6 ms·

How We Make Cars Is a Bigger Environmental Issue Than How We Fuel Them

32 points by xenophon 11y ago

exabrial 11y ago
I read an article several years ago about the environmental cost of the lithium that goes into Prius vs the pollution it saves by not burning fossil fuels. The article was, of course, in the lambasted as being [insert uneducated political argument of the day here]. The only way we'll ever win is if people start compromising and get way from the all-or-nothing stigma that dominates politics.
- skybrian 11y ago
  It probably wasn't actually lithium since most Priuses have a nickel-metal-hydride battery. (Apparently the plugin hybrid model has lithium-ion.)
contingencies 11y ago
While this looks very advertorial, the notion is interesting. Big claims. Does anyone have some firmer references for their process and its limitations? Website is http://divergentmicrofactories.com/ http://divergentmicrofactories.com/ and features another version of the same graph.
joblessjunkie 11y ago
"This post is a collaboration between O’Reilly and Divergent Manufacturing."
Animats 11y ago
It looks like they built a tube car chassis[1] using carbon fiber tubes and 3D printed metal connectors, then put a stock powertrain in it and a body around it. The powertrain is conventional, a 4 cylinder engine running on natural gas. The site has pictures of assembling the frame parts and of the finished car exterior, but does not show the car in motion or the powertrain. The connectors are kind of strange for carbon fiber tubes. The video shows them just slipping the tubes into the larger tubular connectors. They don't show how they attach them. That's just a test assembly. Now they have to glue it all together somehow, which is a touchy operation for carbon fiber to metal bonds. BMW avoids those in their carbon-fiber car. Building tube cars in a small shop is quite practical, and lots of racers do it. It's not cheaper than mass-produced cars. [1] http://www.rjracecars.com/Chassis-Kits-Prodlist.html http://www.rjracecars.com/Chassis-Kits-Prodlist.html
- wazoox 11y ago
  > It's not cheaper than mass-produced cars. The point is to be less damaging to the environment, not less expensive.
  - ars 11y ago
    The two are virtually synonymous. Things are more expensive when they need more resources.
    - zurn 11y ago
      Co2 emissions are currently not priced in making energy severely underpriced, so cost is not a good signal. Here's one study, http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/files/BatteryElectricV... - look at Figure 1 and 2, battery & engine so dominate the manufacturing footprints that everything fades into insignificance. Of course, if you make the car really light you can somewhat reduce the required engine & battery. But not drastically as weight has little impact at cruising speed & you have regenerative braking in city.
      - ars 11y ago
        > Co2 emissions are currently not priced in making energy severely underpriced, so cost is not a good signal. That makes no difference because cost is a relative measure, not an absolute one. If you priced in CO2 then everything would be more expensive, but the relative difference between items would be unchanged. (And that money would go back to the citizens giving them more money to buy stuff, so effectively you did nothing at all. It would only work if there were low CO2 alternatives, but there are not any. All the renewable energy sources have decade long payouts, so at least initially emit lots of CO2, which you would have to pay tax on, so the tax makes renewable energy more expensive too.) Because ultimately everything requires energy to make cost is an excellent proxy for energy, and in a world where most energy is from hydrocarbons, cost is a proxy for CO2.
      - ponderatul 11y ago
igravious 11y ago
This is quite the claim. If true I'd imagine Big Oil and conventional car manufacturers would be trumpeting this far and wide. Because it is such a sensitive issue (climate change and all that) we must double-check to be doubly sure of the sources of any of these graphs and data. I know this annoys people but we really need a source for these claims[0], so citation please! http://www.divergentmicrofactories.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/DM_emissions_flat.png http://www.divergentmicrofactories.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
- jonah 11y ago
  This makes no sense. How can one 25MPG gas car require over twice the "fuel manufacture" of another 25MPG gas car? Also, how does a hybrid vehicle cost less to manufacture than an comparable gas-only car?
  - dsfyu404ed 11y ago
    A part made from cast aluminum will have a significantly higher environmental cost than the same part made from cast steel because pulling aluminum out of the ground is much more expensive environmentally, and monetarily (fuel/electricity aren't free) than getting the equivalent amount of iron out of the ground. Even if you make the parts from melted down anvils and beer cans that initial cost is still there (there's also a lot less aluminum around to be recycled than there is iron and steel). Materials and methods of processing matter a great deal. OEs care very much about this but the progressive fuel economy requirements make it worth their while meet the requirements all else be damned
- erroneousfunk 11y ago
  That visualization seems all kinds of messed up. Why did they split up the "operations emissions" and the other two into separate "bars" (or obnoxious cute images of cars and smoke stacks...) How far are they assuming the vehicles travel over their lives? It's hard to tell what the actual numbers are.
tonmoy 11y ago
Why would a "small team" require fewer materials?
zurn 11y ago
Another take: High car ownership rate (1-2 per household) is unsustainable even with electric cars.
- batou 11y ago
  Very good point. Also, at least here in the UK, cars seem to get scrapped after 12-15 years. They should really consider higher priced cars that are designed for a long life. My first car, a 1974 Land Rover series 3, is still going and will be for a long time to come.
  - ars 11y ago
    These days cars seem to die because of rust, not failure (at least for me). Aluminum cars? Stainless steel?
    - batou 11y ago
      Not a spec of rust on mine (12 yo Fiat). Think that depends on where you live.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      All the rubber/plastic parts die too. And they are jammed in there - it takes an overhaul to get them all replaced. For a cheap car, not worth the cost.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    I believe that electric cars are much better in this regard. Not being powered by tiny explosions helps longevity. I'd guess refitting old cars with newer generations of batteries and motors would be easier too when the time comes for that.
    - batou 11y ago
      Definitely agree there. I worry about the distribution/generation costs however. I think the main idea should be necessary travel only. In 2015 the idea that most of us need to commute tens of miles shouldn't even be a thought; a big chunk of us can and should work from home or locally. Case in point, everyone I know works in London in the city. None of them have a job that requires their presence.
erroneousfunk 11y ago
Genuine question here: I keep finding conflicting information about how much environmental impact a car's manufacturing has, relative to its lifetime use. I took a very good math-based sustainable design class as an undergraduate, and we were constantly shown numbers that indicated a car was a "20/80" product (20% or less of its impact comes from manufacturing, as opposed to "80/20" products). But I'm certainly willing to believe the information I learned in that class was mistaken or outdated. The research paper linked to from one of the linked articles (I followed the rabbit hole down a ways... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.... it's the Norwegian study mentioned in http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-sp...) says " vehicle production is not insignificant, contributing on the order of 10% to the life cycle GWP." However, the article, and the statement from Maureen Cropper (who presumably knows what she's talking about) says that the majority of the impact comes from the manufacture of the vehicle. Am I confused? Are people talking about two separate measures of impact, or is there something I'm missing? Having trouble reconciling all of this info.

