Roland Geyer The Donald Bren School Of Environmental Science And

Roland Geyer The Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California at Santa Barbara Institute for Energy Efficiency Seminar, 14 October 2009

•  Introduction •  Life cycle approach •  Use phase •  Material production •  Material recycling •  Conclusions

2

Germany EU-15 UK USA California

16.9 % 21 % 21.6 % 28.0 % 40.7 %

(163 / 968 MMT CO2 eq) (880 / 4192 MMT CO2 eq) (120 / 556 MMT CO2 eq) (2000 / 7147 MMT CO2 eq) (200 / 492 MMT CO2 eq)

Sources: European Environment Agency 2007, Umweltbundesamt (UBA) 2007, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2006, Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2005, California Energy Commission (CEC) 2006

3

European Union Target: Average of 130 g CO2 per km driven for passenger cars by 2015 •  1999/2000: Voluntary agreements with car manufacturers for 120 g CO2 per km by 2012 •  2009: Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 California - Assembly Bill 1493 Target: Average of 127 g CO2eq per km driven for passenger cars by 2016 •  Sept 2004: AB 1493 is approved by Governor •  Dec 2004: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers files lawsuit •  2005: Vermont and 12 other states adopt AB 1493 •  2007: Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) USA – Proposed regulation by EPA and NHTSA •  2009: Light duty vehicle GHG emission & CAFE standard (155 g CO2 per km by 2016, 35.5 mpg gasoline) •  21, 23, 27 Oct 2009: Public hearings in Detroit, NY, and LA

4

6-22 %

4-7 %

71-90 %

0-1 %

Life cycle GHG emissions of passenger vehicles (in tonnes of CO2 eq): Compact ~ 40, Midsize ~ 50, SUV ~ 70 Sources: Sullivan & Cobas-Flores 2001, Schmidt et al. 2004, Development Bank of Japan 2004 5

6

7

Possible definition: A material with a high specific strength or stiffness

Example: Specific tensile strength (in Automotive steel (SPFC440) Mg alloy (AZ31) Recycled Mg alloy (AZ31) Al alloy (5000 series) Recycled Al alloy (5000 series)

) 56.1 146.1 131.5 101.5 91.3

Issues: •  Automotive materials typical exposed to multiple types of stresses, such as tension, compression, bending, shearing •  Mass savings are also a function of the mechanical design 8

Greenhouse Gases

Materials Production

Vehicle Manufacturing

Vehicle Use

Vehicle Disposal

Material Choice

9

Use phase GHG savings per kg of steel replaced with 0.5 kg aluminum

Change in GHG emissions from material production

Net Change in GHG emissions

10

Materials Production

Vehicle Manufacturing

Vehicle Disposal

11

Rolling resistance

Aerodynamic drag

Gravity

Acceleration

Vehicle mass savings

Energy savings per mass savings

GHG emissions per fuel energy

12

13

14

15

16

Power train type

Driving cycle Power train adjustment Compact vehicle Sources: Forschungsgesellschaft Kraftfahrwesen Aachen (FKA) 2006 17

Power train type

Driving cycle Power train adjustment Midsize vehicle Sources: Forschungsgesellschaft Kraftfahrwesen Aachen (FKA) 2006 18

Power train type

Driving cycle Power train adjustment Sport utility vehicle Sources: Forschungsgesellschaft Kraftfahrwesen Aachen (FKA) 2006 19

Secondary mass savings Material replacement coefficient Replaced material Fuel energy savings per mass savings Total distance driven during use phase Well-to-wheels (WTW) GHG emissions of fuel 20

Use phase GHG savings per kg of steel replaced aluminum Calculations in (IAI 2000):

SUV, ICEV, Hyzem, with power train adjustment:

SUV, FCV, Hyzem, with power train adjustment:

21

Materials Production

Vehicle Manufacturing

Vehicle Disposal

22

Material

Estimated GHG Emissions (in kg CO2eq / kg of material) Primary Production

Steel *) AHSS *) Aluminum *) Magnesium GFRP CFRP

2.3 – 2.7 2.3 – 2.7 13.9 – 15.5 18 – 42 2.5 – 8.3 9.5 – 23

Secondary Production 0.7 – 1.0 0.7 – 1.0 1.4 – 2.0 recycled with aluminum – –

*) inventory data from 1999/2000

Sources: IISI (2000), ISI (2000), Li (2004), Ramakrishnan & Koltun (2004), Tharumarajah & Koltun (2007), Dhingra et al. (2001), Ashby (2005) 23

GHG emissions per kg of automotive aluminum Calculations in (IAI 2000): Primary production

Secondary production Rolled aluminum Extruded aluminum Cast aluminum

64% of the aluminum is from secondary production

24

GHG emissions per kg of automotive aluminum Calculations for a typical body structure: Primary production

Secondary production Rolled aluminum Extruded aluminum Cast aluminum

11% of rolled and extruded aluminum is from secondary production 25

Materials Production

Vehicle Manufacturing

Vehicle Disposal

26

vehicle life cycle Primary production Secondary production

Vehicle manufacturing

Vehicle use

Vehicle end-of-life management

Scrap use is accounted for by the secondary content Problem: How to account for the generation of scrap?

