Life Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessments

of Automotive Material Substitution

User Guide for Version 3

of the
WorldAutoSteel Energy and GHG Model

Prepared by Roland Geyer, Dipl. Phys., Ph.D.

Associate Professor
Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management

University of California at Santa Barbara, CA, USA

On behalf of WorldAutoSteel – World Steel Association

FINAL VERSION

6 January 2012
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................1

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE CALCULATIONS IN MODEL VERSION 3 ......................................................3

2.1 IMPACTS FROM MATERIAL PRODUCTION AND FINISHING .............................................................................4

2.2 IMPACTS FROM VEHICLE USE .......................................................................................................................5
2.3 IMPACTS FROM SCRAP USE AND GENERATION..............................................................................................6

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SPREADSHEETS IN MODEL VERSION 3 .......................................................7

3.1 RESULTS SPREADSHEET ................................................................................................................................8

3.2 DATA INPUT SPREADSHEET ..........................................................................................................................9
3.3 MATERIAL FLOWS SPREADSHEET ...............................................................................................................12
3.4 MATERIALS SPREADSHEET .........................................................................................................................16
3.5 FUEL SPREADSHEET ....................................................................................................................................18
3.6 USE SPREADSHEET......................................................................................................................................19
3.7 CSE (CONSEQUENTIAL SYSTEM EXPANSION) RECYCLING SPREADSHEET ..................................................20
3.8 MSR (MULTI STEP RECYCLING) RECYCLING SPREADSHEET ......................................................................22
3.9 NEW ED – ES SPREADSHEET ......................................................................................................................23
3.10 OLD ED – ES SPREADSHEET .......................................................................................................................25
3.11 CALCULATION – PRIM AL SPREADSHEET ....................................................................................................25

4 INPUT DATA FOR MODEL VERSION 3 ....................................................................................................26

4.1 STEEL AND ALUMINIUM ..............................................................................................................................26

4.2 MAGNESIUM ...............................................................................................................................................28
4.3 COMPOSITES ...............................................................................................................................................33
4.4 BASELINE VEHICLE MASS, BODY STRUCTURE MASS, AND BATTERY DATA ..............................................40
4.5 ENERGY DEMAND, AND ENERGY SAVINGS PER MASS SAVINGS .................................................................40
4.6 FUEL PRODUCTION AND USE ......................................................................................................................42
4.7 ADDITIONAL DATA......................................................................................................................................45

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................46
Frequent Acronyms
GHG Greenhouse gas
AHSS Advanced high strength steel
ICEV-G Gasoline-based pure internal combustion engine vehicle
ICEV-D Diesel-based pure internal combustion engine vehicle
HEV Gasoline-based hybrid electric vehicle
FCV Fuel cell vehicle
BEV Pure battery electric vehicle
PHEV20 Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a 20 mile range
PHEV40 Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a 40 mile range
UDDS Urban Dynanometer Driving Schedule
HFEDS Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
NEDC New European Driving Cycle
kWh (MWh) Kilo Watt hour (Mega Watt hour)
MJ Mega Joule
CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalent

Important Variables
VM Vehicle mass in kg
BM Mass of the lithium ion battery (if present) in kg
BS Size of the lithium ion battery (if present) in kWh
miunfinished Amount of unfinished material i required to manufacture the specified vehicle
mifinished Amount of finished material i required to manufacture the specified vehicle
p s
I (I )
ij ij Environmental impact j from primary (secondary) production of 1kg of material i
f
I ij Environmental impact j from finishing of 1kg of material i
cont
ri Fraction of unfinished material i coming from secondary production
all
ri Average global recycling rate of material i for all its applications
ricar Overall recycling rate of all scrap flows of material i from the vehicle life cycle
ni Average number of recycling cycles until material i is lost
αi Reduction of external scrap collection due to scrap flows to and from
the vehicle life cycle (in kg reduced collection / kg net scrap flow)
βi Displaced external primary material production due to scrap flows to and from
the vehicle life cycle (in kg displaced production / kg unfinished material)
ED f Energy demand of the vehicle in MJ fuel energy and electricity / 100km driven
ES f Energy savings per mass savings in MJ fuel energy and electricity/ 100 km driven
and 100 kg mass saved
I jf _ p f _c
( I j ) Environmental impact j from production (combustion) of 1MJ of fuel
I elj _ p Environmental impact j from production of 1MJ of electricity
1 Introduction
The main goal of the WorldAutoSteel Energy and GHG Model is to quantify the energy and
GHG impacts of automotive material substitution under a broad range of conditions and in a
completely transparent fashion. The functional unit of all studied product systems is defined as
transportation services of passenger vehicles of equivalent size, utility, equipment, and power
train configuration over their total vehicle life. However, the system boundaries, shown in Figure
1 on page 3, only include the processes that are estimated to be significantly impacted by auto-
motive material substitution. The main excluded processes are material production of non-
structural materials, vehicle assembly, and vehicle end-of-life management processes. The en-
ergy and GHG impacts of scrap use and generation are included. It is estimated that this bound-
ary choice captures 93-96% of the life cycle impacts of the studied vehicle life cycles. More im-
portantly, it is estimated that this boundary choice captures around 99% of the energy and GHG
impacts of the studied automotive material substitutions, i.e. the difference in impact between the
alternative vehicles of equivalent size, utility, equipment, and power train configuration. So,
while the results of the model are around 5% shy of the total life cycle energy use and GHG
emissions of the studied vehicles, they are comprehensive with regard to the difference between
equivalent vehicles with different structural material compositions.

The main goal of creating Version 3 of the model was to increase the vehicle types that can be
assessed with the models and the conditions under which they are used. A secondary goal was to
update all data that were beginning to be out of date. In Version 3 the following data and model-
ling capabilities have been added to the functionality of Version 2:
1. New energy demand (ED) and energy savings (ES) values have been added for ICEV-G,
ICEV-D, HEV, and FCV power trains. They reflect efficiency improvements of modern,
state-of-the-art power train components and design. The old ED and ES values for those
four power trains are still available in the model.
2. New power trains have been added to the model, which are plug-in hybrid electric vehi-
cles with 20 and 40 mile ranges (PHEV20 and PHEV40) and a battery electric vehicle
with a 140 mile range (BEV). They are available in 2 vehicle classes, an A class and a C
class.

1
 3. The U.S. driving cycle described in SAE J1711 (UDDS/HFEDS) has been added for all
power trains.
4. Primary energy demand and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from lithium ion (Li-ion)
battery production are included. In the contender vehicles battery size is automatically
adjusted to maintain constant pure electric driving range.
5. Energy demand and GHG emission data of steel and aluminium production and finishing
have been updated.
All this resulted mostly in moderate changes to the use phase model of Version 2. Apart from the
addition of battery production, the computational structure of material production and recycling
in Version 3 is identical with that of Version 2.

Model Versions 2 and 3 are much more similar in computational structure and spreadsheet de-
sign than Version 2 and 1. As a reminder, here is a list of the most important changes between
Version 2 and 1:
• In addition to the three types of conventional steel, Advanced High-Strength Steel
(AHSS), and aluminium contained in Version 1, Version 2 also includes three types of
magnesium and three types of fibre reinforced polymers.
• Conventional steel and AHSS are treated as separate materials throughout the model. It is
therefore readily possible to model and account for any difference between the two, such
as different forming technologies with different material yields.
• In addition to the power train types of gasoline-powered internal combustion engine
(ICEV-G) and hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) contained modelled in Version 1, Version 2
also includes diesel-powered internal combustion engine (ICEV-D) and fuel cell vehicle
(FCV) as a power train option.
• In addition to gasoline/bioethanol fuel blends modelled in Version 1, Version 2 also in-
cludes diesel/biodiesel fuel blends and hydrogen.
• In addition to life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modelled in Version 1, Version
2 also calculates fossil and non-fossil life cycle energy consumption.

2
2 Description of the Calculations in Model Version 3
Just like the previous 2 versions, Version 3 calculates environmental impacts from vehicle life
cycles in three distinct parts, which are
1. Automotive material production and finishing
2. Vehicle use
3. Scrap use and generation by the vehicle life cycle
Functional unit, reference flows, and system boundaries in Version 3 are identical with those in
the previous two versions, and the relevant sections in Geyer (2007a, 2007b, 2008) thus apply.
Figure 1 shows a high-level process flow diagram of the model. Included processes are in black
boxes with solid lines, excluded processes are in grey boxes with dashed lines, while ovals sig-
nify intermediate flows entering or leaving the vehicle life cycle.

Vehicle
Battery Fuel
Primary life cycle
production production
production
of material
Material Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle
finishing manufacturing use end-of-life
Secondary
production
of material

Scrap Finishing Manufacturing End-of-

input scrap scrap life scrap

Scrap inputs to & outputs from vehicle life cycle

Figure 1: System boundaries of Version 3 (apart from the battery the same as in Phase I and II)

Vehicle manufacturing and end-of-life vehicle processing are not included in the calculations.
Some initial assessments have been made, but their exact impact will have to be investigated in
future research efforts. The environmental impact indicators of Version 3 and 2 are GHG emis-
sions and total and fossil energy consumption. The following three sections summarize the calcu-
lations of each of the three model parts.

3
2.1 Impacts from Material Production and Finishing
Here, the environmental impacts from producing and finishing the materials required to manu-
facture a vehicle are calculated. This is done according to the following equation:
( )
I ijmat = miunfinished 1 − ricont I ijp + miunfinished ricont I ijs + mifinished I ijf

For material type i, miunfinished is the amount of unfinished material, ricont is the fraction of unfin-

ished material from secondary production, I ijp is the environmental impact j from primary pro-

duction of 1kg of material i, I ijs is the environmental impact j from secondary production of 1kg

of material i, mifinished is the amount of finished material, I ijf is the environmental impact j from

finishing 1kg of material i. The model distinguishes between unfinished and finished material, so
that potential yield losses of finishing processes can be accounted for. However, the current de-
fault value for all finishing yields is 100%, which means that this model feature is currently un-
used. The calculations account for the difference in environmental impacts from primary and
secondary material production according to the secondary material contents ricont of the vehicles.

Data Input

material composition
of vehicles

Material Flows
• unfinished materials
• secondary content
• finished materials

Calculation Prim Al Materials

GHG emissions of
primary aluminium Materials production
production • GHG emissions
• total energy consumption
• fossil energy consump-
tion
Results

Figure 2: Data flow in the spreadsheet model for material production phase calculations

4
2.2 Impacts from Vehicle Use
Here, the environmental impacts from using the vehicle are calculated. This is done according to
the following equation:
EDel
I use
j = I elj _ p ⋅ ⋅ TM + ( I jf _ p + I jf _ c ) ⋅ ED f ⋅ TM
CE
I elj _ p , I jf _ p , and I jf _ c are the environmental impacts j of electricity production, fuel production,

and fuel combustion (in impact/MJ), EDel and ED f are the average electricity and fuel energy

demands of the vehicle (in MJ/100km), CE is the charging efficiency of the battery, and TM is
the total distance driven over the life of the vehicle (in km). The energy demand of the two con-
tender vehicles, ED c , is calculated from the energy demand of the baseline vehicle, ED b :
ED c = ED b − ∆ED = ED b − ES ⋅ VM b − VM c ( )
ES denotes the energy savings per mass savings, while VM b and VM c are the baseline and
contender vehicle masses. Version 3 models many different fuel types and mixes and therefore
describes vehicle energy demand ED in MJ fuel energy per 100 km.

Data Input
• vehicle size • vehicle masses
• engine type • fuel type • total distance
• engine adjustment • fuel mix
• driving cycle • fuel source

Fuel
Fuel production & use
• GHG emissions
• total energy consumption
Old ED - ES • fossil energy consumption
• energy demand of
b
baseline vehicle ED
• energy savings Use
per mass savings ES
New ED - ES Vehicle use phase
• GHG emissions
• total energy consumption
• fossil energy consumption

Results

Figure 3: Data flow in the spreadsheet model for the use phase calculations

5
2.3 Impacts from Scrap Use and Generation
Just like the Phase I and II Models, Version 3 offers two different ways to account for the envi-
ronmental impacts of the scrap inputs into and the scrap outputs out of the vehicle life cycles.
The first is the use of consequential system expansion (CSE) to account for displaced primary
production of materials due to their recycling according to the following equation:
(
I ijrec = − miunfinished β i I ijp − I ijs )
miunfinished , I ijp , and I ijs have been defined in Section 2.1, while the calculation and use of dis-

placement parameter β i is explained in Sections 3.3 and 3.7. The second is the use of multistep
recycling (MSR) methodology according to the equation below:
( )(
I ijrec = miunfinished ricont − ri msr I ijp − I ijs )
The MSR methodology and the parameters it requires are explained in Sections 3.3 and 3.8. The
CSE and MSR methods are also discussed in detail in Geyer (2007b).

Data Input
• overall recycling rate ri all
• number of recycling cycles n • material composition of vehicles
• displacement parameter α i

Material Flows
• unfinished materials • unfinished materials
• secondary content ricont • displacement rate β i
• automotive recycling rate ri car

Materials

Difference between primary

and secondary production
• GHG emissions
• total energy consumption
• fossil energy consumption

MSR Recycling CSE Recycling

Materials recycling
• GHG emissions
• total energy consumption
• fossil energy consumption

Results

Figure 4: Data flow in the spreadsheet model for scrap use and generation calculations

6
3 Description of the Spreadsheets in Model Version 3
To facilitate the use, analysis, and modification of this spreadsheet model, all used spreadsheet
cells are colour-coded. The colour-coding of the spreadsheet cells follows this scheme:
Blue: User inputs (used within the same and/or in other spreadsheets)
Light Blue: Model input data that should only be changed by expert users
Green: Intermediate results used within the spreadsheet
Orange: Model outputs that are used in another spreadsheet
Pink: Data inputs that come from another spreadsheet
White: Data that is displayed for information only, and not used to calculate results

Every coloured cell in the spreadsheet model is either an independent parameter or a dependent
variable. Model parameters can be either dependent or independent. The blue and light blue
cells are independent model parameters. They are defined directly by the value that has been
entered into the cell. All other coloured cells are dependent model variables. They are defined
by model equations that become visible when the cell is highlighted. In principle, these equations
can be overwritten by entering parameter values directly into the cell, i.e. by treating them like
independent parameters. Generally, this should be avoided, since it is likely to lead to errors in
the model calculations. Also, if equations are overwritten, and the spreadsheet file is saved sub-
sequently, the equation will have been deleted permanently.

