Do you know how green your car is? Why measurement of low-emission vehicles is misleading…
17/07/2017
Why don’t we have energy ratings labels for our cars and other vehicles? We think we already do – via the checks on tailpipe emissions and CO2 that are backed up by Government legislation and the car manufacturers themselves, who are always looking for ways to reduce emissions via lower fuel consumption. So it’s all good, right?
Except this single measure, used around the world as an indicator of what makes for a low-emission, environmentally-friendly motor vehicle, is a snapshot. In itself it’s misleading for consumers, governments and societies as a whole. Worse, it’s exactly this focus on tailpipe emissions which has the potential to drive up CO2 emissions, given that the number of cars is expected to double to two billion by 2035.
At the Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre we’ve looked at exactly what the push for lower tailpipe emissions – more lightweight vehicles with aluminium engines – has actually meant. Less fuel is used, emissions are lower, but what about all the energy required for manufacturing the lighter engines?
It’s a disturbing picture of hidden environmental costs and damage. The production of each aluminium cylinder block consumes 1.8 to 3.7 times more energy than the production of cast iron. The nearly twofold increase in energy consumption occurs when the aluminium components are produced in re-usable metal moulds, referred to as high pressure die casting.
The almost fourfold energy increase results when the aluminium cylinder blocks are produced by sand casting; where the components are produced in expendable sand moulds. Overall, more than 70% of the global aluminium production is based on fossil fuels. Under these conditions, the energy intensive production of aluminium generates over 10 kg of CO2 per kilogram of aluminium.
That means a typical aluminium car would need to be driven for between 185,000 km and 560,000 km before there were any environmental benefits at all from the lower fuel use involved. The average life expectancy of motor vehicles is only 210,000 km, so the great majority of cars aren’t helping – they’re just increasing CO2 emissions. And we also need to bear in mind the waste from the production of aluminium: what’s known as ‘red mud’. It has a ph value of 14 and is highly toxic. Two tonnes of red mud is created for every tonne of aluminium, and we already have great lakes of the stuff, burning anything in its path.
The figures come from a detailed ‘cradle-to-grave’ study of the total energy and CO2 impact of passenger vehicle engine production, interviewing more than 100 manufacturers and industry experts, from mining through to engine production and on-the-road use. The study focused on the most representative engine in use globally, a 1.6 litre four-cylinder engine, and compared aluminium models with the more traditional cast iron engines with the same driving performance. The aluminium industry has argued that the highest energy consumption occurs during the production of ‘virgin’ aluminium from ore and that cylinder block production primarily uses recycled aluminium. Our study took this into account, adopting the best-case scenario for aluminium via infinite recycling.
We have to start looking at the full energy costs and environmental implications of manufactured products like cars, and energy rating labelling would be one way of helping consumers get a more truthful indication of what’s green and what’s not. Because aluminium is just one of the hidden costs. Electric cars are accepted as a sustainable transport option of the future – but what about the huge energy costs involved in manufacturing the batteries? Taking into account the full life cycle costs of manufacture and use, the best option appears to be vehicles fuelled by natural bio-gases.
When they can, consumers want to make green choices. We rely on the ‘authorities’, whether that’s driven by industry or governments, to give us accurate and balanced information. Without sharing data on the whole life cycle of manufactured products we’re not getting that. In fact, we’re not even close.
Professor Mark Jolly is the Head of the Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre at Cranfield University.
Categories & Tags:
Leave a comment on this post:
You might also like…
Come to a virtual study session in May
What are virtual study sessions? These are online study sessions facilitated by Library staff, where you can study independently alongside other students via Teams. They are a great way for you to dedicate specific time ...
Getting started on your School of Management thesis
Writing a thesis, business plan, internship project or company project can be a daunting task, and you might have some uncertainty or questions around how to get started. This post will share some ideas and ...
Sustainability by royal request: Managing an event fit for a King
The Coronation of King Charles III on May 6th 2023, was watched by millions of people around the world with tens of thousands of people travelling to Central London to witness the pageantry firsthand. ...
Getting started on your Master’s thesis
Please note: This post is intended to provide advice to all students undertaking a thesis in the Schools of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing; Water, Energy and Environment, and Defence and Security. There is separate advice ...
Finding your tribe: “Joining the sustainability community was the best decision”
For students on Cranfield’s Sustainability Business Specialist Apprenticeship, community and camaraderie is a vital component for success. Designed in consultation with industry, the part-time Level 7 apprenticeship aims to deepen participants’ knowledge of the ...
“My sustainability studies gave me the confidence to take on Amazon”
Not everyone would have the confidence to challenge a big global power like Amazon but, for Colin Featherstone, Senior Technology Manager and Tech Sustainability Lead at Morrisons, his Cranfield studies equipped him with the ...
Thanks Professor Jolly. I saw your presentation at COM 2017 in Vancouver on alternative metals and manufacturing methods for engine blocks. It was enlightening. I appreciated your insights that we need to stay materials agnostic, and choose the most suitable material for function and environmental performance over the life cycle.
Honestly, i am sure my green car is not green at all. Judging by the numbers in the article i am quite sure now.