Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:03:49.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Addressing Environmetal Issues for the Automotive Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Stella Papasavva
Stella Papasavva*
Affiliation:
[email protected], GM R&D Center, Chemical & Environmetal Sciences Lab, 30500 Mound Road, MC #: 480-106-269, Warren, MI, 48090, United States, (586) 986-1620, (586) 986-1910
Get access

Abstract

The integration of environmental, social, and economic (ESE) objectives into business decisions and future planning is the path towards sustainable development. The goal of this paper is to address the environmental component of sustainable development within the automotive industry based on the Life Cycle Analysis and Well-to-Wheels approach.

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is very relevant for making the concept of environmental sustainability operational because environmental impacts have to be examined from a 'cradle-to-grave' perspective. Life cycle analysis is an analytical tool that quantifies energy consumption and emissions associated with the raw material extraction, processing of materials, manufacturing, use phase, and end-of-life (reuse, recycling, and disposal) of products. The potential impact of current production and consumption patterns, on the future availability of non-renewable resources, can also be evaluated within the LCA framework. Thus, LCA provides an effective way for industry to support better management of natural resources, in order to maximize economic benefits and minimize environmental burdens.

Well-to-Wheel (WtW) analysis is a subset of a complete LCA because it quantifies the environmental burdens associated only with the fuel production and its consumption during the driving time of a vehicle. Well-to-Wheel studies mainly provide energy use and air emissions inventories.

This paper provides the results obtained from two major studies conducted at General Motors R&D Center. The first is a LCA study that assesses the environmental emissions associated with four alternative automotive paint processes and seven different paint formulations. The second is a WtW study that addresses 18 different combinations of alternative fuels and vehicle engines.

Considering that the use phase of the vehicle contributes more than 80% of its life cycle energy consumption, and that the automotive paint process is the most energy intensive component of the manufacturing phase in any given vehicle, the results presented in this paper are noteworthy for environmental sustainability considerations relevant to the automotive industry.

Keywords

environmentally benignenvironmentally protectivewaste management
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 895: Symposium G – Life-Cycle Analysis Tools for “Green” Materials and Process Selection , 2005 , 0895-G01-07-S01-07
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1) “Mobility 2030: Meeting the challenges to sustainability, The Sustainable Mobility Project”, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004.Google Scholar
2) Pré Consultants, “The Eco-Indicator 99, Methodology Report”, 3rd Edition, June 2001, http://www.pre.nl/download/EI99_methodology_v3.pdf Google Scholar
3) Graedel, T., E., Allenby, B. R., “Industrial Ecology and the Automobile”, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1997.Google Scholar
4) Finkbeiner, M., Ruhland, K., Cetiner, H., Binder, M., Stark, B., “Life Cycle Engineering as a Tool for Design for Environment“, SAE Paper 2000-01-1491, 2000.Google Scholar
5) Ruhland, K., Binder, M., “Process and tools to support Design for Environment at Mercedes Car Group”, IARC: 4th Int'l Automobile Recycling Congress, Geneva, 2004 Google Scholar
6) Australian Government, ‘Environmental Impact of End-of-Life Vehicles: An Information Paper', ISBN 0642547513, Environment Australia, 2002.Google Scholar
7) Keoleian, G., Lewis, G. et al. , “LCI Modeling Challenges and Solutions for a Complex Product System: A Mid-Sized Automobile”, SAE Paper 982169, 1998.Google Scholar
8) DaimlerChrysler, AG, Environmental Certificate Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Mercedes-Benz Technology Center, D–71059, Sindelfingen, 2005.Google Scholar
9) Schmidt, W., P., Dahlqvist, E., Finkbeiner, M., Krinke, S., Lazzari, S., Oschmann, D., Pichon, S., Thiel, C., “Life Cycle Assessment of Lightweight and End-of-Life Scenarios for Generic Compact Class Passenger Vehicles”, Int. J. LCA 9 (6) 405–416, 2004.Google Scholar
10) Brinkman, N. Wang, M. et al. “Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems — A North American Study of Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Criteria Pollutant Emissions”, May 2005.Google Scholar
11) Watson, R. T., Albritton, D. L., Barker, T., et al. , “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001”, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.Google Scholar
12) The GREET Model, http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/index.html.Google Scholar
13) Personal communication, with Binder, M., Europe, PE, and Wang, M., Argonne National Lab, 2005.Google Scholar
14) Papasavva, S., Kia, S., et al. , “Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Paint Processes”, Journal of Coatings Technology, V. 74, No. 925, pp. 65, 2002.Google Scholar
15) Papasavva, S., Kia, S., et al. , “Characterization of Automotive Paints: An Environmental Impact Analysis” Progress in Organic Coatings, 43, pp. 193, 2001.Google Scholar