The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
Building the fuel tanks requires approximately 6,000-8,000 tonnes of NIROSTA® 4301 stainless steel on an annual basis, the German company says.
The tanks will help car manufacturers conform to environmental laws designed to control smog. The state of California, for instance, has introduced legislation that limits hydrocarbon emissions to two grams per day per vehicle. That limit is set to drop further by 2004 while other states and some European countries are expected to follow California’s example.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for about 60 percent of the country’s total emissions of carbon monoxide, 31 percent of nitrogen oxides, 30 percent of volatile organic compounds, and eight percent of particulate matter.
One source of these emissions is fuel vapour that permeates the walls of conventional plastic tanks at a rate of about two grams per day. Both carbon steel and stainless steel prevent this leakage, but stainless steel has the added advantage of longevity because of its resistance to corrosion.
Since the California legislation requires car manufactures to guarantee zero emissions for at least 15 years or 240,000 kilometres, longevity is a crucial feature.
“This (requirement) is a problem for conventional steel,” says Jochen Krautschick from ThyssenKrupp’s technical development department, although the company says that recent developments in anti-corrosion coatings could eventually make carbon steel just as long-lasting.
For years, plastic has been the material of choice for fuel tanks because it can be blow-molded to fit into almost any space. But new techniques such as parallel-plate hydroforming and hydromechanical sheet forming now allow steel to be manipulated into equally complex shapes.
The major obstacle to the use of stainless steel in cars is cost. Although Krautschick would not divulge numbers, the stainless steel tank is expected to be significantly more expensive than either carbon steel or plastic tanks, especially since current production is so limited.
“At the moment, only the vehicles for the U.S. market will have the stainless steel tank, and that’s only the upper class cars from the European manufacturers,” he says.
But as “zero emission” legislation continues to spread beyond Californian borders (and as long as viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as fuel cell technology, remain a distant goal), demand for stainless steel tanks is expected to grow.
“While the plastics industry and tank system manufacturers have developed new products which reduce emissions, they fail to match the performance of the stainless steel solution,” ThyssenKrupp stated in a press release.
The stainless steel tanks are 100% recyclable.