However, there are a few useful instances of overwriting equations: There are a few cells on
the input spreadsheet that are independent model parameters, i.e. user input, even though they
have default values defined through model equations. They are baseline vehicle mass in cell I7,
total mass of material removed from the baseline vehicle in cell I9, composition of removed ma-
terial in cells H17 to H19, and lifetime vehicle mileage in cell E107. For example, the default
value for total removed material is the mass of the body structure of the specified vehicle, but the
user may want to explore other scenarios. In this case the user should simply enter the desired
value into cell I9 (which will overwrite the equation). Finally, the user can also choose to enter
the material composition of the two mass-reduced vehicles directly into the rows 80 to 101 of
columns E and H, rather than through the modelled process of replacing conventional steel in the
baseline vehicle with lightweight materials. Overall, the user is encouraged to customize every
part of the spreadsheet model, while keeping at least one copy of the original model.

7
3.1 Results Spreadsheet
The Results spreadsheet displays the results from the model calculations, together with some
modelling parameters. The model parameters are displayed on top, in rows 4 to 18. Rows 4 to 6
contain vehicle class and weight, total vehicle mileage, power train configuration, driving en-
ergy, and mass of removed conventional steel. Rows 10 to 16 contain the composition of the
three vehicles by material groups, which are steel, AHSS, aluminium, composites, magnesium,
other, and battery. Row 17 contains the total mass of the vehicles, while row 18 displays the net
mass savings of the two mass reduced vehicles.

The main results are shown in rows 42 to 66, just below the two result figures that display the
life cycle GHG emissions and the total energy consumption of the three modelled vehicle life
cycles. In these figures, the blue bars show the contributions from the use phase, while the red
bars (including the dotted parts) show the contributions from material production. The dotted
parts of the red bars are the avoided environmental impacts due to material recycling, which are
subtracted from material production and vehicle use in order to obtain results that include the
avoided impacts. The main results in rows 42 to 66 are contained in the pink cells. Their values
are directly imported from the Materials, Use, and Recycling spreadsheets. The three environ-
mental performance measures are GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq), total energy requirements (in
MJ), fossil energy requirements (in MJ). All other values displayed in rows 42 to 66 are just dif-
ferent ways to aggregate the main results from the pink cells. They are useful in that they reveal
different aspects of the model results.

Below the main results, rows 73 to 101 display disaggregated results for material production
and recycling, which are divided into the six material groups of conventional steel, AHSS, alu-
minium, composites, magnesium and the lithium ion battery. In rows 73 to 79, this is done for
GHG emissions, in rows 84 to 90, this is done for total energy requirements, while rows 95 to
101, contains this information for fossil energy requirements. These disaggregated results show
how the different materials contribute to the environmental impacts from material production and
the avoided impacts from recycling.

8
3.2 Data Input Spreadsheet
The Energy and GHG model is highly parameterized and therefore requires significant amounts
of data input from the user. The Data Input spreadsheet is the main data input interface for the
model user. All blue cells on this spreadsheet are data input fields that require the attention of the
user. Rather then being empty, all blue data input cells on the Data Input spreadsheet are already
filled with default data. This exemplifies as well as simplifies the use of the model. The objective
of the model is to assess the life cycle GHG and energy impacts of two mass-reduced vehicles
relative to a baseline vehicle under a wide range of conditions. To do this, the user needs to re-
view all blue data entry cells and enter the desired input parameters. In order to structure the data
input process, the Data Input spreadsheet is split into three separate areas: Material Composition
of the Vehicles, Vehicle Use, and Material Recycling. The following paragraphs describe the
Data Input spreadsheet from top to bottom. However, data does not need to be entered in any
specific order.

In the top part of the spreadsheet (rows 5 to 103), power train, class, and material composition
of all three vehicles are specified. In cells E7 and E9, the power train and class of the three vehi-
cles are selected from drop-down menus. The vehicle classes for BEV and PHEV are different
than those for ICEV, HEV and FCV. It is important to make sure that vehicle class and power
train match, since this is not done automatically. The mass of the baseline vehicle with the se-
lected power train and class is shown in cells I7 (in kg) and I8 (in lbs). The material composition
of the baseline vehicle (in % of total vehicle mass), which is shown in cells I17 toI26, is only pe-
ripheral to the model objective and should only be changed if necessary. Once vehicle power
train and class are selected by the user, the given percentage composition of the baseline vehicle
is translated into absolute masses (given in kg) and displayed in cells F17 to F26. Next, the
amount and type of conventional steel that is being removed from the baseline vehicle and re-
placed with lightweight alternatives has to be specified. The total amount of removed steel is
specified in cell I9. The default value is the mass of the body structure of the selected baseline
vehicle, which is imported from the New ED – ES spreadsheet. The breakdown of the removed
material into flat, long, and cast steel is entered in cells H17 to H19. The alternative lightweight
materials covered by the model are AHSS, aluminium, fibre reinforced composites, and magne-
sium. The replacement coefficients of these materials relative to conventional steel denote the

9
amount of material required to replace the removed steel (in kg lightweight material / kg conven-
tional steel) and are entered in rows 30 to 33 of columns E and H. The materials replacing the
removed conventional steel are specified as percentages of removed material in rows 37 to 51 of
columns E and H and automatically translated into absolute masses in columns F and I. The
available materials are rolled, long, and cast AHSS, rolled, extruded, and cast aluminium, sheet
moulding composite (SMC), glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP), carbon fibre reinforced
polymer (CFRP), cast magnesium, rolled magnesium, and Zirmax AZ91 magnesium alloy. The
data input for the material compositions of the vehicles is completed by specifying the secondary
mass savings in terms of their size and their material composition. The size of secondary mass
savings is entered in cell E60 (in % of primary mass savings), while its composition is entered in
cells E67 to E73 (in % of total secondary mass savings). Secondary mass savings have to be in
conventional steel and aluminium, since they are the only materials that are present in the base-
line vehicle and for which inventory data is provided. This is not a significant limitation of the
model. The material compositions of the two mass-reduced vehicles are now fully specified and
displayed in rows 80 to 101 of columns E and H.

The middle part of the spreadsheet contains the input data that pertain directly to the vehicle
use phase. The lifetime vehicle mileage is entered (in km) in cell E107 and converted into miles
in cell E108. In cell E111, the driving cycle is selected from a drop-down menu, which contains
the options NEDC, Hyzem, and UDDS/HFEDS according to SAE J1711. Together with vehicle
class and power train, the driving cycle determines ED, the driving energy demand of the base-
line vehicle (in MJ fuel energy per 100km). Cell E110 determines whether the engine size of the
mass-reduced vehicles is the same as that of the benchmark vehicle, or whether it is reduced to
match the acceleration of the baseline vehicle. Together with vehicle class, power train, and driv-
ing cycle, this choice determines ES, the relationship between vehicle mass reduction and driv-
ing energy savings (in MJ fuel energy per 100km and 100kg mass reduction). The values for ED
and ES are based on model simulations by FKA from 2010 and 2011, unless “No” is selected
from the drop-down menu of cell E114, in which case ED and ES are based on older model
simulations from 2005 and 2006. This should only be done for sensitivity study and is only pos-
sible for power trains IVEC, HEV, and FCV and driving cycles NEDC and Hyzem.

10
The last step in the vehicle use part of the Data Input spreadsheet is to further specify the fuel
and/or electricity used by the chosen power train. The following parameters need to be specified:
Volumetric ethanol content, which can be anywhere between 0% and 100%, and ethanol source
are selected in cells J108 and J109. Volumetric biodiesel content, which can be anywhere be-
tween 0% and 100%, and biodiesel source are selected in cells J111 and J112. The electricity
source is selected in cell J116, the battery charging efficiency in cell J117, and the fraction of
total driving energy coming from grid electricity in cell J119. The latter two should only be
changed for sensitivity study or if plausible alternative values are known. Obviously, not all of
these fuel/electricity specifications are relevant for all power trains. The model simply ignores all
irrelevant driving energy parameters. Cell E117 displays the driving energy source(s) of the se-
lected power train, while cells E118 and E119 display two important energy mix parameters,
which are also forwarded to the Fuel and New ED – ES spreadsheets.

The bottom part of the spreadsheet specifies the way in which the model accounts for the scrap
flows into and out of the vehicle life cycles. The first step is to choose between the two different
modelling methods for material recycling, which are consequential system expansion (CSE) and
multistep recycling (MSR). By selecting ‘Yes’ from the drop-down menu of cell H127, MSR is
chosen, while selecting ‘No’ means that CSE will be applied to the model. For each of the 15
modelled automotive materials, the MSR methodology requires an average number of recycling
cycles, ni , and an overall recycling rate, ri all , i ∈ [1,...,15] . The overall recycling rate of a material
is the ratio of recycled over available scrap, worldwide and for all uses of the material, not just
automotive applications. ni denotes the average numbers of times that material i is expected to

be recycled before it is lost. Average numbers of recycling cycles, ni , and overall recycling

rates, ri all , are specified in rows 130 to 148 of columns I and J. The CSE methodology, on the

other hand, requires that values for parameter α i are specified in rows 130 to 148 of column E

for each of the 15 modelled automotive materials. The range of possible values for α i is 0 to 1.
The chosen value determines to what extent the scrap flows from and to the vehicle life cycles
impact external scrap collection or external secondary material production. For example, α i = 1
means that the scrap flows from and to the vehicle life cycle are matched by an equal change in

11
scrap collection and have no impact on external secondary material production. Setting α i = 0 ,
on the other hand, means that the scrap flows from and to the vehicle life cycle are matched by
an equal change in external secondary material production and have no impact on external scrap
collection. Any value between zero and one means that the impact of the scrap flows from and to
the vehicle life cycle is split accordingly between external scrap collection and external secon-
dary production. For example, α i = 0.1 , which is the default value for all 15 materials, means
that each kg of scrap from the vehicle life cycle reduces scrap collection by 0.1 kg, while the re-
maining 0.9 kg of scrap increase external secondary material production and subsequently reduce
external primary material production (also called avoided or displaced production).

3.3 Material Flows Spreadsheet

The Material Flows spreadsheet calculates and balances the intermediate material flows of the
three vehicle life cycles and has two main functions:
1. For each material type, the spreadsheet calculates the amounts of unfinished primary, un-
finished secondary, and resulting finished material used in vehicle production.
2. For each material type, the spreadsheet calculates and balances the scrap flows into and
out of the vehicle life cycles.
Both calculation processes start with the material compositions of the three vehicles, which are
imported from the Data Input spreadsheet and displayed in rows 8 to 90 of column M. Next, the
amounts of finished material required for vehicle manufacturing, mifinished , are calculated by di-
viding the material composition data by the forming yields of each material and forming type.
The forming yields are displayed in rows 102 to 120 of columns J, K and L. For a given material
type, different forming yields can be defined for each of the vehicles. This enables the user to
compare vehicle design concepts that use the same material type but different forming technolo-
gies. An example would be two AHSS front end structures, one of which is stamped from a la-
ser-welded blank with a yield of 55%, while the other is hydroformed with a yield of 86%. The
resulting amounts of finished material, mifinished , are shown in rows 8 to 90 of column I and are

converted into required amounts of unfinished material, miunfinished , by dividing them by the fin-
ishing yields of the material. The finishing yield for each material type is given in rows 102 to
120 of column F and is assumed to be identical for each vehicle. Currently, all finishing yields

12
are set to 100%, i.e. the amounts of unfinished and finished material are equal for each material
type. The amounts of required unfinished material, miunfinished , are displayed in rows 8 to 90 of
column E. The amounts of unfinished material from primary and secondary production are
shown in rows 8 to 90 of columns C and D and calculated using the secondary material input
rates ( ri cont in Figure 5) given in rows 102 to 120 of column C. This concludes task 1 from above.
The calculation results for the required finished and unfinished materials are passed on to the
Materials spreadsheet (rows 6 to 89 of columns C, D, and I) and the two Recycling spreadsheets
(rows 6 to 80 of column C).

1 − ricont Vehicle life cycle

Primary
production
of material
Material Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle
finishing manufacturing use end-of-life
Secondary ricont
production
of material

siout = (1 − γ i f )cif + γ i f (1 − γ im )cim + γ i f γ im cieol sieol

Secondary
sis β i
production
of material
siin = sip (1 − r cont ) + sis r cont
Scrap
balance βi Displace-
ment
Displaced
Scrap αi (s
out
i −s )
in
i s βi
i
p material
production
collection

Figure 5: Calculation and balancing of the scrap flows into and out of the vehicle life cycles
(Geyer 2008)

The material flow model has three different scrap flows that leave the vehicle life cycle: new
(prompt) scrap from finishing, new (prompt) scrap from manufacturing (forming), and old (end-
of-life) scrap from vehicle end-of-life management (see Figure 5). In all three cases, the first step
is to calculate the amounts of scrap that are generated by each process. For forming and finish-
ing, these are the yield losses shown in rows 8 to 90 of columns F and J. For vehicle end-of-life

13
management, these are simply the entire vehicles, the material compositions of which are shown
in rows 8 to 90 of column M. The next step is to calculate the amounts of collected scrap by mul-
tiplying the amounts of generated scrap with their respective collection (and separation) rates.
Scrap collection rates can be found in rows 102 to 120 of column G for finishing, in rows 102 to
120 of column M for manufacturing (forming), and in rows 130 to 148 of column C for vehicle
end-of-life management. Prompt scrap is assumed to be uncontaminated and therefore has no
separation (pre-processing) losses. In the case of end-of-life scrap, the shredder recovery rates
are given in rows 130 to 148 of column D. Multiplying the amounts of collected (and separated)
scrap with their respective material recovery rates yields the amounts of secondary material that
result from the three scrap outputs of the vehicle life cycle. The resulting amounts of secondary
material are displayed in rows 8 to 90 of column H for finishing scrap, rows 8 to 90 of column L
for manufacturing scrap, and rows 8 to 90 of column O for end-of-life scrap. This concludes the
scrap flow calculations in rows 8 to 90. These scrap flows are for information purposes only, and
not used to calculate the GHG and energy implications of automotive scrap recycling.

