Future of the Automobile
Francis Clay McMichael
Carnegie Mellon
November 12, 1999
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
2
Industrial Ecology of Automobile
• Carnegie Mellon Green Design Initiative– http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/– http://www.eiolca.net
• MIT Materials Systems Lab– msl1.mit.edu
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
3
Selected regulations
• United States– CAFÉ regulations: fleet requirements for OEMs
– California ARB: sale mandates for ULEV and ZEV
– Pollution Prevention Act 1990
– NiCd Battery Recycling Act
• European Union– End-of-life mandatory takeback by OEM
– Recycle content mandates for new vehicles
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
4
Life Cycle Assessment
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
5
Life cycle analysis of auto
• Conventional emphasis on tailpipe emissions and fuel economy
• LCA takes larger view - raw materials to end-of-life
• LCA looks for pollution prevention opportunities
• LCA takes inventory of material and energy use
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
6
Outline
• Fuel economy and mass of vehicles
• Material substitution to reduce mass
• Alternative fuels and engines
• End of life and recycling
• Reducing life cycle environmental impact
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
7
Questions
• Can alternative fuel vehicles match the performance of conventional liquid fuel vehicles?
• Does a life cycle assessment change our perspective on environmental impact of different vehicles?
• What is a ‘zero emission vehicle?’
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
8
End of lifeFuel use
sizeprice
safety Zip & rangeperformance
Vehicle
Environmental Impact
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
9
Metrics to characterize the auto
• Performance: acceleration, top velocity and range between refueling
• Size: interior volume and luggage space
• Fuel economy and tailpipe emissions
• Price: first cost and lifetime ownership
• End-of-life: reuse, recycle, and disposal
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
10
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
small cars mediumcars
large cars minivans sport utilityvehicles
pickuptrucks
Po
wer
to
Mas
s [W
/kg
]
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Fu
el U
se [
Lit
er/1
00 k
m]
(P/M)ave (Fuel)ave
Consumer Reports 1997 CAFÉ auto 27.5 mpg = 8.6 l/100 km
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
11
Power /Mass and Zip
• Larger cars generally have more P/M and Zip than small cars
• Light trucks and vans have lower P/M and Zip than cars
• Fuel use increases for increased P/M and Zip
• How much Zip is enough?
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
12
Power to Mass and Zip
• P / M = [Vf^2 - Vi^2] / [2 * delta_t]
• Example: 0 to 60 mph in 10 sec– Vf = 60 mile/h = 96 km/h = 27 meter/s– Vi = zero mile/h , a standing start.– P/M = 36 watts / kg– Zip = sqrt[P/M] = 6 [W/kg]^1/2
• P/M and Zip are performance metrics
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
13
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
small cars mediumcars
large cars minivans sportutility
vehicles
pickuptrucks
ZIP
is
sq
rt[W
/ k
g]
0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.0
Fu
el U
se [
liter
/ 1
00 k
m]
(P/M)^1/2ave (Fuel)ave
Consumer Reports 1997
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
14
What kind of vehicles do we buy?
• In US, choice of many models and sizes.
• Presently, more interest in larger, less fuel efficient vehicles.
• World events [fuel prices] have affected our buying patterns.
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
15
US Sales Weighted Auto Data 1971-1990
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Power-to-Mass in [W/kg]
Fu
el U
se in
[lit
er/1
00 k
m] 1971
1990
1983
1975
sc
lc
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
16
From http://dbEase.freep.com AutoNews % of Typical NumberRank Vehicle Sales CumSales Top 20 Base Price of models
1 Ford F-Series pickup 836,629 836,629 12.5% 21,022$ F-150 (44)2 Chevrolet C/K pickup 538,254 1,374,883 8.0% 23,644$ C (7)3 Ford Explorer 431,488 1,806,371 6.4% 28,569$ 134 Toyota Camry 429,575 2,235,946 6.4% 21,126$ 85 Dodge Ram pickup 410,130 2,646,076 6.1% 20,707$ 226 Honda Accord 401,070 3,047,146 6.0% 21,558$ 97 Ford Taurus 371,074 3,418,220 5.5% 23,111$ 48 Honda Civic 334,562 3,752,782 5.0% 14,058$ 109 Ford Ranger pickup 328,132 4,080,914 4.9% 15,636$ 12
10 Dodge Caravan 293,819 4,374,733 4.4% 22,100$ 311 Ford Escort 291,936 4,666,669 4.4% 13,192$ 512 Chevrolet Cavalier 256,099 4,922,768 3.8% 15,768$ 613 Toyota Corolla 250,501 5,173,269 3.7% 13,940$ 314 Saturn 231,786 5,405,055 3.5% 13,055$ 715 Jeep Grand Cherokee 228,093 5,633,148 3.4% 30,342$ 416 Chevrolet S-Series pickup 228,093 5,861,241 3.4% 16,245$ 717 Ford Expedition 225,703 6,086,944 3.4% 34,482$ 418 Chevrolet Malibu 223,703 6,310,647 3.3% 17,954$ 219 Chevrolet Blazer 219,710 6,530,357 3.3% 25,148$ 1020 Pontiac Grand Am 180,428 6,710,785 2.7% 18,913$ 10
Sum of top 20 vehicle sales 6,710,785 100.0% 20,529$ average5,923$ stdev
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
17
US CAFE by Model Year
0.02.04.06.08.0
10.012.014.016.018.020.0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Fuel Use in [liter/100 km]
Mo
de
l Ye
ar
cars
light trucks
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
18
What is weight reduction worth?