32 points by xenophon 11y ago

I read an article several years ago about the environmental cost of the lithium that goes into Prius vs the pollution it saves by not burning fossil fuels. The article was, of course, in the lambasted as being [insert uneducated political argument of the day here]. The only way we'll ever win is if people start compromising and get way from the all-or-nothing stigma that dominates politics.

skybrian 11y ago
It probably wasn't actually lithium since most Priuses have a nickel-metal-hydride battery. (Apparently the plugin hybrid model has lithium-ion.)

contingencies 11y ago

While this looks very advertorial, the notion is interesting. Big claims. Does anyone have some firmer references for their process and its limitations? Website is http://divergentmicrofactories.com/ http://divergentmicrofactories.com/ and features another version of the same graph.

joblessjunkie 11y ago

"This post is a collaboration between O’Reilly and Divergent Manufacturing."

Animats 11y ago

It looks like they built a tube car chassis[1] using carbon fiber tubes and 3D printed metal connectors, then put a stock powertrain in it and a body around it. The powertrain is conventional, a 4 cylinder engine running on natural gas. The site has pictures of assembling the frame parts and of the finished car exterior, but does not show the car in motion or the powertrain. The connectors are kind of strange for carbon fiber tubes. The video shows them just slipping the tubes into the larger tubular connectors. They don't show how they attach them. That's just a test assembly. Now they have to glue it all together somehow, which is a touchy operation for carbon fiber to metal bonds. BMW avoids those in their carbon-fiber car. Building tube cars in a small shop is quite practical, and lots of racers do it. It's not cheaper than mass-produced cars. [1] http://www.rjracecars.com/Chassis-Kits-Prodlist.html http://www.rjracecars.com/Chassis-Kits-Prodlist.html