The GHG and energy implications of the scrap inputs and outputs from and to the vehicle life
cycles are calculated in the two Recycling spreadsheets. For the Multi-Step Recycling (MSR)
method, the Material Flows spreadsheet calculates the overall automotive recycling rates for
each material and each vehicle life cycle as a percentage of unfinished material input i :
ri car = (1 − γ i f ) ri f + γ i f (1 − γ im ) ri m + γ i f γ im ri eol

ri car : Overall recycling rates of all three scrap flows (rows 130 to 148 of columns J, K, and L)

γ i f : Finishing yields (rows 102 to 120 of column F), currently set to 1 for all material types

ri f : Recycling rates of generated finishing scraps (rows 102 to 120 of column I)

γ im : Manufacturing (forming) yields (rows 102 to 120 of columns J, K and L)

ri m : Recycling rates of generated manufacturing scraps (rows 102 to 120 of column O)

ri eol : Recycling rates of generated end-of-life scraps (rows 130 to 148 of column F)

The overall automotive recycling rates ri car (rows 130 to 148 of columns J, K, and L) denote the
amounts of secondary material that are obtain from recycling the scrap flows leaving the vehicle

14
life cycles, expressed as a fraction of the unfinished material inputs into the vehicle life cycle.
The overall recycling rates ri car are passed on to the MSR Recycling spreadsheet.

For the Consequential System Expansion (CSE) method, the Material Flows spreadsheet cal-
culates the displacement rates β i , which quantify the change in the primary production of mate-
rial i outside of the vehicle life cycles due to the scrap flows in and out of the vehicle life cycles,
siin and siout (Geyer 2008). The calculation of the displacement rates β i accounts for the scrap

inputs to secondary and primary production, sis and sip (in kg scrap input per kg material out-

put), as well as the impact of siin and siout on scrap collection outside of the vehicle life cycles

(quantified as parameters α i ). As shown in Figure 5, β i is calculated by balancing all external

scrap flows:

siout − siin  siout − sip 

siout − siin − α i ( siout − siin ) − sis β i + sip β i = 0 ⇒ β i = (1 − α i ) = (1 − α ) s
i  − ricont 
si − si
s p
 si − si
p

The total amount of collected and separated scrap output from each vehicle life cycle, siout , is
calculated as a percentage of required unfinished material i according to:
siout = (1 − γ i f )ci f + γ i f (1 − γ im )cim + γ i f γ im cieol sieol

The calculated values for siout are displayed in rows 130 to 148 of rows G, H, and I. The scrap

input to secondary production per kg of secondary output is calculated as sis = siout ri car . The

secondary material input rates, ri cont , and the scrap inputs to primary production per kg of pri-

mary output, sip , are given in rows 102 to 120 of columns C and D. Only primary production of

steel has significant scrap inputs. The calculation results for the displacement rates β i are shown

in rows 130 to 148 of columns M, N, and O. If β i > 0 , primary production outside of the vehicle

life cycle decreases due to the net scrap generation of the vehicle life cycle; if β i < 0 , external
primary production increases due to the net scrap input to the vehicle life cycle. The values for
β i are passed on to the CSE Recycling spreadsheet.

15
3.4 Materials Spreadsheet
The Materials spreadsheet calculates the cradle-to-gate GHG emissions, total energy consump-
tion and fossil energy consumption of producing and finishing the materials needed to build the
vehicles specified in the Data Input spreadsheet. For BEV, PHEV20, and PHEV40 power trains,
production of the lithium ion battery is also accounted for on this spreadsheet. To keep the model
structure simple, the battery is treated as a “material”, even though it is, of course, a multi-
material component. Finishing operations currently included in the model are rolling, galvanis-
ing, extruding and shape casting. GHG emission and energy consumption data for fibre rein-
forced polymers and lithium ion batteries are currently not disaggregated into producing and fin-
ishing, since the necessary data is not available. Rows 96 to 148 contain total energy consump-
tion (column E, in MJ/kg), fossil energy consumption (column F, in MJ/kg), and GHG emissions
(column G, in kg CO2 eq/kg) of producing and finishing 1 kg of each material. The boundaries
for production are cradle-to-basic-material (e.g. cradle-to-aluminium-ingot), those for finishing
are basic-to-finished-material (e.g. aluminium-ingot-to-rolled-aluminium). The data highlighted
in light blue in columns D to G are the model input data that are used to calculate the results. In-
termediate calculations are performed for steel rolling, aluminium rolling, extruding, and casting,
primary aluminium and magnesium ingot production, and battery production. For rolled steel,
the calculations account for the percentage mix of hot rolled coil (HRC) and hot dipped galva-
nised (HDG) steel sheet in vehicles, which is specified in cell D102 and currently assumed to be
25% HRC and 75% HDG. The GHG emissions of producing 1 kg of primary aluminium ingot is
calculated in the Calculation - Prim Al spreadsheet and depends on the electricity required for
smelting and the GHG intensity of the used electricity, which are specified in cells D114 and
D115. GHG data for aluminium rolling, extruding, and casting are also imported from the Calcu-
lation - Prim Al spreadsheet. For primary magnesium, the calculations account for the global
production mix of the electrolytic and the Pidgeon process routes, which is specified in cell D141
and currently assumed to be 30% electrolytic and 70% Pidgeon. Energy consumption and GHG
emissions of lithium ion battery production are initially given per kWh of battery capacity and
then converted into per kg values using the energy density (in kWh/kg) given in cell N156. All
data in rows 96 to 148 that are not highlighted are not used in the calculation of the results and
for information purposes only.

16
The calculation process starts by importing the relevant quantities of each material type from the
Material Flows spreadsheet to the Materials spreadsheet. These are the quantities of unfinished
material that need to be produced and the quantities of material that need to be finished in order
to build vehicles with the material compositions specified in the Data Input spreadsheet. For
each material type, the amount of unfinished material is broken down into the fraction coming
from primary production and the fraction coming from secondary production. The resulting
quantities of primary unfinished and secondary unfinished material are displayed in rows 6 to 89
of columns C and D. The resulting quantities of finished material are displayed in rows 6 to 89 of
column I. The numbers are highlighted in pink since they are all imported from the Material
Flows spreadsheet. The quantities for (primary and secondary) unfinished and finished material
are currently identical, since the finishing yields of all material types are set to 100%. To keep
the model structure simple, the battery is treated as “primary unfinished material”.

The second and final step is to multiply the environmental impact measures for producing and
finishing 1 kg of material with the required amounts of unfinished and finished material accord-
ing to the following equation
( )
I ijmat = miunfinished 1 − ricont I ijp + miunfinished ricont I ijs + mifinished I ijf .

For material type i, miunfinished is the amount of unfinished material, ricont is the fraction of unfin-

ished material from secondary production, I ijp is the environmental impact j from primary pro-

duction of 1kg of material i, I ijs is the environmental impact j from secondary production of 1kg

of material i, mifinished is the amount of finished material, I ijf is the environmental impact j from

finishing 1kg of material i. The impacts from battery production are calculated by multiplying
the battery masses in cells C17, C52, and C87 with the impacts per kg from row 154. All results
are displayed in rows 6 to 89. Columns E, F, and G contain total energy consumption (in MJ),
fossil energy consumption (in MJ), and GHG emissions (in kg CO2 eq) for the production of
each material. Columns J, K, and L contain the same impact measures for the finishing of each
material.

17
3.5 Fuel Spreadsheet
The Fuel spreadsheet calculates the GHG emissions, total energy requirements and fossil energy
requirements of producing and using the fuel and electricity specified in the Data Input spread-
sheet. The spreadsheet currently contains data for gasoline, ethanol, diesel, biodiesel, hydrogen,
and electricity. First, the fuel specifications are imported from the Data Input spreadsheet and
listed in rows 1, 4 and 5. The fuels that are currently supported are gasoline, gasoline/bioethanol
blends, diesel, diesel/biodiesel blends, and hydrogen. On the Data Input spreadsheet the fuel
blends are specified through their volumetric biofuel content, which can be anywhere between
0% and 100%. If the specified fuel is a blend, the next step is to derive its calorific composition
from the specified volumetric composition of the blend according to the equation
vb ⋅ Eb
cb = ,
vb ⋅ Eb + (1 − vb ) ⋅ E f

where cb is the calorific biofuel content, vb is the volumetric biofuel content, while Eb and E f

are the volumetric energy densities of the biofuel and the fossil fuel, respectively. E85, for ex-
ample is a gasoline/ethanol fuel blend that contains 85% ethanol by volume and therefore has a
volumetric energy density of 22.72 MJ net calorific value (NCV) per litre, given that gasoline
and ethanol have net calorific values of E f = 31.88 MJ per litre and Eb = 21.10 MJ per litre.

79% of the energy contained in a unit of E85 comes from ethanol, since
0.85 ⋅ 21.10
0.79 = .
0.85 ⋅ 21.10 + 0.15 ⋅ 31.88
The volumetric energy densities of the fuels are given in rows 92, 93, 97, and 98. If the specified
fuel is a blend, its calorific composition is displayed in rows 8 and 9. If the specified fuel is pure
gasoline, pure diesel, or hydrogen, the calculations explained above are unnecessary.

In the final step, the Fuel spreadsheet calculates the three impact measures (per MJ of fuel, fuel
blend, and electricity) for fuel/fuel blend production I jf _ p , fuel/fuel blend combustion I elj _ c , and

electricity production I elj _ p . The impact measures are greenhouse gas emissions (in kg CO2eq /

MJ fuel energy or electricity), total energy requirements (in MJ / MJ fuel energy or electricity),
and fossil energy requirements (in fossil MJ / MJ fuel energy or electricity). The results for
fuel/fuel blend production are displayed in row 16, those for fuel/fuel blend combustion in row

18
17, and those for electricity production in row 19. These data are passed on to the Use spread-
sheet, where the use phase impacts of the three vehicles are calculated. Row 16 simply chooses
the relevant fuel production values from rows 37, 49, and 55, while row 19 picks the relevant
fuel combustion values from rows 62, 67, and 69. Row 17 points to row 58 which contains the
electricity production values of the selected grid mix. If no grid electricity is used, row 17 is set
to zero. If no liquid fuel is used, rows 16 and 19 are set to zero. In rows 37 and 49, the produc-
tion impacts per MJ of specified fuel blend are calculated from its calorific composition reported
in rows 8 and 9, and the impact measures of the individual fuels, which are the data in rows 30,
35, 43, and 47. In rows 76 and 81, the combustion impacts per MJ of specified fuel blend are
calculated from its calorific composition reported in rows 8 and 9, and the impact measures of
the individual fuels, which are the data in rows 73, 74, 78, and 79.

3.6 Use Spreadsheet

In the Use spreadsheet, the use phase impacts of the three vehicles are calculated according to
the equation
EDel
I use
j = I elj _ p ⋅ ⋅ TM + ( I jf _ p + I jf _ c ) ⋅ ED f ⋅ TM ,
CE
where I elj _ p is the environmental impact j of electricity production, I jf _ p is the environmental

impact j of fuel production, and I jf _ c is the environmental impact j of fuel combustion (all in

impact/MJ of fuel energy). The three environmental impact measures used in the model are
greenhouse gas emissions (in kg CO2eq), total energy requirements (in MJ), and fossil energy
requirements (in MJ). EDel is the grid electricity demand of the vehicle, ED f is the fuel demand

of the vehicle (both in MJ/100km), CE is the charging efficiency of the vehicle battery, and TM
is the total distance driven over the life of the vehicle (in km). The values for TM and CE are
user inputs from the Data Input spreadsheet and displayed in rows 4 and 5. The Calculation – ES
spreadsheet supplies the electricity and fuel energy demands EDelb and ED bf of the baseline ve-

hicle and the values for the energy savings per mass savings ES el and ES f , which serve to calcu-

late the energy demands EDelc and ED cf for the two contender vehicles via the following equa-

tion:

19
 (
ED c = ED b − ∆ED = ED b − ES ⋅ VM b − VM c )
The masses of all three vehicles VM also come directly from the Data Input spreadsheet and are
( )
displayed in row 3. The values for ES , ∆ED = ES ⋅ VM b − VM c , and ED of each vehicle are
displayed in rows 6-11. The total electricity and fuel energy demands of each vehicle during its
life (in MJ) is calculated as ED ⋅ TM and shown right below in rows 12 and 13.

To convert the total electricity and fuel energy demands EDel ⋅ TM CE and ED f ⋅ TM into use

phase impacts, they are multiplied with the relevant environmental impact measures per MJ of
electricity production I elj _ p , fuel production I jf _ p , and fuel combustion I jf _ c . The production

impacts per MJ of liquid fuel (well-to-tank) are displayed in rows 50 to 52, the production im-
pacts per MJ of electricity are displayed in rows 54 to 56, and the fuel combustion impacts per
MJ of liquid fuel (tank-to-wheels) are displayed in rows 58 to 60. Their values are imported from
the Fuel spreadsheet. The greenhouse emission and energy consumption impacts from liquid fuel
production I jf _ p ⋅ ED f ⋅ TM are shown in rows 34 to 36, the impacts from electricity production

I elj _ p ⋅ EDel ⋅ TM / CE are shown in rows 39 to 41, while the impacts from fuel combustion

II jf _ c ⋅ ED f ⋅ TM are shown in rows 44 to 46. The total use phase impacts are simply the sums of

all three stages and are displayed in rows 29 to 31. The values in rows 29 to 31 are passed on to
the Results spreadsheet. Rows 15 to 26 display various calculated data of interest, such as the
overall use phase GHG emissions per driven kilometre (row 16), but none of these data are used
for the calculation of the model results.

3.7 CSE (Consequential System Expansion) Recycling Spreadsheet

In the CSE Recycling spreadsheet, consequential system expansion (CSE) is used to calculate the
environmental implications of the scrap flows in and out of the vehicle life cycles. It is assumed
that these scrap flows impact, to a lesser or larger extent, scrap collection and secondary material
production outside of the vehicle life cycle (see Figure 5). It is also assumed that the sum over all
scrap flows is zero, i.e. that the scrap flows do not simply lead to a long-term stock build-up. The
values for parameters α i , which are entered by the user on the Data Input spreadsheet, determine
to what extent the scrap flows impact external scrap collection or external secondary production.