• Weight reduction to the consumer is mainly valued in terms of fuel savings - not worth much at today’s prices.
• Weight reduction affects the CAFÉ penalty that an OEM pays to US government.
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
19
Bounding the value of fuel savings for an automobile consumerAfter Neely [PhD, MIT TPP 1998)Assumptions Value UnitsVehicle mass 3000 lbsAnnual miles driven 12000 milesFuel price 1.25 $/galAnnual discount rate 10 %/year"10-5" fuel savings for 100 lbs 0.1 mpgYear 0 1 2 3 4Annual fuel cost at 27 mpg 556$ 556$ 556$ 556$ 556$ Annual fuel cost at 27.5 mpg 545$ 545$ 545$ 545$ 545$ Annual savings 10.10$ 10.10$ 10.10$ 10.10$ 10.10$ Present value at r = 10% 10.10$ 9.18$ 8.35$ 7.59$ 6.90$
Year 5 6 7 8 9Annual fuel cost at 27 mpg 556$ 556$ 556$ 556$ 556$ Annual fuel cost at 27.5 mpg 545$ 545$ 545$ 545$ 545$ Annual savings 10.10$ 10.10$ 10.10$ 10.10$ 10.10$ Present value at r = 10% 6.27$ 5.70$ 5.18$ 4.71$ 4.28$ Net present value 68.27$ NPV per pound of weight reduced 0.68$
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
20
Units Value - Cars Value -Lt TrucksCAFÉ standard mile/gallon fuel 27.5 20.7CAFÉ penalty per 0.1 mpg 5.50$ 5.50$ Size of fleet thousands 8652 6213
Index Car Type Type [mpg] Profit/car Fraction - Cars Cars Fraction-Lt.Trucks Lt. TrucksUnits miles/gallon per car thousands thousands
1 Minicompact 26.8 20$ 0.004 34.612 Subcompact 32.3 20$ 0.152 1315.103 Compact 30.4 400$ 0.403 3486.764 Midsize 26.4 1,000$ 0.288 2491.785 Large 24.2 2,000$ 0.146 1263.196 Two seater 25.5 2,000$ 0.007 60.567 Small pickup truck 26.3 250$ 0.063 391.428 Large pickup truck 19.0 1,000$ 0.354 2199.409 Small van 22.7 500$ 0.198 1230.17
10 Large van 17.2 2,000$ 0.060 372.7811 Small utility 21.3 2,000$ 0.222 1379.2912 Large utility 18.1 8,000$ 0.103 639.94
Sum 1.000 8652.00 1.000 6213.00Fleet average miles/gallon 28.31 20.261/ Fleet average gallon/mile 0.04 0.05Fleet average liter/100 km 8.31 11.61
Fleet profit thousands of $ 6,560,985$ 11,535,988$ CAFÉ penalty thousands of $ (383,477)$ 149,324$ Difference thousands of $ 6,177,508$ 11,535,988$
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
21
Consumer Reports 1997
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000
Price
P/M
in [
W/k
g]
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
22
Consumer Reports 1997
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0
P/M in [W/kg]
Pri
ce in
[$/
po
un
d]
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
23
Consumer Reports 1997
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
miles per gallon
Pri
ce in
$ /
po
un
d
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
24
Range for a full fuel tank
• Fuel use is higher for larger vehicles
• Larger vehicles have bigger fuel tanks
• Range = [mile / gal] * [fuel volume in gal]
• Observation: small and large vehicles carry less than 4 percent of vehicle mass in fuel and a range of nearly 400 mi or 640 km.
