Wulf-Peter SchmidtFord of Europe, Vehicle Environmental EngineeringSupervisor CO2/Sustainability & Tech. Spec. Vehicle Recycling

Ford of Europe’s Product Sustainability Index

Society

EconomyEnvironment

2

Sustainability of Cars – The Challenges

• CO2 / Climate change

• Other Pollution (e.g. Summer Smog)

• Oil dependency

• Overcrowded streets / mobility capability per car

• Safety

• Affordability

• Etc.

All dimensions of sustainability

3

Sustainable Product Design (SPD) beyond Eco-Design

• Having in mind all sustainability challenges mentioned above (not only environment / CO2).

• Reasonably limiting all of these aspects to those directly impacted by product development m’gmt.

• Respecting company specific culture, data availability, resources, knowledge, etc. as well as other requirements.

• Design that offers the needed functionalities and aesthetics making sustainability attractive for all consumer groups.

Sustainable Design Design that not only follows function and

(long-term) aesthetical aspects but meets the need of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

4

Potential trade-off: non-CO2 emissions

Summer Smog gases (NOx, VOC) along the life cycle* (LCA)

Life Cycle Air Quality Potential

Carbon intensity as main strategic issue

Climate Change gases along the product life cycle* (LCA)

Life Cycle Global Warming Potential

Why Important?MetricIndicator

*(from raw material extraction through production to use (150000 km) and recovery)

Substance risk management

Allergy-tested label etc. (15 point rating)

Restricted Substances

Resource Scarcityrecycled & natural materials per vehicle polymer weight

Sustainable Materials

Crowded cities (future: disabled)

Mobility capacity (seats, luggage) to vehicle size

Mobility Capability

Main direct impactDifferent Safety criteriaSafety

Society concernDrive-by exterior Noise = dB(A)Drive-by-Noise

Consumer focus/ Competitiveness

Price + 3 years fuel, maintenance costs, taxation - residual value

Life Cycle Ownership Costs

Note: legal compliance issues are the baseline, i.e. not a topic of PSI. Also aspects decided before PD (e.g. service aspects) cannot be covered by PSI

What is PSI measuring – how and why?

5

• 2002 Senior management decision for PSI piloting (all new FoE products starting with S-MAX/Galaxy)

• 2002 Target discussions• 2002-2005 Tracking PSI by Vehicle Integration• 2006 ISO14040 Verification Study, external review

(ISO 14040)

Ford S-MAX and Galaxy: pilots for PSI

6

Key: inside worseoutside betterPrior Ford Galaxy 1.9l TDINew Ford Galaxy 2.0 l TDCi with DPF80% theoretical best cross-industryB to V segment Europe

PSI – Example Galaxy dieselLife Cycle Global

Warming

Life Cycle Air Quality

Sustainable Materials

Restricted Substances

Drive-by-exterior Noise

Safety

Mobility Capability

Life Cycle Costof Ownership

20 40 60 80100

Improvements in all three dimensions(described area is getting bigger)

7

Roles & Responsibilities (PSI implementation)

• Product Planning• Cross Carline Co-ordination

• Purchasing• Supplier Communication

• PD Factory• Integration / Awareness / Training

• Chief Program Eng. / Project Mg’ment / Vehicle Integration

• PSI Target Setting, Reporting, Compliance

• FoE OperatingCommittee

• Governance

• Vehicle Integration (VI)• PSI Calculation

• Individual Data owner• Data Input

• Corporate Citizenship / Product Planning

• PSI Methodology

Lead ResponsibilityProcess

After finalization of PSI methodologyall done by Product Development itself

8

• Calculation of PSI based on simplified LCA / LCC via spreadsheet file

• Based on available data of PD vehicle attribute target / status charts plus few additional data (in total approx 20 entered data)

• PSI included in normal Multi-Panel Chart managing all vehicle attributes throughout the PD process

• PSI run by PD engineers who are no specialists in the area of LCA or sustainability

• Optimal fit to Ford design approach etc. -> each company has to find its own approach

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

KO (target range) PA PR CC Verification

PSI-GWP [t CO2-eq]