20
For example, α i = 1 means that the scrap flows from and to the vehicle life cycle lead to equal
changes in external scrap collection and have no impact on external secondary production. Set-
ting α i = 0 , on the other hand, means that the scrap flows from and to the vehicle life cycle lead
to equal changes in external secondary production and have no impact on external scrap collec-
tion. Any value between zero and one means that the impact of the scrap flows from and to the
vehicle life cycle is split accordingly between external scrap collection and external secondary
production. For example, α i = 0.1 , which is the default value for all 15 materials, means that
each kg of scrap from the vehicle life cycle reduces scrap collection by 0.1 kg, while the remain-
ing 0.9 kg of scrap increase external secondary material production. A change in external secon-
dary material production is assumed to lead to an equal but opposite change in external primary
production of the same material type, i.e. an increase in secondary production leads to an equal
decrease in primary production and vice versa. The size of the change in external secondary and
primary material production is quantified by the displacement rates β i , which are calculated on
the Material Flows spreadsheet (see Section 3.3). The values are passed on to the CSE Recycling
spreadsheet, where they are displayed in rows 6 to 77 of column D. Since the displacement rates
are expressed as fractions of the required amounts of unfinished material, the net impacts of the
scrap flows in and out of the vehicle life cycles are calculated as

( )  s out − sip
I ijrec = − miunfinished β i I ijp − I ijs with β i = (1 − α i ) i s

− ricont  .
 si − si
p

The required amounts of unfinished material, miunfinished , are also imported from the Material
Flows spreadsheet and displayed in rows 6 to 77 of column C. The differences in environmental
impacts between primary and secondary material production, I ijp − I ijs , are imported from the Ma-

terials spreadsheet and shown in rows 6 to 77 of columns E, F, and G. The resulting environ-
mental impacts I ijrec of the scrap flows in and out of the vehicle life cycles are displayed in rows

6 to 77 of columns H, I, and J. The aggregate results for the material groups steel, AHSS, alu-
minium, composites, and magnesium, together with the overall results for all materials, are
passed on to the Results spreadsheet.

21
3.8 MSR (Multi Step Recycling) Recycling Spreadsheet
In the MSR Recycling spreadsheet, the multi-step recycling (MSR) method is used to calculate
the environmental implications of the recycling activities within and outside of the vehicle life
cycles. While the CSE approach models the direct consequences of the scrap flows in and out of
the vehicle life cycles, the MSR method reflects the economy-wide recycling of each material
and is thus based on the average global environmental impacts of its primary and secondary pro-
duction. This means that it is the global overall recycling rate, and not the secondary material
content of the vehicles, that determines the environmental impacts of material production. The
correction factor due to the recycling of material i is calculated as
( )( )
I ijrec = miunfinished ricont − ri msr I ijp − I ijs with.

The critical parameter is the multi step recycling rate ri msr which is calculated in rows 6 to 77 of
column D according to the following equation (see also Geyer 2007b):

all recycled material

n −1
ricar ∑mi =0 ri all ( ) m
( )
ricar − ricar ⋅ ri all
ni

ri msr
= = =
all generated scrap 1 + ricar ∑ni −1 ri all
m =0
( ) m
1 − ri all + ricar − r ⋅ (r )
i
car
i
all ni

ri msr is the overall recycling rate of material i, given that it is recycled once with the automotive

recycling rate, ricar , and then recycled another (ni − 1) times with the average recycling rate of

material i for all its applications, ri all . The required amounts of unfinished material, miunfinished , are
imported from the Material Flows spreadsheet and displayed in rows 6 to 77 of column C. The
differences in environmental impacts between primary and secondary material production,
I ijp − I ijs , are imported from the Materials spreadsheet and shown in rows 6 to 77 of columns E, F,

and G. The resulting correction factors due to the recycling of the materials, I ijrec , are calculated

in rows 6 to 77 of columns H, I, and J. The aggregate results for the material groups steel, AHSS,
aluminium, composites, and magnesium, together with the overall results for all materials, are
passed on to the Results spreadsheet. To obtain the overall environmental impacts in the vehicle
life cycles due to material production and recycling, the correction factor, I ijrec , is added to the

material production impacts, I ijmat , from the Materials spreadsheet, which results in:

22
 [( ) ]
I ijmat + I ijrec = miunfinished 1 − ricont I ijp + ricont I ijs + mifinished I ijf
+ miunfinished (r − r )(I − I )
i
cont
i
msr p
ij
s
ij

= miunfinished [(1 − r )I + r I ]+ m
i
msr p
ij i
msr s
ij i
finished
I ijf

So, the correction factor, I ijrec , essentially exchanges the secondary material input rates, ri cont ,

with the multi step recycling rates, ri msr , in I ijmat .

3.9 New ED – ES Spreadsheet

The main task of the New ED - ES spreadsheet is to convert the user inputs from the Data Input
spreadsheet, which are power train type, vehicle size, engine adjustment, driving cycle, and the
fraction of driving energy being grid electricity, into the energy demand (in MJ/100km) of the
baseline vehicle and the energy savings (in MJ/(100km·100kg)) due to vehicle mass reduction.
Additional tasks are to a) pick the default masses of the baseline vehicle and its body structure
from lookup tables and report them to the Data Input spreadsheet and b) look up the baseline
battery mass, calculate the battery mass reduction factor, and report both to the Data Input
spreadsheet.

The four user inputs are listed in row 3, while column B reports the eight corresponding output
values by selecting them from the lookup tables in columns D to M. The output values are base-
line energy demand ED b (in MJ/100km) in cells B13 & B14, energy savings per mass savings
ES (in MJ/(100km*100kg)) in cells B25 & B26, baseline vehicle mass VM b (in kg) in cell B42,
body structure mass (in kg) in cell B48, baseline battery mass BM b (in kg) in cell B57, and the
battery mass reduction factor BMRF in cell B68.

The relationship between vehicle and driving characteristics and the resulting baseline energy
demand ED b and energy savings per mass savings ES is derived from model simulations con-
ducted by FKA (FKA 2010-2011). In the case of PHEVs, the lookup tables contain separate val-
b
ues for electric charge sustaining driving, ED f and ES f , and pure charge depleting driving,
b
ED el and ES el . The values that are reported to the Use spreadsheet are adjusted by the user-
b
specified fraction of driving energy being grid electricity λel , i.e. ED bf = (1 − λel ) ED f ,

23
 b
EDelb = λel ⋅ ED el , ES f = (1 − λel ) ES f and ES el = λel ⋅ ES el . The relationship between mass sav-

ings and energy savings, everything else being equal, is assumed to be linear. In other words, for
each set of vehicle and driving characteristics ES is a constant, i.e. independent of the amount of
vehicle mass reduction.

A unique characteristic of BEVs and PHEVs is their all-electric driving range. The mass-reduced
contender vehicles achieve the all-electric driving range of the baseline vehicle with smaller bat-
teries. This down-sizing of the battery is done automatically based on the following assumptions
and calculations: The baseline battery mass (in kg) BM b = BS b BED , where BS b is the baseline
battery size (in kWh) and BED is the energy density of the battery technology (155Wh/kg as-
sumed for Li-ion technology). The value for BED is imported from the Materials spreadsheet.
The vehicle mass VM is the sum of the battery mass BM and the rest of the vehicle, i.e.
VM = BM + Rest . The main assumption is that the required battery size is a linear function of
all-electric range BR , vehicle mass VM , and the frontal area of the vehicle FA , i.e.
BS = const ⋅ FA ⋅ VM ⋅ BR or BS = BC ⋅ VM ⋅ BR with BC := const ⋅ FA being the frontal-area-
adjusted battery constant. The battery constant const has been derived from the FKA simulation
Wh
data as const = 0.0623 . It now follows that
m ⋅ kg ⋅ km
2

BS BC ⋅ VM ⋅ BR
VM = BM + Rest = + Rest = + Rest
BED BED
BC ⋅ VM ⋅ BR BED ⋅ Rest
⇒ VM − = Rest ⇒ VM =
BED BED − BC ⋅ BR
BED ⋅ Rest BC ⋅ BR
⇒ BM = VM − Rest = − Rest = Rest .
BED − BC ⋅ BR BED − BC ⋅ BR
This means that the required mass of the battery can be calculated once the battery range BR ,
the frontal-area-adjusted battery constant BC , the battery energy density BED , and the mass of
the vehicle without the battery, Rest , are known. In cell B68 all battery-related data are consoli-
BC ⋅ BR
dated into the battery mass reduction factor BMRF := , which is passed on to the
BED − BC ⋅ BR
Data Input spreadsheet. There the contender battery masses are calculated according to the equa-
tion derived above, i.e. BM c = Rest c ⋅ BMRF .

24
3.10 Old ED – ES Spreadsheet
The Old ED – ES spreadsheet contains values for the baseline energy demand (in MJ/100km)
and the energy savings per mass savings (in MJ/(100km*100kg)) from older FKA simulations
(FKA 2006, 2007). These simulations are for the same vehicle parameters as the newer ones, but
are based on less efficient power train technologies. The Old ED – ES spreadsheet has the same
structure as the New ED – ES spreadsheet but contains considerably less data, since only four
power train types (ICEV-G, ICEV-D, HEV, FCV) and two driving cycles (Hyzem, NEDC) were
simulated. Baseline vehicle and body structure masses are always picked from New ED – ES.

3.11 Calculation – Prim Al Spreadsheet

The main task of the Calculation – Prim Al spreadsheet is to calculate the cradle-to-gate green-
house gas emissions from the primary production of aluminium (in kg CO2 eq/1000kg). Most of
the used input data is displayed in rows 13 to 20 of columns B to F of the Calculation – Prim Al
spreadsheet. The only two exceptions are the amount of electricity required for the primary
smelting of aluminium through electrolysis (in MWh/1000 kg) and the greenhouse gas intensity
of the electricity used in primary smelting (in kg CO2 eq/MWh). These two parameters are im-
ported from the Materials spreadsheet, where they are located in cells D114 and D115. The re-
sulting cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions from the primary production of aluminium are
calculated in cell G35 and passed on to the Materials spreadsheet, where it can be found in cell
G110. The second task is to calculate the GHG emissions from aluminium rolling, extruding, and
shape casting from the data displayed in rows 13 to 20 of columns G to I and report the results to
the Materials spreadsheet, where they are located in cells G117 to G119. The source of all de-
fault data, including smelting electricity and its greenhouse gas intensity is IAI (2000, 2007) and
Knapp (2010).

25
4 Input Data for Model Version 3
If more than one parameter value is given, the selected default value is highlighted in grey.

4.1 Steel and Aluminium

Table 1: GHG emission data of steel production
BF /BOF slab Cradle-to-slab kgCO2eq/kg 1.870
EAF slab Cradle-to-slab kgCO2eq/kg 0.399
Hot rolled coil (HRC) Slab-to-finished-product kgCO2eq/kg 0.140
Hot dip galvanised (HDG) Slab-to-finished-product kgCO2eq/kg 0.600
HRC vs HDG in automotive (*) % vs % 25% vs 75%
Long and special Slab-to-finished-product kgCO2eq/kg 0.290
Cast iron Slab-to-finished-product kgCO2eq/kg 0.135
Source: WSA (2010)
(Data includes CO2, CH4 and N2O, with GWP100 of 1, 21 and 310 respectively. HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6 covered but no emissions reported)
(*) WorldAutoSteel expert group

Table 2: Energy consumption data of steel production

BF /BOF slab Cradle-to-slab MJ/kg 19.390
EAF slab Cradle-to-slab MJ/kg 6.350
Hot rolled coil (HRC) Slab-to-finished-product MJ/kg 2.250
Hot dip galvanised (HDG) Slab-to-finished-product MJ/kg 8.190
Long and special Slab-to-finished-product MJ/kg 4.320
Cast iron Slab-to-finished-product MJ/kg 2.0
Source: WSA (2010)

Table 3: GHG emission data of aluminium production

Primary ingot Cradle-to-ingot kgCO2eq/kg 10.510
Smelting electricity MWh/1000kg of ingot 15.29
CO2eq intensity of electricity kgCO2eq/MWh 341.75
Secondary ingot Cradle-to-ingot kgCO2eq/kg 0.690
Rolled aluminium Ingot-to-finished-product kgCO2eq/kg 1.247
Extruded aluminium Ingot-to-finished-product kgCO2eq/kg 1.236
Cast aluminium Ingot-to-finished-product kgCO2eq/kg 0.732
Source: IAI (2000, 2007), Knapp (2010)
(Data accounts only for CO2, CF4 and C2F6, with GWP100 of 1, 6,500 and 9,200 respectively)

26
Table 4: Energy consumption data of aluminium production
Primary ingot Cradle-to-ingot MJ/kg 193.702
Secondary ingot Cradle-to-ingot MJ/kg 12.770
Rolled aluminium Ingot-to-finished-product MJ/kg 17.794
Extruded aluminium Ingot-to-finished-product MJ/kg 19.798
Cast aluminium Ingot-to-finished-product MJ/kg 12.232
Source: IAI (2000, 2007), Knapp (2010)

Table 5: Material yields and contents at vehicle manufacturing stage

Yield in vehicle Vehicle’s content of material from
manufacturing γ i secondary production route ricont
Flat carbon steel 0.65 0.05
Long & special steel 0.75 0.85
Cast iron 0.80 1.00
Rolled aluminium 0.6 0
Extruded aluminium 0.8 0
Cast aluminium 0.8 0.85
Source: WorldAutoSteel expert group

Table 6: Prompt and end-of-life recycling rates for automotive scrap

Prompt scrap recycling rate ri prompt End-of-life scrap recycling rate rieol
Steel Aluminium Steel Aluminium
Collection rate 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.97
Shredder rate - - 0.98 0.90
Metal recovery rate 0.98 0.93 (1) 0.95 0.90 (2)
Total recycling rate 0.970 0.921 0.903 0.786
Source: WorldAutoSteel expert group (unless stated otherwise)
(1) EAA (2000) metal yield of remelting 70% one single wrought alloy and 30% two or more
wrought alloys of the same series
(2) EAA (2000) metal yield of refining scrap from separation processes of non-ferrous shredded
materials

Table 7: Primary mass savings

Material replacement coefficient 0.75
– AHSS (ULSAB-AVC) k u
Material replacement coefficient 0.67
– aluminium k a
Source: WorldAutoSteel (www.ulsab.org)
Source: WorldAutoSteel expert group
Note: Alcoa (2005) cite a range of 0.5-0.6, EAA
(1996) mentions 0.6 for Audi A8 BIW

27
4.2 Magnesium
4.2.1 Magnesium: History, Current & Future Applications
Most magnesium metal (77% of world demand) is produced in China (Cherubini et al. 2008),
where 95% of production is through the thermal reduction of Dolomite using the Pidgeon proc-
ess (Ramakrishnan & Koltun 2004). Magnesium is also produced through electrolytic reduction
of seawater (Das 2003) which is 0.13% Mg (Gaines et al. 1996). Magnesium production outside
of China has been decreasing rapidly, with Australia, France and Canada closing all major pro-
duction facilities (Ramakrishnan & Koltun 2004, Cherubini et al. 2008, Das 2008).

