Is Automotive Light Weighting with Plastics A No-Brainer?

Is Automotive Light Weighting with Plastics A No-Brainer?

Margaret Zahller, PE INTERNATIONAL, Inc. Keith Christman, American Chemistry Council Christoph Koffler, PhD PE INTERNATIONAL, Inc. LCA XII Conference, Tacoma, WA September 25, 2012

Project Overview

Case studies

• Comparative cradle-to-grave LCA

Ford Taurus Front End Bolster

• Polymers used to reduce part weight and fuel use in automotive parts

• ISO 14040/44 compliant, critically reviewed Chevrolet Trailblazer / GMC Envoy Running Board

2 2

PE Sustainability Services Improve

Strategize

Understand

2

1

Sustainability Assessment

Sustainability Planning & Management

Succeed!

3

Sustainability Performance & Improvement

Success Goals

Sustainability Improvement Journey

3

Ford Taurus Front End Bolster Case Study Functional unit â—?

Providing structural and component support of a vehicle front over a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles

â—?

Passes the Ford latch pull test to support a load of 5,340N without separation.

4 20.08.2012

Model Year 2010 52% PP 45% glass 3% steel 9 lb

Model Year 2008 52% PP 48% steel 15.1 lb

z

4

Chevrolet Trailblazer / GMC Envoy Running Board Case Study Functional unit

â—?

Providing a stiffness satisfying GM specification within an area of 1.761 m by 0.1275 m over a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles

â—?

Meets GM specification for vertical deflection

Model Year 2004 9% TPO top cover 91% steel frame + mounting brackets 28.5 lb

Model Year 2007 60% PP, 40% glass 13.9 lb

z

5

20.08.2012

5

Data Collection and Modeling • Included production of upstream materials and energy, product manufacturing, use, and end-of-life treatment

• Design data (BOM) collected from auto industry, including scrap rates • ACC/USLCI polypropylene (2010) • End-of-life assumptions • 98% of steel recovered for recycling • Plastics to landfill

• Avoided burden

6 6

Fuel Consumption • Calculated fuel reduction due to light weighting1 • Baseline products: zero fuel reduction • Lightweight products: negative “fuel consumption”

• Based on US driving cycle • Results assessed with and without adaptation to the drive train • Fuel reduction two to three times higher with adaptation 1Koffler

C, Rohde-Brandenburger K (2010): On the calculation of fuel savings through lightweight design in automotive life cycle assessments, Int J Life Cycle Assess (2010) 15:128-135

7

Ford Taurus Bolster Results 2010 bolster compared to 2008 bolster 2008 bolster is the baseline, represented by the value zero

Primary Energy Demand

Global Warming Potential

Acidification Potential 8

8

Trailblazer/Envoy Running Board Results 2007 plastic running board compared to 2004 running board 2004 running board is the baseline, represented by the value zero Primary Energy Demand

Global Warming Potential

Acidification Potential 9 9

Fuel Reduction Potential – Monte Carlo Results

Without Drive Train Adaptation

10 10

Fuel Reduction Potential – Monte Carlo Results

With drive train adaptation

11 11

Conclusions • Even assuming no adaptation • Lighter products outperform the baseline for global warming potential and primary energy demand

• Bolster also performs better than the baseline for acidification potential

• With Adaptation • Lightweight parts perform even better across all impact categories

• Increasingly likely with CAFE standards

• Greater benefit if parts recovered at end of life

12 12

Thank You