PSI-POCP [kg Ethen-eq]

Ford Galaxy 2.0 l TDCi with DPF

Implementing Life Cycle Thinking in PD

Lean management, no incrementalresources, fit to Ford culture

9

Product Sustainability Index Conclusions

• Making different corporate function accountable for their sustainability

• Ensure tailored approaches requiring no additional resources and no expert knowledge

• Implementation and application need to be done by affected corporate functions – making they feel owning the subject

• Voluntary approach superior to mandatory one (one-size-fits all, no competitive advantage)

10

Back-up

• Other answers to sustainability challenge

• Organisation of sustainability in Ford of Europe

• More PSI information

• Evolution of Dfx

11

Sustainability of Cars – the answers

• “We, the auto industry, need to take the initiative• Accept that consumer not ready to compromise

price or performance for green• Accelerate low-CO2 technologies …• Cooperate with the oil co’s• Work with governments (integrated approach) for

support through taxation, incentives and infrastructure”

John Fleming President and CEO Ford of Europe

Sustainability is the pre-conditionfor continuing business & will finallyturn to an opportunity

12

80

60

40

20

0

100

Cost

% C

O2

Red

uct

ion

Accelerate low-CO2 technologies …Accelerate low-CO2 technologies …

Gasoline

Fuel Cell

Ethanol

Gasoline DI

Diesel

H2 ICE

GasolineFull Hybrid

DieselMicro Hybr.

GasolineMicro Hybr.

RealWorld

CNGLPG

NEDC – New European Drive CycleNote: European situation only.

13

Ford of Europe‘s functional organisation of sustainability

• Main functions are responsible for their bit of sustainability

• Tailored Sustainability Management Tools

Product

Sustainability

Index (PSI)

14

PSI Results Ford Galaxy & S-MAX

(1) verified by an independently reviewed LCA according to ISO14040. (2) independent TÜV certification, certification number AZ 137 12, TUVdotCOMID 0000007407.(3) 3 years Cost of Ownership including residual value, no guarantee.

10% lower costs5 % lower costsReferenceTheoretical Life Cycle Ownership Costs(3)

10,25 m², 5 seats, 1171l

10,4 m², 7 seats, 435l

9,9 m², 7 seats, 330l

Mobility Capability

Significant improvement

Significant improvement

Reference (3)Safety

717173Drive-by Noise dB(A)

Substance management, TÜV tested pollen filter efficiency and allergy-tested label (2)

Subst. m’gmt, pollen filter

Restricted Substances

Approx 18 kgApprox 18 kgApprox 1 kgSustainable Materials

373739POCP [kg Ethene-eq] (1)

394041GWP [t CO2-eq] (1)

Ford S-MAX 2.0L TDCi with DPF

Ford Galaxy 2.0L TDCi with DPF

Previous Ford Galaxy 1.9 L TDI

Indicator

☺

☺

☺

15

• Internal LCA & LCC expert study (more details, more impacts, sensitivity, Monte Carlo analysis etc.)

• Monte Carlo & Sensitivity Analysis suggested that only differences of 8% (GWP, POCP, waste), 7 % (AP, EP) respectivly 15% (ADP) are significant

PSI Verification Study

16

• Incremental work (tracking, calculation) due to PSI only 10 – 15 hours as perfectly fit to existing structures (voluntary not legally mandatory).

• Facilitated new insights for PD regarding costs along the life cycle (LCC) and trade-offs along the environmental life cycle (LCA).

• Incremental work of verification / expert study much higher (months, external costs etc.).

• Verification study was – as a once-off study - important to verify the simplified calculations.

• External review allowed sharing the experiencewith external world and to get scientific confidence by external, leading scientists.

PSI experiences

17

• Difference between results of non-LCA experts (PD) and expert study is below 2%

• Galaxy/S-MAX 2.0l diesel versions are environmentally superior* to gasoline versions in terms of GWP (beyond 82,000 km), POCP (beyond 37,000 km) as well as AP and EP (at any mileage),

• Galaxy 2.0l TDCi is environmentally superior* to the previous Galaxy 1.9l TDI in terms of POCP (beyond 450000 km), AP and EP (at any mileage) and total waste (mileage beyond 100,000 km).