The first successful automotive Mg application occurred in 1921 (Blawert et al. 2004). The larg-
est single application of Mg alloy was in the Volkswagen Beetle, which had an Mg alloy crank
case, transmission housing, and engine block (Vasilash 2003, Blawert et al. 2004). After the end
of production of the Beetle, there was a steady decline in automotive use of magnesium until the
early 1990s. Automotive Mg use has been steadily increasing since then at a rate of about 15-
18% per year (Luo 2002, Hu et al. 2003, Das 2003); the average Mg content in North American
2002 model cars was 4 kg (Luo 2002, Das 2003).

Current automotive Mg applications consist mainly of die castings of interior structural elements,
such as instrument panel supports, steering and seat structures (Mordike et al. 2001, Das 2003).
The highest part penetration is in steering wheels: 85% of steering wheels in Europe are made of
Mg alloys (Blawert et al. 2004). Magnesium has a low density relative to strength and stiffness,
and its formability provides the possibility of part consolidation and near-net shape castability
when compared to steel structures (Eliezer et al. 1998, Blawert et al. 2004).

Recently Mg alloys have been formulated that overcome some of the limitations of magnesium
that generally relegated its use to interior applications: its low high-temperature strength and
poor corrosion resistance (Eliezer et al. 1998, Vasilash 2003, Blawert et al. 2004). For example,
these new alloys have allowed BMW to build the Mg intensive NG6 engine, which is 50% Mg,
incorporating an MgAl6Sr2 block jacket (Hydro 2005). Volkswagen has also produced an Mg
alloy engine block (CSIRO 2005) as well as a concept car, with a spaceframe made wholly of

28
cast and wrought Mg products (VW 2002). Daimler-Chrysler has built a concept car with a com-
plete Mg intensive body structure (Logan et al. 2006).

4.2.2 Magnesium: Materials Production

The energy consumption attributable to Mg and Mg alloy production varies greatly with the
source of the information, attributable mainly to assumptions in the source of the metal
(Cherubini et al. 2008) and differences in processes included. An Austrian study put the energy
content at 126 MJ/kg (Hanko et al. 2002), followed by Ford Motor Co.’s LCI database at 150
MJ/kg (Li 2004), while the rest of the data is in the range of 355-394 MJ/kg, relying mainly on
data from Chinese production through the Pidgeon process (Cherubini et al. 20008). The final
production energy also varies with different assumptions about the ratio of primary to secondary
Mg: ORNL assumed a mix of 60% primary and 40% secondary Mg (Dhingra et al. 1999), while
Tharumarajah & Koltun (2007) used a 70/30 mix. Similar to aluminium, secondary Mg has a
much lower energy intensity and GHG impact than primary Mg.

GHG emissions attributable to Mg and Mg alloy production varied as much as values for produc-
tion energy. The range of values falls between 18 and 59 kg CO2 eq/kg Mg (Dhingra et al. 1999,
Hanko et al. 2002, Li 2004, Ashby 2005). Magnesium’s relatively high GHG emissions are due
to the use of Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) as a cover gas during metal production to prevent oxi-
dation on contact with ambient air (EPA 2006). Sulphur Hexafluoride is a very potent and persis-
tent GHG with a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 23,900 and an atmospheric life-
time of 3,200 years (EPA 2006). The EU and other Kyoto Protocol signers will prohibit the use
of SF6 in die casting operations in 2008 (only those using 850 kg SF6/year or more) (EPA 2006).
In the US, members of the SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership have committed to voluntarily
eliminate use of SF6 by 2010 (EPA 2006). Primary Mg production has been shifting from the
west to China, however; where sulphur powder is currently used as melt protection (EPA 2006).
China’s Mg primary production has been rapidly growing since the early ‘90s, and the industry is
transitioning from using sulphur powder to using SF6 for melt protection (EPA 2006). Alterna-
tives to SF6 are being promoted by the EPA (and actively marketed by the manufacturers of new
melt protection technologies). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recom-
mends the default assumption that 0.001 kg SF6 is emitted per kg of Mg cast (including initial
ingot casting) (IPPC 2006). Different studies use different assumptions about the prevalence of

29
SF6 use, as well as leakage rates. The use of SF6 accounts for approximately 22-80% of the CO2
eq. from Mg production (Dhingra et al. 1999, Ramakrishnan & Koltun 2004), depending on the
production technology, methodology, processes considered and system boundaries of the study.

Table 8: Primary Magnesium: Approximate Production Energies and GHG Burden

Source Production Energy Total CO2 eq. SF6 contribution
(MJ/kg) (kg/kg) to CO2 eq. (kg/kg)
Cherubini et al. 2008, China
366 42 assumes no SF6
Pidgeon
Cherubini et al. 2008, World
318.4 36.05 assumes no SF6
Average
Tharumarajah & Koltun 2007 19 not given
(Electrolytic process: Canada)
Evans 2007 (Electrolytic) 174
Debenedetti et al. 2005 218 11.59 not given
(Electrolytic process: EU)
Ashby 2005, for Mg alloys 356 - 394 22.4 - 24.8 not given
Ramakrishnan & Koltun 2004 354.5 42 no SF6
1)
(Pidgeon process: China) 53.8 11.8 (with SF6)
Li 2004 150 18 12
Hanko et al. 2002 126 not given not given
Dhingra et al. 1999 379.3 58.76 41.17
1) In the Version 3 Model, as in most publications, it is assumed that no SF6 is used Chinese
magnesium production.

Table 9: Secondary Magnesium: Approximate Production Energies and GHG Burden

Source Production Energy Total CO2 eq. SF6 contribution
(MJ/kg) (kg/kg) to CO2 eq. (kg/kg)
Tharumarajah & Koltun 2007 3.6 not given
Hakamada et al. 2007 11.4 1.7 not given
Hanko et al. 2002 10.8

4.2.3 Magnesium: Vehicle Manufacturing

The use of Mg alloys in die-casting processes results in prompt scrap production of about 50%
(Gaines et al. 1996, Hanko et al. 2002, Kramer 2002). Wrought products and stampings result in
production of about 25% prompt scrap (Gaines et al. 1996, Kramer 2002).

30
 “In typical magnesium die-casting operations, only around 50% of the metal input
becomes a finished product. The remaining 50% is handled by the foundry or by an
external recycler. Casting return material can contain biscuits, sprues, runners, flash,
overflows, dross, sludge, scrap parts, and uncoated rejects from the finishing proc-
ess.” (Hanko et al. 2002: 53)

Magnesium has a low density relative to its strength and stiffness. Compared to steel, Mg could
theoretically achieve a 38% replacement coefficient while maintaining isorigidity (equal strength
and stiffness) (Luo 2002, Das 2003). This would result in a mass reduction of 62%. The mass
reductions achieved in concept and production, however, have averaged 30-50% (replacement
coefficients of 50-70%) (Das 2003). The Daimler-Chrysler concept car achieved a 57% replace-
ment coefficient in replacement of body structure with an Mg-intensive design (Logan et al.
2006) utilizing Mg die-castings and aluminium sheet.

Table 10 Magnesium Die Casting: Approximate Production Energies and GHG Burden
Source Production Energy Total CO2 eq. SF6 contribution
(MJ/kg) (kg/kg) to CO2 eq. (kg/kg)
Tharumarajah & Koltun 2007 15.6 1) ~21
(Zirmax-MgZr-Engine Block)

Koltun et al. 2005 (AZ91) 12.5 2) .50 + 20.6 if SF6 20.6

1) Sum of processes (except transport & assembly) in Table 1, divided by part mass (26 kg).
2) Sum of processes (except transport & assembly) in Table 1, divided by part mass (3.1 kg).

Table 11: Magnesium Alloy Production: Approximate Production Energies and GHG Burden
Source Production Energy Total CO2 eq. SF6 contribution
(MJ/kg) (kg/kg) to CO2 eq. (kg/kg)
Tharumarajah & Koltun 2007 not given 37.3 3) not given
(Zirmax-MgZr-Engine Block)

Ramakrishnan & Koltun 2004 not given 66.1 22.8

(AZ91D Magnesium Alloy)

3) Emissions from Table 2 (conventional Mg alloy making), divided by Mg mass (32.6 kg).

Table 12: Magnesium Sheet: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden
Source Production Energy (MJ/kg) Total CO2 eq. (kg/kg)
Hakamada et al. 2007 22 0.8

31
Table 13: Forming Yields for Magnesium
Source Die Casting Alloy Pro- Wrought Rolling
duction Products
Hakamada et al. 2007 96%
Tharumarajah & Koltun 2007 82% 96%
Koltun et al. 2005 55%
Hanko et al. 2002 50%
Kramer 2002 50% 75%
Gaines et al. 1996 50% 75%

Table 14: Magnesium Replacement Coefficients (RC) Compared to Conventional steel

Source Examples of Achieved RC Theoretical RC
Das 2003 50-70% 38%*
Li 2004 55-60% 33%
Luo 2002 67% 38%*
*while maintaining isorigidity (equal bending stiffness and strength)

4.2.4 Magnesium: Vehicle Disposal

“Due to the high content of impurities causing intensified corrosion, the wider use of
recycled magnesium alloy scrap as structural material is impossible.” (Hanko et al.
2002: 54)
The recycling rate of post-consumer automotive Mg is estimated to be around 35% (Kramer
2002). Currently, the low Mg content is recycled along with aluminium and copper in the non-
ferrous stream, where it is retained as an alloying element (Gaines et al. 1996, Kramer 2002). It
is possible to utilize sink/float operation or manual separation methods to isolate the Mg from the
rest of the non-ferrous metals, but currently the Mg content is too low to make this financially
viable (Gaines et al. 1996). As cars with higher Mg content enter the recycling stream, specific
recycling of Mg is likely to increase (as occurred with the VW Beetle) (Gaines et al. 1996,
Hanko et al. 2002). Increasing Mg applications, as well as the increasing variety of alloying ele-
ments, are likely to increase the difficulty of Mg recycling in the future (Hanko et al. 2002).

Table 15: End-of-Life Recycling of Automotive Magnesium

Source Material Current end-of-life recycling rate
Kramer 2002 Magnesium ~35%
Note: Currently, automotive end-of-life magnesium is recycled together with the other non-
ferrous metals as an alloying element

32
4.3 Composites
4.3.1 Composites: History, Current & Future Applications
Composites are commonly classified both by the type of fibre and by the method or process used
in production, resulting in a confusing array of overlapping definitions. The most common com-
posites currently in use (by fibre type) are glass fibre reinforced plastic (fibreglass, or GFRP) and
carbon fibre reinforced plastic (carbon fiber, or CFRP) (Das 2001, Jacob 2004). The most com-
mon method for automotive use involves a prepared composite product known as sheet moulding
composite or compound (SMC); a sheet product provided in ready-to-use rolls for compression
moulding. Other common processes used with composites include bulk moulding compound
(BMC) and hand layup techniques, such as those traditionally used in boat and surfboard manu-
facturing. Currently the most common uses of composites are in semi-structural applications,
such as SMC cargo boxes, tailgates and closures (Das 2001, Jacob 2004). Composites are heav-
ily used in racing, where hand layup techniques are utilized in conjunction with high pressure,
high temperature autoclaving to produce extremely strong and lightweight products. Structural
composites have also found their way into production sports cars in niche applications, such as
for the Porsche Carrera GT, Dodge Viper, and Chevrolet Corvette. The Carrera GT utilized a full
CFRP monocoque, while the 2002 Dodge Viper used about 9 kilograms of a Carbon Fibre - Vi-
nyl Ester SMC.

Traditionally, SMC, GFRP and CFRP denoted a composite of fibers embedded in a thermoset
matrix, but composite technology is rapidly changing, and thermoplastic matrices for composites
are becoming more common. The new fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites have different
acronyms depending on the source…LFT or LFRT for long – fiber reinforced thermoplastic, for
example. It remains to be seen whether any of the thermoplastic composites will be used for truly
structural applications (Jacob 2004).

Innovation in composite technology and manufacturing is actually outpacing theoretical under-

standing. Alan Taub of GM speaks of anomalous strengthening, whereby the resultant strength
of the composite is greater than is expected from calculations (Taub 2006). GM has developed
and put into production thermoplastic olefin nanocomposites which are not fully understood in
terms of how or why they work (Taub 2006).

33
Both the US and the EU have invested in programs to produce composite-intensive vehicles. In
the US, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Technical Partnership of the Vehicle Technology Program
have as one of their short term goals: “material and manufacturing technologies for high-volume
production vehicles that enable or support the simultaneous attainment of: 50% reduction in
weight of vehicle structure and subsystems, affordability, and increased use of recycla-
ble/renewable materials” (DOE 2009). In Europe the TECABS (technologies for carbon fiber
reinforced modular automotive body structures) program, right, attempted to develop low cost
carbon composite automotive structures that would reduce the weight of a body in white 50%
(TECABS 2005).

4.3.2 Composites: Materials Production

The energy consumption attributable to composite production varies greatly with the type of
composite, materials involved, and the source of the information. Reinforced plastics can be
made with different thermoset or thermoplastic polymers, with different types of fibre or particle
reinforcement, and with varying ratios of reinforcement to polymer matrix, depending on the de-
sired characteristics of the resulting composite. This results in an almost infinite number of com-
posites available to the engineer in the automotive industry. It also results in variable production
energy and GHG emissions attributable to different composites that may be referred to by the
same general title, such as SMC or FRP.

Variations in data can be understood by looking at the large range of values for the component
materials involved in composite production. In the case of polymer matrices (Table 21), life cy-
cle data is available from both the United States and Europe. In the US, values are available for
some plastics in the US LCI database, with most of the data based on a report prepared by Frank-
lin Associates for the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (see Franklin 2007).
In Europe, the Association of Plastics Manufacturers has produced and made available extensive
life-cycle assessments of many polymers and their feedstocks, prepared by Dr. Ian Boustead (see
Boustead in references).

