The complete lifecycle of a vehicle tells the true story of its carbon footprint. A recent study shows that vehicle production, including materials manufacturing, accounts for approximately 25 percent of the lifecycle emissions on a vehicle. The study, “Preparing for a Life Cycle CO2 Measure,” by the UK firm Ricardo, looks at the embedded emissions that occur before a vehicle hits the road.
The study explores hidden emissions in electric vehicles (EVs). Battery-powered cars reduce carbon output in use, but they may increase emissions in the manufacturing process and in recycling. The study estimates that embedded emissions will grow to 57 percent of the total lifecycle in EVs. The study calls on car makers to take into account the embedded emissions as they design vehicles for low emission output.
The steel industry has touted the study as an argument that steel may provide lower overall emissions than alternative materials. The auto industry is flirting with new and lighter materials to cut down on fuel consumption. The Steel Market Development Institute (SMDI) argues that you have to take more into consideration than simply the impact of vehicle use. “There are three factors that matter,” Ron Krupitzer, vice president of automotive markets at the SMDI, told Design News. “There’s the lifecycle of the materials in the car, how they affect the driving, and finally, the end-of-life in the recycling.” Steel manufacturing requires “one fifth to one twentieth the emissions of alternative materials.”
Another factor the SMDI stresses is that new high-strength light steel can provide the same collision protection as traditional steel. “One of the big factors in high-strength steel is that it does the same job as the steel it replaces, but it’s thinner and much more efficient in its structure,” said Krupitzer. “You have steel that is 25 percent less in weight while still having the same concussion strength.”
The SMDI also cites the Ricardo study findings regarding end-of-life savings from steel. “Steel is fully recyclable, so you don’t have to go back to iron ore,” said Krupitzer. “Steel is a very sustainable material. We’re trying to educate people on this, including the EPA, so they understand that emissions are divided up into these different components.”
To further drive home the argument regarding steel, WorldAutoSteel, the automotive arm of the World Steel Association, has called for a shift from measuring tailpipe emissions to total lifecycle assessment. In a statement directed to US, European, and Asian regulators, WorldAutoSteel director Cees ten Broek said the manufacture of materials such as aluminum, magnesium, and carbon fiber produce far more emissions than steel.
The United States is examining fuel economy and emissions requirements for 2017-2025. The European Union’s midterm review of legislation on emission standards for new cars is expected next year. Efficiency standards are also being assessed in many Asia/Pacific countries. In light of these developments, the steel industry is pushing hard to shift from measuring emissions during vehicle use and shifting to assessments based on the vehicle’s entire lifecycle.
I am encouraged that the Steel Market Development Institute is engaged in educating the EPA. I can only extend my naive hope that the EPA hires as many scientists and engineers as they do politicians and regulators. I am all for innovation, but when a new "green" technology is deployed too often the energy balance does not include the fact that its use relies on exotic heavy metals and energy produced from the electricity grid. We are already fighting perpetual wars on drugs, poverty and ineffective education in the US. We can't afford a new war on CO2.
I agree William. It's the same argument IPC had with the EU over RoHS. IPC said, we will be happy to comply with your regulations if they're based on science. While IPC didn't win the battle on that point (there is still argument over whether lead leaches from solder in the landfill), the EU did yield to IPC's call for science-based justification on upcoming materials in line for restriction.
Rob, has anyone taken a look at what RoHS as far as solder goes means to the carbon footprint of E manufacturing? Solder temps are some 20% higher and also rework and repair is almost impossible resulting in more land fill.
As someone who has spent his entire adult life earning a living in the steel stamping industry, I am thrilled to see designers rediscovering the versatility of steel. However, I must admit some of the more exotic alloys have required a complete re-education concerning things I have done for years. This is not your father's steel we are using today. Innovation is cool.
To me the exciting part is to see how steel and different alloys can be combined with plastics and other materials to really optimize the final product. i often think of cars and how it basically has 4 wheels and goes. And yet their is innovation in so many areas to make it go farther, run cheaper, and cost less. It's neat to see how steel can be used where it is needed but other materials can be used in other areas to allow their properities to help the overall function of the machine.
William, the EPA actually does employ a fair number of scientists and, yes, even engineers. As a matter of fact, the EPA developed a number of life cycle analysis tools which can be used to perform exactly the kind of analysis described in this article.
@Dave Palmer Yes. The EPA employs fantasticlly talented scientists and engineers. It is a matter of purpose. The purpose of Science is to discover the truth. The purpose of Engineering is to integrate these discoveries into useful tools. The useful tools are then used by Scientists to discover additional truth. It is a symbiotic relationship.
The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency is, as stated in its name, to Protect the Environment. Since its formation in 1970 its charge has been the protection of human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.[EPA Website]
The EPA Mission Statement does not contain any language that states the EPA will work "with" Scientists and Engineers. The EPA will Protect, Reduce Risk, Enforce Laws, Manage Risk, Increase Diversity, and Protect the Global Environment. It is an adversarial relationship that is formed around Enforcement and Compliance.
As a Government entity, the EPA is concerned with the distribution of Political Power. In the United States, Political Power is derived by the consent of the governed. Scientist and Engineers have an obligation as citizens to dissent when government agencies overstep their bounds.