wazoox 11y ago
> It's not cheaper than mass-produced cars. The point is to be less damaging to the environment, not less expensive.
- ars 11y ago
  The two are virtually synonymous. Things are more expensive when they need more resources.
  - zurn 11y ago
    Co2 emissions are currently not priced in making energy severely underpriced, so cost is not a good signal. Here's one study, http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/files/BatteryElectricV... - look at Figure 1 and 2, battery & engine so dominate the manufacturing footprints that everything fades into insignificance. Of course, if you make the car really light you can somewhat reduce the required engine & battery. But not drastically as weight has little impact at cruising speed & you have regenerative braking in city.
    - ars 11y ago
      > Co2 emissions are currently not priced in making energy severely underpriced, so cost is not a good signal. That makes no difference because cost is a relative measure, not an absolute one. If you priced in CO2 then everything would be more expensive, but the relative difference between items would be unchanged. (And that money would go back to the citizens giving them more money to buy stuff, so effectively you did nothing at all. It would only work if there were low CO2 alternatives, but there are not any. All the renewable energy sources have decade long payouts, so at least initially emit lots of CO2, which you would have to pay tax on, so the tax makes renewable energy more expensive too.) Because ultimately everything requires energy to make cost is an excellent proxy for energy, and in a world where most energy is from hydrocarbons, cost is a proxy for CO2.
    - ponderatul 11y ago

igravious 11y ago

This is quite the claim. If true I'd imagine Big Oil and conventional car manufacturers would be trumpeting this far and wide. Because it is such a sensitive issue (climate change and all that) we must double-check to be doubly sure of the sources of any of these graphs and data. I know this annoys people but we really need a source for these claims[0], so citation please! http://www.divergentmicrofactories.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/DM_emissions_flat.png http://www.divergentmicrofactories.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

jonah 11y ago
This makes no sense. How can one 25MPG gas car require over twice the "fuel manufacture" of another 25MPG gas car? Also, how does a hybrid vehicle cost less to manufacture than an comparable gas-only car?
- dsfyu404ed 11y ago
  A part made from cast aluminum will have a significantly higher environmental cost than the same part made from cast steel because pulling aluminum out of the ground is much more expensive environmentally, and monetarily (fuel/electricity aren't free) than getting the equivalent amount of iron out of the ground. Even if you make the parts from melted down anvils and beer cans that initial cost is still there (there's also a lot less aluminum around to be recycled than there is iron and steel). Materials and methods of processing matter a great deal. OEs care very much about this but the progressive fuel economy requirements make it worth their while meet the requirements all else be damned
erroneousfunk 11y ago
That visualization seems all kinds of messed up. Why did they split up the "operations emissions" and the other two into separate "bars" (or obnoxious cute images of cars and smoke stacks...) How far are they assuming the vehicles travel over their lives? It's hard to tell what the actual numbers are.

tonmoy 11y ago

Why would a "small team" require fewer materials?

zurn 11y ago

Another take: High car ownership rate (1-2 per household) is unsustainable even with electric cars.

batou 11y ago
Very good point. Also, at least here in the UK, cars seem to get scrapped after 12-15 years. They should really consider higher priced cars that are designed for a long life. My first car, a 1974 Land Rover series 3, is still going and will be for a long time to come.
- ars 11y ago
  These days cars seem to die because of rust, not failure (at least for me). Aluminum cars? Stainless steel?
  - batou 11y ago
    Not a spec of rust on mine (12 yo Fiat). Think that depends on where you live.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    All the rubber/plastic parts die too. And they are jammed in there - it takes an overhaul to get them all replaced. For a cheap car, not worth the cost.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  I believe that electric cars are much better in this regard. Not being powered by tiny explosions helps longevity. I'd guess refitting old cars with newer generations of batteries and motors would be easier too when the time comes for that.
  - batou 11y ago
    Definitely agree there. I worry about the distribution/generation costs however. I think the main idea should be necessary travel only. In 2015 the idea that most of us need to commute tens of miles shouldn't even be a thought; a big chunk of us can and should work from home or locally. Case in point, everyone I know works in London in the city. None of them have a job that requires their presence.

erroneousfunk 11y ago

Genuine question here: I keep finding conflicting information about how much environmental impact a car's manufacturing has, relative to its lifetime use. I took a very good math-based sustainable design class as an undergraduate, and we were constantly shown numbers that indicated a car was a "20/80" product (20% or less of its impact comes from manufacturing, as opposed to "80/20" products). But I'm certainly willing to believe the information I learned in that class was mistaken or outdated. The research paper linked to from one of the linked articles (I followed the rabbit hole down a ways... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.... it's the Norwegian study mentioned in http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-sp...) says " vehicle production is not insignificant, contributing on the order of 10% to the life cycle GWP." However, the article, and the statement from Maureen Cropper (who presumably knows what she's talking about) says that the majority of the impact comes from the manufacture of the vehicle. Am I confused? Are people talking about two separate measures of impact, or is there something I'm missing? Having trouble reconciling all of this info.