• How much range is enough?
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
25
1996 Bosch Hndbk y = -0.2657x + 1443.9
R2 = 0.0114
0
1000
2000
3000
0 500 1000 1500
Curb Mass in [kg]
Rang
e in
[km
] =T
ank
volu
me
/ Fu
el U
se
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
26
1996 Bosch Hndbky = 0.0411x + 10.898
R2 = 0.7681
020406080
100120
0 1000 2000 3000
Curb Mass in [kg]
Fu
el T
ank
Vo
lum
e in
[l
iter
s]
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
27
1996 Bosch Hndbk y = 0.0089x - 0.1241
R2 = 0.6036
05
1015202530
0 1000 2000 3000
Vehicle mass in [kg]
Cit
y f
ue
l use
in
[lit
er/
100
km]
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
28
Fuel economy and vehicle mass
• OEMs look for design changes to reduce mass: 50 kg is a significant mass change.
• Typical heuristic: ‘10 - 5’ rule
• Simple model for alternative fuel vehicles– Fuel use increases directly with mass – Fuel use varies with type of engine, type of
fuel, and aerodynamic form
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
29
Bosch 1996 Hndbk - gasoline
y = 0.0041x + 1.558
R2 = 0.6903
y = 0.0042x + 3.044
R2 = 0.7608
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Curb Mass in [kg]
Fu
el U
se
in [
lite
r / 1
00
km
]
90 km / h 120 km / h Linear (90 km / h) Linear (120 km / h)
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
30
Fuel Consumption Model y = 0.0045x + 3.0255
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Vehicle mass in [kg]
Fu
el u
se in
[lit
er /
100
km
]
V = 90 km / h = 25 m / s CdA = 0.5 sq.m k = 0.03sfc =400 g /kWh rhofuel = 750 kg / cu.m
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
31
Design for Performance
• Alternative fuel vehicles will compete with conventional vehicles in range and zip
• P/M for a vehicle is the product of two choices– [P/M] for the engine, and [Mengine/M]
• E/M for vehicle depends is product of– [E/Mfuel]
– [Mfuel/M]
– [1 + Mtank/Mfuel]
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
32
BOSCH Hndbk 4th Edition, 1996
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Fuel Density in [Wh/kg vehicle]
Po
we
r D
en
sity
in [
W/k
g
ve
hic
le]
GM EV1
Indy 77
Average P/M = 80 W/kg and Average E/M = 500 Wh/kg
Mfuel/M = 4% for gasoline and diesel
Mtank/Mfuel is small for liquid tanks, large for pressure vessels
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
33
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
34
Metrics for electrical systems
• More non-motive power and mass changes
• Improved efficiency - ‘drive by wire’
• New materials
• Caution - main EOL concerns– copper : mixed, bad for ferrous recover; but
high value material if separated– lead: main issue is potential for dissipative
losses, regulated as toxic and hazardous
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
35
Generic vehicle - F and NF
0.00010.0010.010.1
110
1001000
Steel
-galv
anize
d
Steel
-EAF
Cast i
ron
Steel
-hot
rolle
d
Steel
-cold
rolle
d
Aluminu
m -c
ast
Pig iro
n
Aluminu
m -e
xtru
ded
Steel
-sta
inles
s
Coppe
rLe
ad
Brass
Aluminu
m -r
olled
Ferrit
e
Chrom
ium Zinc
Aluminu
m o
xide
Tin
Tung
sten
Silver
Platinu
m
Rhodiu
m
Mas
s in
[kg
]
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
36
Generic Vehicle - 1530 kg -Top 25
1
10
100
1000
Steel
-galv
anize
d
Steel
-EAF
Cast i
ron
Steel
-hot
rolle
d
Steel
-cold
rolle
d
Aluminu
m -c
ast
Unlead
ed g
asoli
ne Tire
Glass
Rubbe
r ext
rude
dPUR PP
Rubbe
r exc
ept t
ire
Pig iro
n
Aluminu
m -e
xtru
ded
PVC
Steel
-sta
inles
s
Coppe
rLe
ad
Recyc
led te
xtile
fiber
s
Polyes
ter r
esin
Carpe
ting
PA 66
EPDMABS
Mas
s in
[kg
]
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
37
EOL of vehicles
• EU mandates for recycling
• Dismantling and parts recovery
• Shredding and materials recovery
• EOL products– Ferrous metal– Non-ferrous metal– Non-metals called ‘Fluff’ or ‘ASR’