There is no reason why the relationship between the EPA and industry needs to be adversarial - and as a matter of fact, it often isn't. A good example is the collaboration between the EPA and the American Foundry Society on foundry sand recycling. This collaboration has been going on for many years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and has helped foundries save money while protecting the environment and creating new economic opportunities. This is just one example of collaboration between EPA scientists and engineers and scientists and engineers in private industry.
The cartoonish representation of technically illiterate government bureaucrats cackling evilly as they squeltch private enterprise and innovation might contain a grain of truth sometimes, but for the most part, it's an ideological fantasy promoted by extremists. It's no more accurate than the cartoonish representation of corporate executives cackling evilly as they willfully destroy the environment, which is the fantasy which extremists on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum would have us believe. In reality, all of us have an interest in both environmental protection and economic prosperity. Scientists and engineers in government and industry can work together to guarantee both.
@Dave Bravo! Your concluding paragraph about stereotypes should be mandatory reading for everybody. My personal difficulty is not with the EPA, per se, but with the "writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress."
Too often the Representatives in Congress are responding to demands from their constituents that are based on the cartoonish representations -- or at least those representations that emerge from short talking points and themes in the popular culture.
Your "...all of us have an interest in both environmental protection and economic prosperity. Scientists and engineers in government and industry can work together to guarantee both." is beautifully said. My hope is that scientists and engineers in both government and industry can continue to provide the honest feedback to Congress that is required of all amplification systems. =]
It is good to see the steel industry moving forward trying to keep up in the lightweight material race. As an end user, it is a lot cheaper to pull a dent in a steel panel than it is to replace an entire composite car panel.
I also like the concept of looking at the whole picture when looking at the carbon foot print. It bus me when people only focus on the operating foot print of the electircal cars. Much of the same can be said of the other green fuels. Take ethynal for example. There is more to ethynal than just turning corn into gas. There is the ability to use the waste product, (stocks etc) for gas as well. There is still significant potential to increase crop output. When you compare these types of green technology with wind energy some logical conclusions have to be drawn. Let's face it, the wind will never start blowing twice as hard as it does now. But we can work towards doubling the output of our farm generated fuel sources. Okay so I kind of chased a squirrel on this post.
And methanol came into the discussion. Methanol is a step backwards for a number of reasons. The one that really worries me is, what do we do when the arable soil runs out? Proponents of Ethanol always neglect to mention that raising crops takes mass out of the soil that cannot be replaced. Walk through a corn field. Those stalks, roots, and ears don't grow out of thin air, rain and sunshine. There's also the fact that trace elements/chemicals that the human metabolism requires eventually go away forever. You might be tempted to think, Hey what about fertilizer? There's another double-edged sword. Do you know what we're doing to the Gulf of Mexico with the runoff of fertilizer flowing down the Mississippi River? There's this huge oxygen depleted zone that's growing at an increasing rate (thanks to ... you guessed it). Nothing can live in that zone. Ethanol requires additional energy, all through the refining, storage, and delivery cycle, to keep water out of it. That's not helpful in the combustion cycle and is actually very corrosive to engine parts. Ethanol contains about 82% of the energy of gasoline so your engine runs less efficiently with it. I Think that's enough environmental bad news to make a solid case against it. If some of the big farm, and farming related companies hadn't sold congress on the joys of free energy (free, except for the huge governmental subsidies), we would have tossed this bad news idea years ago. I apologize for the rant but this business has been stuck in my craw for a long time.
Yes, and then there's the use of crop lands in 3rd world countries to grow fuel for the 1st world countries' cars so having them starve. How is that good?
Also currently, fertilizer is made from natural gas. Does not have to be though.
Somebody should run down the entire list of pro and cons then put numbers next to them. Every discussion especially in the news are always partial facts. Discussions are never complete so you can never draw an educated conclusion. All the facts should be well laid out organized so one quick look can see them all neatly arranged. That way, there are no argument. None of this somebody did not mention yet another pro or yet another con that is partially true. Then discussion starts all over again. Now many people are misled by partial facts. Would think somebody would have done this by now in this great nation.
Note:Not only does the government subsidize the production of ethenal they actually pay people not to grow corn. Yep, that's right. We have so much lland right now that thegovernment actually pays people to leave it dormant in some cases for years.
So one one hand the government pays people to not grow corn and that raises the price of corn. We then pay to artificially raise the price of corn through subsidies and then we subsidize ethanol.
Now from the engineering standpoint I think it is worth noting the dead zone at the end of the Mississippi River. These tend to come from artificial fertilizers. One area of potential is for the developement of in the area of fertilizer development.
Also there are so many other opportunities to improve the use of natural fertilizers, (pig poop) and it's application to the land to replinish the soil without having to apply artificial fertilizers.
These are just a few of the opportunities for engineers to help advance the development and production of renewable resources.
Rob’s article explains the three categories of vehicle emissions as (1) during manufacture, (2) during use, and (3) at end-of-life.From God’s grand perspective of the universe, this is absolute and true. However from the puny perspective of an average consumer, only the middle one rates. Consumers today are being fed propaganda from multi media sources that the middle one, emissions during use, are what the Green-initiatives are all about. Often, overly self-righteous and often myopic in true vision. Articles like this one should be heralded from the rooftops, to inform the public of the whole truth.For this reason, we all as Design Engineers, have to carry the burden of developing all three categories toward improved levels. Because consumers don’t understand and they only care about the “middle one”.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
6 