34
Table 16: Embodied Energy of Polymer Matrices
GHG Emissions
Embodied Energy
100 year GWP
(MJ/kg)
(kg/kg)
Boustead Franklin Boustead Franklin
Material
Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene
Copolymer (ABS) 95.34 93.3 3.8 3.149
High Density Polyethylene
76.71 68.9 1.9 1.478
(HDPE)
Liquefied Epoxy Resin 137.09 8.1
Nylon 66 138.62 7.9
Polyester (Polyethylene
80.75 69.1 3.3 2.538
Terephthalate, PET)
Polypropylene (PP) 73.37 63.4 2.0 1.343

In the case of the fibre reinforcement, a range of values can be found depending on the type,
processing, length and orientation of the fibres. As noted above, the two most common reinforc-
ing fibres in automotive applications are glass and carbon fibres. Glass fibre production is a rela-
tively straightforward process, and energy values from different sources are very similar, in the
range of 40-55 MJ/kg (Table 22). Carbon fibre production, on the other hand, is an energy inten-
sive process with energy intensive precursor materials, which is explained well by de Vegt &
Haije (1997) in their environmental analysis of rotor blade materials:

“Carbon fibres are produced from fibre precursors of which the most important is
polyacrylonitrile (PAN). PAN is a polymerisation product of acrylonitrile. Acryloni-
trile is produced by the Sohio process. For one kg acrylonitrile 0.4 kg ammonia and 1
kg propylene are needed [Biekart et al., 1997]. Carbon fibre production involves
heating PAN fibres to about 220°C for oxidation and after that heating to above
1000°C for carbonization. The energy needed for producing carbon fibre is calcu-
lated based on a specific heat of 1.26 kJ/kgK for PAN, and a temperature rise of
1000°C, thence the energy consumption amounting to 1.26 MJ/kg. The overall proc-
esses result in 50-55% of the original PAN precursor mass converted to carbon fibres
[Lee et al. 1991] Therefore the energy in the form of heat required for the carboniza-
tion process is about 2.52 MJ/kg.” (de Vegt & Haije 1997)

Every kilogram of carbon fibre therefore requires the input of almost 2 kg acrylonitrile. Using
Boustead’s (2005a) data for the energy consumption of acrylonitrile production, (85.2 MJ/kg and
3.2 kg CO2 eq/kg), the theoretical minimum for carbon fibre production is 157.5 MJ/kg and 5.8
kg CO2 eq/kg. Utilizing a value of 92.4 MJ/kg for acrylonitrile production, Sarkar & Banerjee

35
(2005) calculated the energy required for carbon fibre production at 193.18 MJ/kg. Suzuki & Ta-
kahashi (2005) put the energy requirement of carbon fibre production at 286 MJ/kg.

Table 17: Fibre Reinforcement: Approximate Production Energies and GHG Burden
Production Energy
Fibre Type Source Total CO2 eq. (kg/kg)
(MJ/kg)
Glass Fibre
Corbiere-Nicollier in Joshi et al.2004 48.33 2.04 (CO2 only)
Diener & Siehler 1999 54.7 not given
Dhingra et al. 1999 40.4 2.22 (CO2 only)
Carbon Fibre
Sarkar & Banerjee 2005 193.18 not given
Suzuki & Takahashi 2005 286 not given

With the large variation in values for different matrices as well as different reinforcing fibres, it
is no surprise that there is a large range of values for composite production. Not only do the con-
stituent values vary by type (as well as study) but the manufacture of the composite itself is vari-
able depending on the production process. Suzuki & Takahashi (2005) show values of 3.5 MJ/kg
for SMC production up to 19.2 MJ/kg for hand laid carbon fibre, with most production methods
falling between 10 and 15 MJ/kg, while Gutowski et al. (2006) calculate energy requirements of
20 MJ/kg for injection moulding.

Table 18: Composites: Production Energy by Method

Energy Intensity
Production Method
(MJ/kg)
Injection Moulding (Gutowski et al. 2006) 20
Hand lay up (Suzuki et al.2005) 19.2
Spray up (Suzuki & Takahashi 2005) 14.9
Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM) (Suzuki & Takahashi 2005) 12.8
Vacuum Assisted Resin Infusion (VARI) (Suzuki & Takahashi 10.2
Cold press (Suzuki & Takahashi 2005) 11.8
Preform matched die (Suzuki & Takahashi 2005) 10.1
Sheet Moulding Compound (SMC) (Suzuki & Takahashi 2005) 3.5

36
The large variation in values continues for the total energy and GWP attributed to composite
production from cradle to gate (Table 24). Data used by the US government researchers put the
energy content of GFRP at 79.66 MJ/kg, while Ashby published data in the range of 107-118
MJ/kg (Dhingra et al. 1999, Ashby 2005). For CFRP, the values ranged from 120 for the ORNL
study to Ashby’s 259-286 MJ/kg, though a trend emerges which follows the data provided in ta-
bles 21 and 22, namely that energy intensity increases with carbon fibre fraction (Dhingra et al.
2001, Ashby 2005, Suzuki & Takahashi 2005).

Table 19: Composites: Approximate Production Energies and GHG Burden

Production Energy Total CO2 eq.
Fibre Type Source
(MJ/kg) (kg/kg)
Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic
Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (Ashby 2005) 107-118 7.5-8.3
Nylon 6.6 + 30% Glass (Boustead 2005f) 114.33 7.0
Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (Hammond & Jones
100 8.05
2008)
Polypropylene + 42% Glass Fibre (Corbiere-Nicollier
90.27
et al. 2001)
Polypropylene + 30% Glass Fibre (Corbiere-Nicollier
96.4
et al. 2001 in Pervaiz & Sain 2003)

Polyester + 15% Glass Fibre (Dhingra et al.1999) 79.66 2.5 (CO2 only)

Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic

Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (Ashby 2005) 259-286 21-23
Epoxy Resin + 30% Carbon Fibre (Dhingra et al. 119.8 9.5
2001)
Polypropylene + 46% Carbon Fibre (Suzuki & 155 not given
Takahashi 2005)
Epoxy + 70% Carbon Fibre (Suzuki & Takahashi 234 not given
2005)
Differences in the Dhingra et al. data may be due to discrepancies in the definition of system
boundaries, which in many cases are not explicitly defined.

GHG emissions data for composites production are inextricably linked to energy content, and
therefore varied greatly from study to study. Data used by the US government researchers for
GFRP is for CO2 only, at the low end with 2.5 kg CO2 eq/kg, while most studies provided values

37
in the range of 7.0-8.3 kg CO2 eq/kg (Dhingra et al. 1999, Boustead 2005f, Ashby 2005). For
CFRP, the values ranged from ORNL’s 9.5 to Ashby’s 21-23 kg CO2 eq/kg (Dhingra et al. 2001,
Ashby 2005).

4.3.3 Composites: Vehicle Manufacturing

Data for scrap production in composite manufacturing is generally unavailable, but prompt scrap
production (of fibres only) for CFRP was stated by Fibreforge Vice President David Dwight to
be around 30% (Whitfield 2004). Turner et al. (2008) put the scrap rate of semipreg automotive
panels (carbon fibre panels that arrive in partially impregnated kit form, and are then vacuum
processed) at 40%.

Compared with steel, composites generally have a low weight relative to their strength and stiff-
ness. In structural applications, SMC provided a replacement coefficient compared with steel of
78% (a mass reduction averaging about 22%) (Clark 1998). Using GFRP a replacement coeffi-
cient of 66-69% was achieved or expected (Clark 1998, Dhingra et al. 2001). With CFRP, a re-
placement coefficient of 40-50% was attained or expected (Clark 1998, Dhingra et al. 2001, TE-
CABS 2004). The Automotive Lightweighting Materials program expects “a minimum of 60%
weight savings over steel” (Wall et al. 2006: 235)

Table 20: Composites: Replacement Coefficients Compared to Conventional steel

Fibre Type Source Closures/BIW
SMC
Clark 1998 66%
GFRP
Clark 1998 66%
Dhingra et al. 2001 69%
CFRP
Clark 1998 47%
Dhingra et al. 2001 40%
Suzuki 2003 50%
TECABS 2004 50%

38
4.3.4 Composites: Vehicle Disposal
About 95% of end-of-life vehicles enter the automotive recycling infrastructure, which includes
dismantlers (parts that are removed and resold whole, such as seats, bumpers, and lighting as-
semblies), shredders and non-ferrous operators (Kumar & Sutherland 2008). Once in the recy-
cling infrastructure, about 85% (by weight) is recycled (Kumar & Sutherland 2008). The remain-
ing 15% becomes automotive shredder residue (ASR) consisting mainly of contaminated plastics
and polymer materials (Sutherland et al. 2004). At the present time, in the US, all ASR is land-
filled (see Table 26).

Table 21: End-of-Life Recycling of Automotive Fibre Reinforced Plastics

Sources Composite Types Current end-of-life
recycling rate
Mark et al. 1998, Jenseit et al. 2003, Kanari et al. BMC, SMC, ~0%*
2003, Sutherland et al. 2004, DeRosa et al. 2005, GFRP, CFRP
Kumar & Sutherland 2008
* ASR, all of which is currently landfilled in the US.

Increasing the fraction of polymer and composite content, with reduced metal content, may chal-
lenge the current vehicle-recycling infrastructure, jeopardizing the economic viability of recov-
ery efforts (Sutherland et al. 2004). Current research being done in the US and abroad is focusing
on alternatives to landfilling, such as incineration, energy recovery, and separation or mechanical
disassembly for part reuse or recycling of compatible plastic types (Mark et al. 1998, Jenseit et
al. 2003). Research into integration of chopped fibre reinforced plastics back into automotive
products shows promise, but is far from implementation (DeRosa et al. 2005).

39
4.4 Baseline Vehicle Mass, Body Structure Mass, and Battery Data
Table 22: Mass of baseline vehicle VM b and its body structure (in kg)
ICEV-G ICEV-D HEV FCV Body Structure
Compact 1260 1350 1335 1335 360
Midsize 1640 1740 1752 1752 400
SUV 2195 2320 2345 2345 540
PHEV20 PHEV40 BEV Body Structure
FSV A-Class 1107 1268 1097 290
FSV C-Class 1349 1512 1334 360
Source: FKA (2010-2011)
Table 23: Baseline battery size BS b (in KWh) and frontal area of vehicle class (in m2)
PHEV20 PHEV40 BEV Frontal area (in m2)
FSV A-Class 4.6 10.3 31.4 2.03
FSV C-Class 5.6 11.9 38.7 2.26
Source: FKA (2010-2011)

4.5 Energy Demand, and Energy Savings per Mass Savings

Table 24: New fuel energy demand ED bf of baseline vehicles (in MJ/100km)

ICEV-G ICEV-D HEV FCV

Hyzem: Compact 192.92 166.37 169.87 104.31
Hyzem: Midsize 243.14 207.94 210.14 103.64
Hyzem: SUV 349.52 309.60 323.30 150.67
NEDC: Compact 177.13 169.64 122.33 79.25
NEDC: Midsize 278.73 245.65 160.93 88.94
NEDC: SUV 375.70 311.02 251.35 120.66
SAE J1711: Compact 160.11 142.99 121.20 71.26
SAE J1711: Midsize 227.31 199.30 163.39 79.45
SAE J1711: SUV 318.80 262.62 247.92 109.27

Table 25: New fuel energy and electricity demand of baseline vehicles (in MJ/100km)
Fuel energy demand ED bf Electricity demand EDelb
PHEV20 PHEV40 PHEV20 PHEV40 BEV
Hyzem: FSV A 141.30 149.20 46.38 48.57 45.20
Hyzem: FSV C 170.57 184.09 54.48 57.77 53.35
NEDC: FSV A 107.15 114.32 33.28 35.41 31.60
NEDC: FSV C 128.44 139.31 39.67 42.12 37.96
SAE J1711: FSV A 106.56 115.62 33.05 35.46 30.96
SAE J1711: FSV C 129.38 139.16 39.44 41.82 37.23

40
Table 26: New energy savings per mass savings ES f (in MJ /100km·100kg)

without engine resizing with engine resizing *)

ICEV-G ICEV-D HEV FCV ICEV-G ICEV-D HEV FCV
Hyzem: Compact 3.98 3.67 3.45 3.35 8.16 6.44 5.73 1.74
Hyzem: Midsize 4.06 3.47 4.09 2.69 9.82 7.92 6.57 2.70
Hyzem: SUV 4.16 3.78 2.66 2.64 8.61 7.35 5.52 2.62
NEDC: Compact 3.26 4.54 2.57 2.63 8.99 8.52 4.75 2.61
NEDC: Midsize 2.88 3.76 3.17 2.14 13.52 11.04 5.23 2.91
NEDC: SUV 4.18 5.16 2.65 2.07 12.04 9.40 5.44 2.91
SAE J1711: C 3.59 3.41 2.99 2.47 8.03 6.42 5.00 2.61
SAE J1711: M 2.98 2.74 3.33 1.95 10.37 8.58 6.32 2.66
SAE J1711: SUV 3.41 3.41 2.93 1.91 9.33 7.26 6.41 2.69

Table 27: New energy savings per mass savings (in MJ /100km·100kg) without engine resizing
Fuel energy savings ES f Electricity savings ES el
PHEV20 PHEV40 PHEV20 PHEV40 BEV
Hyzem: FSV A 4.24 3.85 1.39 1.42 1.37
Hyzem: FSV C 4.13 3.92 1.47 1.45 1.46
NEDC: FSV A 2.91 4.54 1.22 1.29 1.24
NEDC: FSV C 3.29 4.33 1.29 1.25 1.29
SAE J1711: FSV A 3.33 4.38 1.35 1.52 1.38
SAE J1711: FSV C 4.06 4.23 1.37 1.33 1.51

Table 28: New energy savings per mass savings (in MJ /100km·100kg) with engine resizing *)
Fuel energy savings ES f Electricity savings ES el
PHEV20 PHEV40 PHEV20 PHEV40 BEV
Hyzem: FSV A 4.78 4.41 1.59 1.56 1.61
Hyzem: FSV C 5.36 6.17 1.64 1.70 1.58
NEDC: FSV A 3.98 4.88 1.39 1.39 1.29
NEDC: FSV C 4.03 5.87 1.37 1.38 1.30
SAE J1711: FSV A 3.73 4.85 1.46 1.57 1.41
SAE J1711: FSV C 4.56 5.36 1.46 1.52 1.49

Table 29: Old energy demand ED bf of baseline vehicles (in MJ NCV fuel energy/100km)

ICEV-G ICEV-G ICEV-D ICEV-D HEV HEV FCV FCV

(NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem)
Compact 199.74 203.85 183.36 176.16 144.08 195.08 86.38 112.20
Midsize 307.99 257.16 239.06 194.44 198.58 233.64 97.54 112.84
SUV 436.48 369.30 309.19 290.06 283.69 348.08 132.69 162.24