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
38
US AMP Generic Vehicle
• 1995 model Lumina (1510 kg), Taurus (1408 kg), and Intrepid (1459 kg)
• 1995 sales: 940,023 vehicles of total 7,690,223 vehicles [12%]– Taurus: 410,409– Lumina/Monte Carlo: 361,388– Intrepid: 168,226
• 20,000 parts, 9 subsystems
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
39
Generic Vehicle Characteristics -US AMP study
• Fuel
• Fuel economy
• Engine size
• 0 to 60 mph time
• Vehicle use lifetime
• Passengers
• Doors
• Cargo load/volume
• Mass
• Gasoline
• 23 mpg [20/29]
• 3 liter, 140 hp@4800
• 10.7 sec
• 120,000 miles
• 3 front / 3 rear
• Four
• 200 lbs / 17 cubic ft
• 3200 lb
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
40
Mass fractions by Subsystem
• Body• Powertrain• Suspension• Interior• HVAC• Electrical• Fluids• Total
• 566 kg or 37%• 347 kg or 23%• 291 kg or 19%• 139 kg or 9%• 45 kg or 3%• 70 kg or 4.5%• 74 kg or 5%• 1532 kg or 100%
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
41
Mass Fractions by Material
• Ferrous metals• Non-ferrous metals• Plastics• Other materials• Fluids• Total
• 985 kg or 64%• 138 kg or 9%• 143 kg or 9+%• 192 kg or 13%• 74 kg or 5%• 1532 kg or 100%
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
42
Generic Vehicle - Fluids
• Auto transmission
• Engine oil SAE10w30
• Ethylene glycol
• Glycol ether
• Refrigerant R134a
• Unleaded gasoline
• Water
• Windshield cleaner additives
• Total of fluids
• 6.7 kg or 0.44% of 1532 kg
• 3.5 kg or 0.23%
• 4.3 kg or 0.28%
• 1.1 kg or 0.069%
• 0.91 kg or 0.059%
• 48 kg or 3.1%
• 9.0 kg or 0.59%
• 0.48 kg or 0.031%
• 74 kg or 4.8%
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
43
USA Metal Management
Year 1990 Lead Cadmium Nickel
Cnsmptn 1297 Gg 3.1 Gg 127 Gg
Recycled 980 Gg 0.7 Gg 25 Gg
%recycled 71% 22% 20%
per capitaannual
5200 g 12 g 510 g
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
44
Scrap Price vs Recycle Rate
82.0%
84.0%
86.0%
88.0%
90.0%
92.0%
94.0%
96.0%
98.0%
100.0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Recycle Rate
Annual AvgScrap incents/lb
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
45
Data from Battery Council International Recycling Reports -1994Domestic Battery Vehicle Vehicle Consumed Avg Lead Lead in Batteries [lb]
Battery Type Avg Life [yr] Year Mfg Shipments Imports Imports Exports Domestically Mass[lb] Consumed DomesticallyPass Car & Light Truck 4 1990 61471986 1478726 3944602 793757 66101557 19.7 1302200673 61%Truck and Heavy 3 1991 5778349 716460 207944 6286865 36 226327140 11%Tractor 3 1991 658082 658082 31.5 20729583 1%Marine 3 1991 3581515 3581515 28.6 102431329 5%General Utility 2 1992 3890636 3890636 9 35015724 2%Golf Cart 3 1991 1949323 1949323 40.6 79142514 4%Motorcycle 2 1992 ********** 873248 258479 136573 ********** 6.1 **********Aircraft 2 1992 ********** ********** 40 **********Miltary 6 1988 ********** ********** 44 **********Misc & other 3 1991 ********** ********** 25 **********Motive power 6 1988 198485233 9%Stationary 10 1984 70350944 3%
Sum 2034683140 96%Total Battery Lead consumed domestically 2125756438 100%Total Automotive shown 82467978 94% 1765846963 95%Total Automotive Units 87276847 100% 1850920261 100%
Difference 4808869 6% 85073298 5%Lead recycled from batteries[lb] 1836763923
Total Lead in Batteries consumed 2125756438Battery Scrap Lead imports 24043484Battery Scrap Lead exports 279980381Battery Lead Available for recycle 1869819541 1994 Recycling rate = lead recycled / lead available
Calculated 1994 recycling rate 98.2%
Nov 12, 1999 McMichael for Northeastern Dept of Civil Engineering
46
Opportunities
• Mass of battery for new vehicles
• Lifetime of battery
• Composition of battery: containment, avoid dissipation losses
• Fuel economy
• Tail pipe emission reduction draws attention to other life cycle concerns