• Summary

• General
− Life cycle inventory (LCI) data
− Steelmaking footprint reduction
− Regional benchmarking
− LCA methodology research
• Sector-specific
− Automotive  – Packaging
− Construction

• Standardized and
comprehensive method
• Evaluates potential
environmental and human
health impacts
• Applicable to a product,
material, process or service
throughout its life cycle

1969  Coca-Cola Company performs first LCA
1970s  LCA develops from energy analysis to a
comprehensive environmental burden analysis
1980s  Full-fledged life cycle impact assessment
(LCIA) and life cycle costing models introduced
1990s  ISO standards on LCA developed
21st century Social LCA and consequential LCA gain ground
• Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) - a compilation of inputs
and outputs, typically energy, water and material
flows

Additional impacts:
• Human health toxicity
• Eco-toxicity
• Resource depletion (fossil fuel and
mineral)
• Land use change
• Biodiversity impacts/habitat
disruption

• Purpose: To reduce consumption of fuels and reduce GHG
emissions
• Current regulations: Focused only on tailpipe (use phase)
• Mid-term Review:
− 2022-2025 requirements
− EPA / NHTSA / CARB
− Final: April 2018(?)

• Powertrain
technologies
• Electrification
technologies
• Aerodynamics
•  Weight  reduction

Note: Steel, aluminum and magnesium values do not include finishing emissions. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic (Carbon FRP) automotive
parts are formed via an integrated process, which includes both production and finishing.
Sources: Aluminum Association, 2013; International Aluminum Association, 2013; Worldsteel, 2010; University of California Santa Barbara, 2017

• Purpose
− How important are material production emissions?
− Are there unintended GHG consequences due to
lightweighting vehicles when focusing only on the
use phase?
• Two-part approach
− Attributional LCA: Vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons
− Consequential LCA: Large-scale shift or decision

• Calculate total GHG emissions and energy demand of
vehicles lightweighted with AHSS and aluminum
− UCSB Automotive Materials Comparison Model v5
− Vehicles included: Mid-size Sedan, SUV, Pick-up Truck,
Mid-size HEV, Compact BEV
• Refine input parameters
− Current and conservative input parameters
− Sensitivity and Monte Carlo analyses
• Peer review by panel of LCA experts

• Cradle-to-gate material production GHG emissions
(kg CO 2 eq/kg) and energy consumption (MJ/kg)
− Domestic production vs. imports
− Primary vs. secondary production
• Lifetime driving distance (km)
• Material replacement coefficients (kg/kg)
• Secondary mass reduction (% of primary mass reduction)
• Fuel reduction values (l/100km100kg)
• Finishing/stamping yields (%)
• Material recovery and recycling rates (%)

Lightweighting with aluminum over AHSS:
• Significantly increased production emissions (~30-60%) for
all vehicle types
• Increased total life cycle GHG emissions in roughly 50% of
the cases tested…but only when using the most favorable
recycling methodology assumptions
• …In all other cases, the aluminum vehicles resulted in a net
increase in emissions vs. the AHSS vehicles

There is no certainty tailpipe-only regulations will
result in a decrease in emissions from light vehicles
… and an increase is likely.

• Vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons
may not capture complete
environmental effects
• GHG-focused Excel model
developed by Dr. Roland Geyer
• Peer-review of model structure
and methodology complete
• Manuscript under review

• Fuel economy targets becoming increasingly stringent
• Use of GHG-intensive lightweighting materials to help meet
these targets will:
− Always lead to higher GHG emissions initially
− Can result in higher total vehicle life cycle emissions
• Changes in aluminum import levels and increasing demand
point to even greater GHG consequences in the future
• Ensuring improvements in production phase emissions
while reducing driving phase emissions avoids unintended
consequences