41
Table 30: Old energy savings ES f (in MJ /100km·100kg) without engine resizing

ICEV-G ICEV-G ICEV-D ICEV-D HEV HEV FCV FCV

(NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem)
Compact 4.14 4.78 4.75 4.44 4.14 4.78 3.42 4.09
Midsize 3.51 5.10 4.18 4.29 7.01 5.74 2.76 3.25
SUV 4.62 5.10 3.91 4.51 3.51 5.10 2.68 3.19

Table 31: Old energy savings ES f (in MJ /100km·100kg) with engine resizing *)

ICEV-G ICEV-G ICEV-D ICEV-D HEV HEV FCV FCV

(NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem) (NEDC) (Hyzem)
Compact 10.52 8.93 8.55 6.36 6.38 7.33 3.16 2.51
Midsize 15.30 10.52 10.85 7.38 8.93 7.33 3.55 3.18
SUV 14.98 9.56 9.46 7.00 6.38 8.29 3.37 3.19
)
* Engine power is reduced to yield the same 0-100km/h acceleration as the baseline vehicle

4.6 Fuel Production and Use

Table 32: Gasoline: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden

Source WTT Energy (MJ/MJ) Total CO2 eq. (g/MJ)
Schäfer et al. 2006 0.21 18
Hekkert et al. 2005 0.22 (0.37, 0.22, 0.11) 15 (26, 15, 8)
Grube et al. 2004 0.24 17.7
Maclean & Lave 2003 (review) 0.15 - 0.25 (0.20) 15 - 25
Hekkert gives a range: (Worst, Probable, Best)

Table 33: Diesel: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden

Source WTT Energy (MJ/MJ) Total CO2 eq. (g/MJ)
Schäfer et al. 2006 0.14 12.1
Hekkert et al. 2005 0.14 (0.25, 0.14, 0.06) 9 (18, 9, 4)
Grube et al. 2004 0.17 12.3
Maclean & Lave 2003 (review) 0.11 - 0.20 (0.14) 7 - 18
Hekkert gives a range: (Worst, Probable, Best)

42
Table 34: U.S. Average Corn Ethanol: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden
Source Total Energy Fossil Energy Total CO2 eq.
(MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) (g/MJ)
Farrell et al. 2006a, 2006b 0.77 0.77 77
Hill et al. 2006a, 2006b 0.797 84.88
Patzek 2006 125
Hammerschlag 2006 (review) citing:
Marland & Turhollow 1991 0.78
Lorenz & Morris 1995 0.61
Grabowski 2002 0.73
Shapouri et al. 2002 0.73
Pimentel & Patzek 2005 1.19
Kim & Dale 2005 0.62
Wang 2005 0.74 0.74 ~
Kim & Dale 2005 (no tillage) 0.60 to 0.80 9.7 to 34.4
Patzek 2004* 0.77 0.77
Maclean & Lave 2003 (review) 0.5 to 1.22 0.5 to 0.67 -19 to +90
*16.19 MJ/L. EtOH @ 21.1 MJ/L

Table 35: Brazilian Sugar Cane Ethanol: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden
Source Total Energy Fossil Energy Total CO2 eq.
(MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) (g/MJ)
De Carvalho Macedo et al. 2004 0.12 not given 19

Table 36: U.S. Average Cellulosic Ethanol: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden
Source Total Energy Fossil Energy Total CO2 eq.
(MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) (g/MJ)
Farrell et al. 2006a, 2006b 0.08 to 0.12 11
Hammerschlag 2006 (review) citing:
Tyson et al. 1993 0.15, 0.19
Lynd & Wang 2004 0.22, 0.25
Sheehan et al. 2004 0.23, 0.25
Pimentel & Patzek 2005 1.44
Wang 2005 ~1.25 ~0.12 ~
Maclean & Lave 2003 0.79 to 2.85 0.04 to 0.20 -85 to +14

Table 37: US Soybean Biodiesel: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden
Source Total Energy Fossil Energy Total CO2 eq.
(MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) (g/MJ)
Hill et al. 2006a, 2006b 0.273 0.273 49

43
Table 38: EU Rapeseed Biodiesel: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden
Source WTT Energy Fossil Energy Total CO2 eq.
(MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) (g/MJ)
Frondel & Peters 2007 0.34 to 0.67 0.34 to 0.67 20 to 54

Table 39: Compressed Hydrogen from Natural Gas (remote): Approximate WTT Energies and
GHG Burden
Source WTT Energy (MJ/MJ) Total CO2 eq. (g/MJ)
Hekkert et al. 2005 (350 bar) 0.79 (1.08, 0.79, 0.52) 107 (126, 107, 91)
Grube et al. 2004 (430 bar) 0.50 88.4
Maclean & Lave 2003 (review) ~0.75 ~105
Hekkert gives a range: (Worst, Probable, Best)

Table 40: Compressed Hydrogen from Natural Gas (on-site): Approximate WTT Energies and
GHG Burden
Source WTT Energy (MJ/MJ) Total CO2 eq. (g/MJ)
Hekkert et al. 2005 (350 bar) 0.89 (1.32, 0.89, 0.59) 113 (141, 113, 94)
Grube et al. 2004 (430 bar) 0.64 91.1
Heywood et al. 2003 (355 bar) 0.77 132
Maclean & Lave 2003 (review) ~0.75 ~105
Hekkert gives a range: (Worst, Probable, Best)

Table 41: Combustion GHG Emissions (net of CO2 uptake during biomass growth gCO2eq /MJ)
Source Gasoline Diesel Ethanol Biodiesel Hydrogen
Heywood et al. 2003 71.9 76.3 0 0 0

Table 42: Electricity production: Approximate WTT Energies and GHG Burden
WTT Energy Fossil Energy GHG Emissions
(MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) (gCO2eq/MJ)
USA 2.64 2.11 208.50
Europe 2.26 1.51 144.53
China 2.86 2.80 270.28
Japan 2.40 1.74 165.75
India 2.85 2.78 256.39
Coal 3.26 3.26 333.69
USA Green Mix 1.05 0.00 0.00
Aluminium electrolysis - - 94.93
Source: EDAG (2009) Future Steel Vehicle – Phase I, Table 8.2, p.307 (based on GREET 1.8b)
IAI (2007) for aluminium electrolysis (global average)

44
4.7 Additional data
Table 43: Material composition changes due to a lightweight body-in-white design
Composition Composition of replacing material Composition of
of replaced AHSS (ULSAB- Aluminium secondary savings
material π i AVC) ρ iu ρ ia σi
Flat carbon steel 90% 90% - 30%
Long & special steel 10% 10% - 20%
Cast iron 0% 0% - 0%
Rolled aluminium - - 70% 10%
Extruded aluminium - - 30% 10%
Cast aluminium - - 0% 30%
Source: WorldAutoSteel expert group

Table 44: Secondary mass savings

Secondary mass savings coefficient s 0.30 Source: WorldAutoSteel expert group

Table 45: Lifetime vehicle mileage (in km) TM

ICEV-G, ICEV-D, HEV, FCV 200,000 Source: WorldAutoSteel expert group
BEV, PHEV20, PHEV40 150,000 Source: WorldAutoSteel expert group

Table 46: Energy Mix: Fuels used in material production

Source Coal Oil Natural Gas Nonfossil

Stodolsky et al. 1995
Steel 0.72 0.03 0.23 0.02
Cast Iron 1.00
Wrought Aluminum 0.50 0.08 0.27 0.16
Wrought Aluminum (2ndary) ~1.00
Cast Aluminum 1.00
Plastics 0.18 0.20 0.60 0.02

Table 47: Energy Mix: Fuels used in automobile production

Source Coal Oil Natural Gas Nonfossil

Stodolsky et al. 1995
Auto Assembly 0.69 0.04 0.04 0.23
Auto Shredding 0.69 0.04 0.04 0.23

45
References
Alcoa (2005) Alcoa Climate Change Direction and Accomplishments, 7 December 2005,
UNFCCC, COP11, Montreal, Canada

Ashby MF (2005) Materials Selection in Mechanical Design 3rd Edition Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford

Boustead I (2005a) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-

StyreneCopolymer (ABS)” A report by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calcu-
lated March 2005. Retrieved 19 December 2008 from:
http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/abs.zip

Boustead I (2005b) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Acrylonitrile” A report by I.

Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calculated March 2005. Retrieved 19 December
2008 from: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/an.zip

Boustead I (2005c) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: High Density Polyethylene
(HDPE)” A report by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calculated March 2005.
Retrieved 19 December 2008 from: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/hdpe.zip

Boustead I (2005d) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Liquid Epoxy Resins” A
report by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calculated March 2005. Retrieved 19
December 2008 from: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/ler.zip

Boustead I (2005e) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Polyamide 6.6 (Nylon 66)”
A report by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calculated March 2005. Retrieved
19 December 2008 from: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/n66.zip

Boustead I (2005f) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Glass Filled Polyamide 66”
A report by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calculated March 2005. Retrieved
19 December 2008 from: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/n66g.zip

Boustead I (2005g) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Polyethylene Terephthalate

(PET) (Amorphous Grade)” A report by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calcu-
lated March 2005. Retrieved 19 December 2008 from:
http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/peta.zip

46
Boustead I (2005h) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Polypropylene (PP)” A re-
port by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calculated March 2005. Retrieved 19
December 2008 from: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/pp.zip

Boustead I (2005i) “Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Polypropylene Injection

Moulding” A report by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope. Data last calculated March 2005.
Retrieved 19 December 2008 from: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/download/ppi.zip

Blawert C, Hort N, & Kainer KU (2004) “Automotive applications of magnesium and its alloys”
Trans. Indian Inst. Met. vol. 57 no. 4 pp. 397-408

Cherubini F, Raugeu M, Ulgiati S (2008) “LCA of magnesium production: Technological over-

view and worldwide estimation of environmental burdens. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, vol. 52 pp. 1093-1100

Clark JP (1998) “Future of automotive body materials: steel, aluminum & polymer composites”
Hoogovens Technology Day, October 1998 MIT

Corbière-Nicollier T, Gfeller Laban B, Lundquist L, Leterrier Y Månson J AE & Jolliet O (2001)

“Life cycle assessment of biofibres replacing glass fibres as reinforcement in plastics”
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, vol. 33
Das S (2001) The cost of automotive polymer composites: A review and assessment of DOE’s
lightweight materials composites research, Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory, ORNL/TM-2000/283

Das S (2003) “Magnesium for automotive applications: Primary production cost assessment”
JOM, vol. 55 no. 11 pp. 22-26

Das S (2008) “Primary Magnesium Production Costs for Automotive Applications” JOM, vol.
60 no. 11 pp. 63-69

De Carvalho Macedo I, Leal MRLV, Da Silva JEAR (2004) Assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions in the production and use of fuel ethanol in Brazil. Government of the State of
São Paulo.

47
Debenedetti B, Angelini E, Grassini S, Marino M, Fracassi F, Palumbo F (2005) “Environmental
impact and corrosion behavior assessment of magnesium castings” Materials Science Fo-
rum vols. 488-489 pp. 797-800
DeRosa R, Mayes JS, & Telfeyan E (2005) “Current state of recycling sheet moulding com-
pounds and related materials” Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials vol. 18, pp.
219-240

Dhingra R, Overly JG, & Davis GA (1999) Life-Cycle environmental evaluation of aluminum
and composite intensive vehicles, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Retrieved 20 July
2006 from: http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/clean/pdfs/PNGV_Report1.pdf

Dhingra R, Overly JG, & Davis GA (2001) Environmental evaluation of materials in new gen-
eration vehicles, Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Retrieved 21 July 2006 from: http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/clean/pdfs/EE-M-
NGVs.pdf

Diener J & Siehler U (1999) “Okologischer Vergleich von NMT- und GMT-Bauteilen” Die
Angewandte Makromolekulare Chemie vol. 272 no. 1–4

DOE (2009) “FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program: Lightweight materials for cars
and trucks” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Re-
trieved 2 July 2009 from:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/freedomcar/fc_goals.ht
ml

EAA (1996) Aluminium in the Automotive Industry, European Aluminium Association, Brus-
sels, Belgium

EAA (2000) Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium Industry, European
Aluminium Association, Brussels, Belgium

Eliezer D, Aghion E, & Froes FH (1998) “Magnesium science, technology and applications” Ad-
vanced Performance Materials vol. 5 pp. 201-212

EPA (2006) Alternatives to SF6 for magnesium melt protection, US Environmental Protection
Agency. Retrieved 21 June 2006 from: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/magnesium-
sf6/pdf/magbrochure_english.pdf

48
EPA (2006) “Magnesium Production and Processing” Inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
and sinks: 1990-2004, US Environmental Protection Agency

Evans JW (2007) “The Evolution of Technology for Light Metals over the Last 50 Years: Al,
Mg, and Li” JOM, February pp. 30-38

Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006a) “Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals” Science vol. 311 pp. 506-508

Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006b) “Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals: Supporting online material” Retrieved 24
August 2007 from: www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5760/506/DC1

FKA (2006) Determination of Weight Elasticity of Fuel Economy for Conventional ICE Vehi-
cles, Hybrid Vehicles and Fuel Cell Vehicles, Report 55510, Forschungsgesellschaft
Kraftfahrwesen (FKA), Aachen, Germany

FKA (2007) Weight Elasticity Study, Presentation 6wo0028, 11 April 2007,

Forschungsgesellschaft Kraftfahrwesen (FKA), Aachen, Germany

Franklin (2007) “Revised final report: Cradle to gate life cycle inventory of nine plastic resins
and two polyurethane precursors” Franklin Associates, a division of Eastern Research
Group, Inc. Prairie Village, Kansas. December 2007. Retrieved 18 December 2008 from:
www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_pfpg.asp?CID=1439&DID=5336

Frondel M, & Peters J (2007) “Biodiesel: A new Oildorado?” Energy Policy vol. 35 pp. 1675-
1684

Gaines L, Cuenca R, Stodolsky F, & Wu S (1996) Potential applications of wrought magnesium

alloys for passenger vehicles, Argonne National Laboratory presented at ATD-CCM, De-
troit, MI, 24-28 October 1995

Geyer R (2007a) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessments of Automotive Materials:
The Example of Mild Steel, Advanced High Strength Steel, and Aluminium in Body in
White Applications, Project Report, Bren School on Environmental Science and Man-
agement, UCSB, CA

