Search Results

This study investigates the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a set of vehicles using two real-world gliders (vehicles without powertrains or batteries); a steel-intensive 2013 Ford Fusion glider and a multi material lightweight vehicle (MMLV) glider that utilizes significantly more aluminum and carbon fiber. These gliders are used to develop lightweight and conventional models of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICV), hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), and battery electric vehicles (BEV). Our results show that the MMLV glider can reduce life cycle GHG emissions despite its use of lightweight materials, which can be carbon intensive to produce, because the glider enables a decrease in fuel (production and use) cycle emissions. However, the fuel savings, and thus life cycle GHG emission reductions, differ substantially depending on powertrain type. Compared to ICVs, the high efficiency of HEVs decreases the potential fuel savings.

Automakers have the opportunity to utilize bio-based composite materials to lightweight cars while replacing conventional, nonrenewable resource materials. In this study, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to understand the potential benefits and tradeoffs associated with the implementation of bio-based composite materials in automotive component production. This cradle-to-grave approach quantifies the fiber and resin production as well as material processing, use, and end of life for both a conventional glass-reinforced polypropylene component as well as a cellulose-reinforced polypropylene component. The comparison is calculated for an exterior component on a high performance vehicle. The life cycle primary energy consumption and global warming potential (GWP) are evaluated. Reduced GWP associated with the alternative component are due to the use of biomass as process energy and carbon sequestration, in addition to the alternative material component's lightweighting effect.

Tools are now publicly available that can potentially help a company assess the impact of its water use and risks in relation to their global operations and supply chains. In this paper we describe a comparative analysis of two publicly available tools, specifically the WWF/DEG Water Risk Filter and the WBCSD Global Water Tool that are used to measure the water impact and risk indicators for industrial facilities. By analyzing the risk assessments calculated by these tools for different scenarios that include varying facilities from different industries, one can better gauge the similarities and differences between these water strategy tools. Several scenarios were evaluated using the water tools, and the results are compared and contrasted. As will be shown, the results can vary significantly.