future of the automobile francis clay mcmichael carnegie mellon november 12, 1999

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


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


4

Life Cycle Assessment


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


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


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?’


8

End of lifeFuel use

sizeprice

safety Zip & rangeperformance

Vehicle

Environmental Impact


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


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


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?


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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$


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$


21


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]


22


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]


23


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


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?


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


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]


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]


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


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)


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


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]


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


33


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


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

]


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

]


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’


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


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


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%


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%


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%


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


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


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%


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

future of the automobile francis clay mcmichael carnegie mellon november 12, 1999

Documents

disposal slide

energy use slide

mass fuel use

fuel tank fuel use

fuel volume

type of fuel

life cycle assessment

fuel efficient vehicles