49
Geyer R (2007b) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessments of Automotive Materials:
The Example of Mild Steel, Advanced High Strength Steel, and Aluminium in Body in
White Applications, Methodology Report, Bren School on Environmental Science and
Management, UCSB, CA

Geyer R (2008) Parametric Assessment of Climate Change Impacts of Automotive Material Sub-
stitution, Environmental Science and Technology, 42(18) 6973-6979

Grube T, Hohlein B, & Menzer R (2004) “Assessment of fuel cell based passenger cars” Fuel
Cells vol. 4 no. 3 pp. 231-235

Gutowski T, Dahmus J & Thiriez A (2006) “Electrical energy requirements for manufacturing
processes” 13th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, Leuven, 31 May
– 2 June 2006

Hakamada M, Furuta T, Chino Y, Chen Y, Kusuda H & Mabuchi M (2007) “Life cycle inven-
tory study on magnesium alloy substitution in vehicles” Energy, 32 1352–1360
Hammerschlag (2006) “Ethanol’s Energy Return on Investment: A Survey of the Literature
1990-Present” Environmental Science and Technology, 40 1744-1750

Hammond GP & Jones CI (2008) “Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials” Proc.
Instn. Civil. Engrs: Energy, in press

Hanko G, Antrekowitsch H, & Ebner P (2002) ”Recycling automotive magnesium scrap” JOM
vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 51-54

Hekkert MP, Hendriks FHJF, Faaij APC & Neelis ML (2005) “Natural gas as an alternative to
crude oil in automotive fuel chains well-to-wheel analysis and transition strategy devel-
opment” Energy Policy vol. 33 pp. 579-594

Heywood JB, Weiss MA, Schafer A, Bassene SA, & Natarajan VK (2003) “The performance of
future ICE and fuel cell powered vehicles and their potential fleet impact” MIT Labora-
tory for Energy and the Environment

Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006a) “Environmental, economic, and ener-
getic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels” PNAS vol. 103 no. 30 pp.
11206-11210

50
Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006b) “Environmental, economic, and ener-
getic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels: Supporting Documents” Ac-
cessed 24 August 2007 from: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0604600103/DC1

Hu H, Yu A, Li N, Allison JE (2003) “Potential magnesium alloys for high temperature die cast
automotive applications: a review” Materials and Manufacturing Processes vol. 18 no. 5
pp. 687-717

IAI (2000) Aluminium applications and society – Life cycle inventory of the worldwide alumin-
ium industry with regard to energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases, Pa-
per 1 – Automotive, International Aluminium Institute (IAI), London, UK

IAI (2007) Life Cycle Assessment Of Aluminium: Inventory Data For The Primary Aluminium
Industry, Year 2005 Update, International Aluminium Institute (IAI), London, UK

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Volume 3 Industrial Processes and Product Use; Chapter
4: Metal Industry Emissions. Retrieved 19 December 2008 from: http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
Jacob A (2004) “Car makers increase their use of composites” Reinforced Plastics vol. 48, no. 2,
pp. 26-32
Jenseit W, Stahl H, Wollny V, & Wittlinger R (2003) “Recovery options for plastic parts from
End-of-Life vehicles: an eco-efficiency assessment” Oko-Institut e.V.Darmstadt. Pre-
pared for the Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe (APME) Brussels. Re-
trieved 2 July 2009 from: http://www.oeko-institut.org/oekodoc/151/2003-039-en.pdf

Kanari N, Pineau J-L & Shallari S (2003) “End-of-life vehicle recycling in the European Union”
JOM, vol. 55 no. 8 pp. 15-18

Kim S & Dale B (2005) “Environmental aspects of ethanol derived from no-tilled corn grain:
nonrenewable energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions” Biomass Bioenergy,
vol. 28 pp. 475-489

Knapp R (2010) Secretary General, IAI, Personal Communication, February 2010

51
Koltun P, Tharumarajah A, Ramakrishnan S (2005) “Life cycle environmental impact of magne-
sium automotive components” In: Magnesium Technology 2005, Neelameggham NR,
Kaplan HI & Powell BR, (eds). Warrendale: TMS; 2005. pp. 43–49.

Kramer DA (2002) Magnesium recycling in the United States in 1998, US Geological Survey
Circular 1196-E, 2002. Retrieved 21 June 2006 from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-
166/of01-166.pdf

Kumar V & Sutherland JW (2008) “Sustainability of the Automotive Recycling Infrastructure:

Review of Current Research and Identification of Future Challenges” Int. J. Sustainable
Manufacturing, vol. 1 nos. 1/2 pp.145-167

Li N (2004) “Automotive magnesium applications and life cycle environmental assessment” 3rd
international conference on SF6 and the environment, Scottsdale, AZ 1-3 December 2004

Logan S, Kizyma A, Patterson C, & Rama S (2006) Lightweight Magnesium Intensive Body
Structure, SAE Technical Papers 2006-01-0523 Presented at SAE 2006 World Congress
& Exhibition, April 2006, Detroit, MI, USA, Session: Magnesium Technologies; Achiev-
ing Lightweight Vehicles

Luo AA (2002) “Magnesium: current and potential automotive applications” JOM vol. 54 no. 2
pp. 42-48

Mark FE, Fisher MM & Smith KA (1998) “Energy recovery from automotive shredder residue
through co-combustion with municipal solid waste” Prepared for the Association of Plas-
tic Manufacturers in Europe (APME) and the American Plastics Council (APC).

Maclean HL & Lave LB (2003) “Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion technologies” Progress

in Energy and Combustion Science vol. 29 pp. 1-69

Mordike BL & Ebert T (2001) “Magnesium; properties applications potential” Materials Science
and Engineering vol. 302 no. 1 pp. 37-45

Patzek TW (2004) “Thermodynamics of the corn-ethanol biofuel cycle” Critical Reviews in

Plant Sciences vol. 23 no. 6 pp. 519-567

Patzek TW (2006) “A first-law thermodynamic analysis of the corn-ethanol cycle” Natural Re-
sources Research vol. 15 no. 4 pp. 255-270

52
Ramakrishnan S & Koltun P (2004) “Global warming impact of the magnesium produced in
China using the Pidgeon process” Resources Conservation & Recycling vol. 42 pp. 49-64

Sarkar A & Banerjee R (2005) “Net energy analysis of hydrogen storage options” International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy vol. 30 pp. 867 – 877

Schäfer A, Heywood JB & Weiss MA (2006) “Future fuel cell and internal combustion engine
automobile technologies: A 25 year life cycle and fleet impact assessment” Energy vol.
31 pp. 2064-2087

Stodolsky F, Vyas A, Cuenca R & Gaines L (1995) “Life-cycle energy savings potential from
aluminum-intensive vehicles” 1995 Total Life Cycle Conference & Exposition, 16-19
October 1995, Vienna Austria
Sutherland J, Gunter K, Allen D, Bauer D, Bras B, Gutowski T, Murphy C, Piwonka T, Sheng P,
Thurston D, & Wolff E (2004) “A global perspective on the environmental challenges
facing the automotive industry: state of the art and directions for the future” International
Journal of Vehicle Design vol. 35 nos. 1-2 pp. 86-110
Suzuki T, Hukuyama T, Zushi H, Origuchi T & Takahashi J (2003) “Evaluation of effects of
lightening trucks on environment by LCA” Proceedings of EcoDesign 2003: Third inter-
national symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing.
Tokyo, Japan. 8-11 Dec. 2003

Suzuki T & Takahashi J (2005) “Prediction of energy intensity of reinforced plastics for mass-
produced passenger cars” The ninth Japan international SAMPE symposium, 29 Nov - 2
Dec 2005
Taub AI (2006) “Automotive materials: technology trends and challenges in the 21st century”
MRS Bulletin, vol. 31

TECABS (2005) “5th framework programme of European community for RTD and demonstra-
tion activities (1998-2002)” Retrieved 17 July 2006 from:
http://www.tecabs.org/downloads/tecabs_general_presentation.pdf

Tharumarajah A & Koltun P (2007) “Is there an environmental advantage of using magnesium
components for light-weighting cars?” Journal of Cleaner Production vol. 15 pp. 1007-
1013

53
Turner TA, Harper LT, Warrior NA & Rudd CD (2008) “Low-cost carbon-fibre-based automo-
tive body panel systems: a performance and manufacturing cost comparison” Proceed-
ings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering
vol. 222 pp. 53-63

de Vegt OM & Haije WG (1997) “Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of compos-
ite materials” Technical Report ECN-I–97-050, Energy research Centre of the Nether-
lands. Retrieved 2 July 2009 from:
ftp://ftp.ecn.nl/pub/www/library/report/1997/i97050.pdf
Wall EJ, Sullivan R & Carpenter J (2006) 2005 Annual progress report: Automotive lightweight-
ing materials, US Department of Energy, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technolo-
gies

Wang M (2005) “Updated energy and greenhouse gas emission results of fuel ethanol” The 15th
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, 26-28 September 2005, San Diego CA
Whitfield K (2004) “Can carbon fiber compete?” Automotive Design and Production, August
2004 Retrieved 24 July 2006 from:

http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/080407.html

WSA (2010) Data provided by World Steel Association (WSA), Brussels, Belgium

54
 UCSB GHG Model Version 3.0 Workshop
Case Study 1 - Multi-Material Vehicle

BACKGROUND

Automakers are coupling advanced powertrains and

aggressive light-weighting in an effort to meet more
stringent emissions regulations. Many vehicles under
development employ a multi-material body structure,
where low density materials have replaced steel in
conceptual designs. It is important for the steel industry
to be able to evaluate these competitive threats, in
terms of mass, cost and environmental performance.

CASE STUDY 1 – MULTI-MATERIAL VEHICLE CONCEPT

Vehicle Selection and Material Composition

1) Powertrain Selection: Please compare vehicle life cycle performance for both ICE-gasoline and
HEV powertrains.
2) Vehicle Class: This case study involves a C-class (compact) baseline vehicle.
3) Material Composition: Please develop (1) an AHSS-intensive vehicle, (2) an Aluminium-intensive
vehicle, and (3) a multi-material vehicle, based on the SLC material composition. The AHSS
vehicle has a body structure that is 33% less than a conventional steel body structure.
Replacement coefficients (compared to conventional steel):
a. Aluminium = 65%
b. Carbon Fiber = 45%
c. Magnesium = 50%
4) Secondary weight savings are uncompounded, and expected to average 30% of primary mass
savings.

Vehicle Use Phase

1) Vehicle lifetime is anticipated to be 200,000 km.
2) Please explore both the NEDC and U.S. (SAE J1711) Drive Cycles in this case study.
3) Fuel contains 0% ethanol.
4) Use energy demand and energy savings based on the latest powertrain engine maps.
5) Powertrains may or may not be re-sized for equivalent performance, depending upon cost.

Material Recycling
1) Please conduct your GHG assessment using an Alpha value = 0.1.

Page 1 of 2
 UCSB GHG Model Version 3.0 Workshop
Case Study 1 - Multi-Material Vehicle

Report-Out
Please compare emissions performance for the various material platforms in all life cycle phases, including
Total Vehicle Life Cycle Emissions. If possible, please calculate the cross-over distance, where the multi-
material vehicle shows equivalent emissions performance with the AHSS- intensive vehicle.

In kg of CO2e
Vehicle
Final Body Vehicle Life
Body Structure Mass (kg) Mass (kg) Material Recycling Use Cycle
Conv Steel
AHSS
Aluminium
Multi-Material Vehicle

OBSERVATIONS / CONCLUSIONS

1. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

2. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

3. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

4. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

5. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 2
 UCSB GHG Model Version 3.0 Workshop
Case Study 2 – Battery Electric Vehicle

BACKGROUND
Automakers are coupling advanced
powertrains and aggressive light-
weighting in an effort to meet more
stringent emissions regulations. There
are several A-class vehicles under
development that utilize a battery electric
powertrain, to minimize use-phase
emissions which are related to the
energy consumed during battery
recharging. As use phase emissions are
driven to ultra-low values, material
production emissions account for a
greater percentage of total vehicle life
cycle emissions. In fact, depending
upon the energy source, production
emissions may become the dominant life cycle phase. It is important for the steel industry to be able to
evaluate these competitive threats, in terms of mass, cost and environmental performance.

CASE STUDY 2 – BATTERY ELECTRIC VEHICLE (BEV)

Vehicle Selection and Material Composition

1) Powertrain Selection: BEV.
2) Vehicle Class: This case study involves an A-class vehicle; the curb weight is 1097 kg.
3) Body Structure: The conventional steel body structure from which the program was derived
weighted 260 kg and used stamping processes for 100% of the sheet metal fabrication. A new
AHSS body structure utilizes advanced fabrication techniques that average 22% engineered scrap.
It weighs 65 kg less than the original body structure. *Please determine the material replacement
coefficient for AHSS in this structure.
4) Material Composition: please compare the AHSS-intensive vehicle with a multi-material vehicle,
characterized by the following composition: 35% AHSS, 40% Al, 10% SMC and 15% CFRP. Al
components are hydroformed and stamped, with an average manufacturing yield = 65%. AHSS
components are roll-formed and stamped, with an average manufacturing yield = 70%.
Replacement coefficients for the multi-material vehicle:
a. AHSS = 70%.
b. Aluminium = 65%.
c. Composites= 50%.
5) Please compare secondary mass reduction rates of 30% and 45%.

Vehicle Use Phase

1) Vehicle lifetime is anticipated to be 150,000 km.
2) Please explore both the NEDC and HYZEM in this case study.
3) This vehicle is sold in Japan and Europe.
4) Powertrains are re-sized for equivalent performance.

Material Recycling
1) Please conduct your GHG assessment using an Alpha value = 0.1.

Page 1 of 2
 UCSB GHG Model Version 3.0 Workshop
Case Study 2 – Battery Electric Vehicle

Report-Out
Please compare emissions performance for the various material platforms in all life cycle phases, including
Total Vehicle Life Cycle Emissions. If possible, please calculate the cross-over distance, where the multi-
material vehicle shows equivalent emissions performance with the AHSS- intensive vehicle.

In kg of CO2e
Vehicle
Final Body Vehicle Life
Body Structure Mass (kg) Mass (kg) Material Recycling Use Cycle
Conv Steel
AHSS
Multi-Material Vehicle

OBSERVATIONS / CONCLUSIONS

1. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

2. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

3. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

4. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

5. _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 2
Notes