27

Answer: The avoided burden approach The system is expanded to include additional burdens of co-product processing and the avoided burdens of any displaced production processes Vehicle production v

Vehicle Vehicle life cycle

Recycling process r Primary production p

Building production b

Building Building life cycle

Environmental burdens of the vehicle: GHGv + GHGr – GHGp

28

A closer look at the avoided burden method 600 kg Primary (2.2 kgCO2/kg)

Vehicle:

Vehicle Life Cycle

600 kg Secondary (0.6 kgCO2/kg) Primary (2.2 kgCO2/kg)

600 kg Building Life Cycle 600 kg

600 kg Secondary 600 kg (0.6 kgCO2/kg)

Building: Primary (2.2 kgCO2/kg) 600 kg Credit for scrap generation requires debit for scrap use! 29

The avoided burden principle: credit = debit The system is expanded to include additional burdens of co-product processing and the avoided burdens of any displaced processes Vehicle production v

Vehicle

Vehicle life cycle

Recycling process r Primary production p

Building production b

Building Building life cycle

Environmental burdens: Vehicle + Building: GHGv + GHGr + GHGb Vehicle: GHGv – (GHGp – GHGr)

Credit

Building: GHGr + GHGb + (GHGp – GHGr)

Debit 30

Material Recycling: Recycled Content vs. Avoided Burden Primary production: 22MJ/kg Secondary production: 10MJ/kg

Prim

1

Recycled Content (no allocation)

Avoided Burden

A 0.75 Sec

Prim

0.25

0.75 B

Sec

Prim

0.25

0.75 C

1

31

An even closer look at the avoided burden approach Observation 1: There are three types of causality involved in the approach Involved processes

Production of the necessary material

Type of causality

Factual

+

Future collection & reprocessing

Avoided material – production & disposal

Probabilistic

Counterfactual

Observation 2: Recycling does not automatically displace primary production Collected scrap can 1.  displace metal from primary production 2.  displace scrap collection and recycling elsewhere 3.  displace other materials (primary or secondary) 4.  increase market demand (i.e. not displace anything) 32

Primary production of material Secondary production of material

Vehicle life cycle Material finishing

Scrap market Scrap collection

Vehicle manufacturing

Secondary production of material Displaced material production

Vehicle use

Vehicle end-of-life

Displacement

33

Material production

Replaced material

Replacing material

Secondary mass savings

1kg mild steel

0.6 kg aluminum

0.12 kg

+3.93

-13.94

+0.80

Use phase

Total

-9.21 +8.80

Material recycling

-1.98

+9.21

-0.38

Total

+1.95

-4.73

+0.42

1kg mild steel

0.75 kg AHSS

0.12 kg

+3.93

-2.95

+0.50

Material production

Use phase

Use phase

+8.80 +6.85

+8.80

+6.44

+1.48 +5.50

Material recycling

-1.98

+1.49

-0.23

Total

+1.95

-1.46

+0.27

+5.50 -0.72

+5.50

+6.26

Assumption for displaced scrap collection: 34

35

Generic statements regarding the GHG impacts of material substitution in automotive design are very difficult, due to 1.  Uncertainties in many important system parameters 2.  Large impact of the assumptions regarding material recycling Ad 1. How to reduce the uncertainties of the system parameters: •  More research into the underlying physics and engineering •  Develop consequential life cycle inventories •  Conduct case-specific studies, rather than generic ones Ad 2. How to address the ambiguity regarding material recycling: •  More research to understand recycling of automotive materials •  Urgent need to study the socioeconomics of displaced production (Proposal to NSF by Geyer & Kolstad, 9/17/2009) 36

•  Use a life cycle perspective •  Look for no-regret solutions •  Avoid trade-offs Vehicle size reduction is better than automotive material substitution.

37

Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 38

Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 39

Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 40

Average lifecycle GHG (in kg CO2eq) emissions of a Civic Hybrid (HEV) and a Civic LX (ICEV) Lifecycle Stage

Civic Hybrid

Civic LX

(made in Japan)

(made in USA)

Materials

7,089

15.0%

6,405

10.2%

Product Assembly

380

0.8%

530

0.8%

Transport to Market

298

0.6%

168

0.3%

9,303

19.7%

13,313

21.3%

Product Use

30,051

63.8%

42,087

67.3%

Total

47,120

100%

62,503

100%

Upstream Fuel

Source: Bren Group Project on HEV (Class of 2005) (Average for manual and automatic transmission) 41

Internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) : Fuel production and delivery

ICE, powertrain friction

0.88

x

Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV): Fuel production and delivery x

Battery electric vehicle (BEV): Electricity Power plant transmission x

0.93

x

0.75

0.32

0.14

=

0.28

Electric motor, powertrain friction

Battery x

0.8

Fuel cell vehicle (FCV): Compression, Reformation transmission 0.8

=

Electric motor, ICE, battery powertrain friction

0.88

0.35 – 0.55

0.16

x

0.8

Electric motor, powertrain friction

Fuel cell x

0.5

= 0.2 – 0.33

x

0.8

= 0.24 42

Power Primary Well-toVehicle Train fuel tank fuel efficiency

Vehicle fuel economy

Vehicle efficiency

Well-to-wheel efficiency

ICEV

crude oil

82%

gasoline

35 mpg

0.43 km/MJ 0.35 km/MJ

HEV

crude oil

82%

gasoline

50 mpg

0.62 km/MJ 0.51 km/MJ

BEV

coal

33%

electricity

110 Wh/km

2.00 km/MJ 0.66 km/MJ

BEV

natural gas

51%

electricity

110 Wh/km

2.00 km/MJ 1.02 km/MJ

FCV

natural gas

61%

hydrogen

100 km/kg

0.70 km/MJ 0.43 km/MJ

FCV

natural gas

61%

hydrogen

150 km/kg

1.06 km/MJ 0.65 km/MJ

Energy content of gasoline: 46.7 MJ per kg Energy content of hydrogen: 141.9 MJ per kg 43