• Diesel versions are economically preferable beyond 255000 km in 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insuranceand maintenance costs respectively around 200000km at 50% of those assumed in the main scenario.

* Difference > 8% for GWP, POCP

PSI Verification Study Conclusions (exerpt)

18

Evolution of DfX – Example vehicles

• Early 90es – Df Disassembly (Accessability, type & number of fastener, parts marking etc.)

• Mid 90es – Df Recycling (DfD + material complexity / compatibility, recycled content)MLife Cycle Assessment studies show minor effect of

recycling for non-metalsMReal world time measurements showed no significant

impact of DfD/design on dismantling timesMPost-Shredder Treatment is environmentally favourable

• Late 90es – Df Environment (Life Cycle Thinking based, decreasing DfD/R contentdue to development above)

• 2002 – Df Sustainability (e.g. Product Sustainability Index )

19

Sustainable Life Cycle Management- direct life cycle stakeholder

Role of end-of-lifeoperators

Role of Consumer

Role of Industry

Establishing sustainable recovery routes, social standards

Sustainable use / consumption, minimise consumption of energy & materials

DfE / cradle-to-cradle design, Sustainable design, environmental management, social standards

Own life cycle stage

Information to producers, sustainable supply of recovery products.

Directing products and materials to the appropriate collection / disposal / recovery facilities

Product information & training, sustainable dealer standards

Down-stream in the life cycle

Information to end-user

Purchasing sustainable products (e.g. fair trade)

accepting premium.

Sustainable Supply Chain Management (social & environmental minimum standards)

Up-stream in the life cycle

Shared Life Cycle Stakeholder Responsibilities

20

Sustainable Life Cycle Management- indirect life cycle stakeholder (example vehicle)

• Governments:• Shaping consumer purchasing and driving

behaviour,

• Create a reliable, non-contradictory legal framework.

• Investors• Shareholder groups requiring sustainable profits

respecting environmental and social constraints.

21

Motivation – Business Case

• Internal voluntary tool – no external pressure to do so (no legal, no competitive pressure) -> prerequisite to find theoptimal fit to Ford structure

• No legal requirement is tracked by PSI

• Allowing long-term perspective (life cycle environmental impacts)

• Ensuring current product competitiveness (economicindicator)

• Allowing a comprehensive overview about impact of design actions to sustainability aspects

22

What are the impacts of End-of-Life technology variation on the overall environmental profile ?

• Answer: No significant environmental difference between different EOL technologies

• Similar results for other environmental impacts & resource depletion

• Lightweighting is more important – but less then expected

Source: EU funded, ISO14040 reviewed LCA LIRECAR

900 kgScenario

750 kgScenario

Situation today (Metal recycling,organics/ceramics to landfilling)

Mechanical Recycling

Energy Recovery of organics,recycling of metals, landfillingof ceramics/glass1000 kg

Scenario

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Pot

entia

l

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MAX and MIN are representing therange of different vehicle scenarios

No significant

difference between EOL

options

23

Shredders and Material Separation

Application

24

Post-Shredder Treatment (PST) vs. dismantling / mechanical Recycling

• A PST via the SiCon-Process with mechanical recycling & mainly feedstock recycling the resulting material streams is environmentally superior compared to a dismantling & mechanical recycling.

• Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that this advantage remains also for bigger facilities (longer transport distances).

• Note: Dismantling / Mechanical recycling with theoretical assumption of no environmental impacts for cleaning / separation.Advantage can be only established if whole process with all materials of shredder residue is considered.

Source: ISO14040 reviewed LCA study of VW

Red

uctio

nof

Em

issi

ons

(ref

erin

gto

con

side

red

part

of L

ife C

ycle

)

Global Warming Potential(CO2 etc.)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Acidificationpotential(SO2 etc.)

Summersmogpot.(HC, NOx...)

Eutrophicationpotential(PO4 etc.)

SiCon Process Dismantling