gets nowhere near such good gas mileage.
I do applaud GM for saving on their gas bill. But hey, I need to save on MY gas bill too! And having such poor gas mileage on such small cars as the Aveo just won’t cut it.
Green Technology
Landfill Gas Cuts GM Natural Gas Consumption …
GM lowers natural gas consumption through the use of landfill gas makes progress in its renewable energy goals. …
Al
Sy-
I’m not sure what your comment had to do with the above article, but I wanted to correct some of your statements.
Lightweight costs money. Steel is cheap. Aluminum is more expensive. Carbon fiber is really expensive. The lighter the car is, the more expensive it will be. A lighter car will save fuel, but the result of using expensive exotic materials (such as used in aircraft manufacturing) does not give an overall savings at current (and likely even future) fuel costs.
You also talk about lightweight cars and safety. The mass of the vehicle does have a direct relationship on safety. A high school physics calculation can show you this - it’s all about mass and momentum. A small, light car does not fare well against most of the vehicles currently on the road today (SUV’s and pickups). The more mass, the less likely the car is to change direction. Think of a bug hitting the windshield and you get the idea.
Edward Hayes
Ahhh yeah you using this landfill over here?
It’s also good to note that the use of this process helps reduce the demand on the usual electric contributors such as coal, oil and natural gas. This process goes beyond even renewable sources such as wind and hydro power because there is an actual net benefit by taking harmful greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Add in the cost savings and this seems to be the best energy source out there. So not only can you make Brazil energy independant by introducing your breakthrough flex fuel vehicles, but you can also transform the garbage dumps in America to a useful and productive source of energy.
Methane fed plants, corn fed vehicles, two mode hybrid technology, hybrid buses and active fuel management along with a “live green go yellow campaign” to make America more energy independant. Sounds like a good environmental record to me.
ELLIS
Sy, what does that comment have to do with the article?
besides the actual architecture of most cars are getting lighter. the problem is consumers keep demanding more features across the board. even the most economical cars out there have leather, AC, power seats, navigation systems and what not. which add weight.
besides, the lighter car vs lighter car theory does’nt hold up in the real world because in America at least, the majority of cars on the road are full size cars, SUV’s and trucks.
p.s. the current corvette is far and away more of a composite car that the original vette ever was…. its lighter too.
michael wiley
I agree with all of you questioning why Sy’s comment was approved. It shouldn’t have been because it was completely off-topic.
Keith, I’ll see what we can do about getting some of your questions answered.
Michael
Dave
I know the Orion plant is about a half mile from a landfill because I live in the town. I wonder if the other six plants are very close to landfills as well.
WHlanteigne
I suppose using landfill-produced methane is a small step in the right direction, but reducing the amount of organic waste delivered to landfills is a bigger and better step. I’ve read about the “thermal depolymerization” process to produce light oil from organic waste; that would seem to me to be a better long-term solution.
I appreciate the introduction of E85 “flexfuel” vehicles, but GM really needs to make all of its vehicles, worldwide, compatible with E85 or 100% ethanol. Well, introducing flexfuel vehicles is a good start, even if it’s a small percentage of total production initially.
With regard to some of the comments about vehicle weight- how much steel do I really need to surround myself with to be safe? For my (12 miles round-trip) daily commuting I need only a single-seat or 2-seat vehicle, and I’m sure it can be made very light, very fuel-efficient, and very inexpensive. Do single-seat and 2-seat commuting vehicles need to be so much more expensive than 4-door economy sedans? I think not- in fact, I’m certain a Solstice-type 2-seat commuter coupe could be manufactured in the US and sold for well under $10,000. With no end in sight for rising fuel prices, especially with fuel demand growing in India and China, I’m certain someone will.
Big Picture Guy
As a facility engineer in an paint shop that is a huge user of natural gas, I am frustrated with how DNR requirements for abatement drive excessive gas usage at mine and other facilities. I am an environmentalist and take pride in running a clean process, but as an engineer, I’m driven by logic and science, and there are many aspects of DNR permits that drive our process far past the point of diminishing returns.
As an example, thermal oxidizers are required to operate at 1300F, even though the improvement in VOC destruction is miniscule over what 1200F would provide. The extra 100F in setpoint drives far higher gas usage and thermal waste discharged to the atmosphere (contributing to global warming) with no appreciable benefit in VOC emmisions.
And due to permit laws, facilities can be discouraged from making incremental improvements to processes, as minor facility upgrades may trigger a full air permit review. So, many older plants reject incremental facility upgrades because they can not afford to risk the huge investment that a new permit would drive. Why should environmental policy ever discourage manufacturers from making incremental improvements? It is absurdity on stilts.
Its time for science to drive environmental policy, not politics. That would go a long way to saving our industry and improving the environment at the same time.
sharon morton
To answer Dave’s question about the distance of GM plants using landfill gas to the landfill: one of our sites is 7 miles away and the rest are 5 miles or less. Typically for a landfill gas project to be cost effective, the pipeline should not exceed 10 miles.
Chris Russell
Not sure how the comments on weight saving and mpg are relating to landfills, but I’ll comment on that.
WHlanteigne, the vehicle you described already exists. A motorcycle. There are plenty of motorcycles sold for significantly less than 10k that get over 60mpg. Granted, that doesn’t do to well in rain or snow. I think it’d be tough to make a lightweight vehicle that still passed all government crash regulations.
Relating to the original post, I think it’s great GM is looking for alternative ways to save money and help the environment at the same time. Now just to get the word out on things like this the general public doesn’t know.
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)