Ford of Europe s Product Sustainability Index

Transcription

1 Ford of Europe s Product Sustainability Index Society Environment Wulf-Peter Schmidt Ford of Europe, Vehicle Environmental Engineering Supervisor CO2/Sustainability & Tech. Spec. Vehicle Recycling Economy

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. 2 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. 3 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 What is PSI measuring how and why? Indicator Life Cycle Global Warming Potential Life Cycle Air Quality Potential Sustainable Materials Restricted Substances Drive-by-Noise Safety Mobility Capability Life Cycle Ownership Costs Metric Climate Change gases along the product life cycle* (LCA) Summer Smog gases (NOx, VOC) along the life cycle* (LCA) recycled & natural materials per vehicle polymer weight Allergy-tested label etc. (15 point rating) Drive-by exterior Noise = db(a) Different Safety criteria Mobility capacity (seats, luggage) to vehicle size Price + 3 years fuel, maintenance costs, taxation - residual value *(from raw material extraction through production to use ( km) and recovery) 4 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 Why Important? Carbon intensity as main strategic issue Potential trade-off: non-co 2 emissions Resource Scarcity Substance risk management Society concern Main direct impact Crowded cities (future: disabled) Consumer focus/ Competitiveness

5 Ford S-MAX and Galaxy: pilots for PSI 2002 Senior management decision for PSI piloting (all new FoE products starting with S-MAX/Galaxy) 2002 Target discussions Tracking PSI by Vehicle Integration 2006 ISO14040 Verification Study, external review (ISO 14040) 5

6 PSI Example Galaxy diesel Life Cycle Cost of Ownership Life Cycle Global Warming Life Cycle Air Quality Mobility Capability Sustainable Materials Key: inside worse outside better Prior Ford Galaxy 1.9l TDI New Ford Galaxy 2.0 l TDCi with DPF 80% theoretical best cross-industry B to V segment Europe 6 Safety Drive-by-exterior Noise Restricted Substances Improvements in all three dimensions (described area is getting bigger)

7 Roles & Responsibilities (PSI implementation) PSI Methodology Data Input PSI Calculation Process PSI Target Setting, Reporting, Compliance Integration / Awareness / Training Supplier Communication Lead Responsibility Corporate Citizenship / Product Planning Individual Data owner Vehicle Integration (VI) Chief Program Eng. / Project Mg ment / Vehicle Integration PD Factory Purchasing Cross Carline Co-ordination Governance 7 Product Planning FoE Operating Committee After finalization of PSI methodology all done by Product Development itself

8 Implementing Life Cycle Thinking in PD 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 PSI-POCP [kg Ethen-eq] PSI-GWP [t CO2-eq] Ford Galaxy 2.0 l TDCi with DPF 32 KO (target range) PA PR CC Verification 8 Lean management, no incremental resources, 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) 9

10 Back-up Other answers to sustainability challenge Organisation of sustainability in Ford of Europe More PSI information Evolution of Dfx 10

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 11 Sustainability is the pre-condition for continuing business & will finally turn to an opportunity

12 Accelerate low-co2 technologies % CO 2 Reduction Gasoline Ethanol Diesel Diesel Micro Hybr. Gasoline Micro Hybr. Gasoline DI LPG CNG Cost Gasoline Full Hybrid Real World H2 ICE Fuel Cell 12 Note: European situation only. NEDC New European Drive Cycle

13 Ford of Europe s functional organisation of sustainability Product Sustainability Index (PSI) Main functions are responsible for their bit of sustainability Tailored Sustainability Management Tools 13

14 PSI Results Ford Galaxy & S-MAX Indicator Sustainable Materials Restricted Substances Drive-by Noise db(a) Safety Mobility Capability Theoretical Life Cycle Ownership Costs (3) Previous Ford Galaxy 1.9 L TDI GWP [t CO2-eq] (1) POCP [kg Ethene-eq] (1) Approx 1 kg Subst. m gmt, pollen filter Reference (3) 9,9 m², 7 seats, 330l Reference Significant improvement 10,4 m², 7 seats, 435l 5 % lower costs (1) verified by an independently reviewed LCA according to ISO (2) independent TÜV certification, certification number AZ , TUVdotCOMID (3) 3 years Cost of Ownership including residual value, no guarantee. 73 Ford Galaxy 2.0L TDCi with DPF Approx 18 kg Substance management, TÜV tested pollen filter efficiency and allergy-tested label (2) 71 Ford S-MAX 2.0L TDCi with DPF Approx 18 kg 71 Significant improvement 10,25 m², 5 seats, 1171l 10% lower costs 14

15 PSI Verification Study 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 15

16 PSI experiences 16 Incremental work (tracking, calculation) due to PSI only 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 experience with external world and to get scientific confidence by external, leading scientists.

17 PSI Verification Study Conclusions (exerpt) 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 km), AP and EP (at any mileage) and total waste (mileage beyond 100,000 km). Diesel versions are economically preferable beyond km in 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insurance and maintenance costs respectively around km at 50% of those assumed in the main scenario. 17 * Difference > 8% for GWP, POCP

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) Life Cycle Assessment studies show minor effect of recycling for non-metals Real world time measurements showed no significant impact of DfD/design on dismantling times Post-Shredder Treatment is environmentally favourable Late 90es Df Environment (Life Cycle Thinking based, decreasing DfD/R content due to development above) 2002 Df Sustainability (e.g. Product Sustainability Index ) 18

19 Sustainable Life Cycle Management - direct life cycle stakeholder Up-stream in the life cycle Own life cycle stage Downstream in the life cycle 19 Role of Industry Sustainable Supply Chain Management (social & environmental minimum standards) DfE / cradle-to-cradle design, Sustainable design, environmental management, social standards Product information & training, sustainable dealer standards Role of Consumer Purchasing sustainable products (e.g. fair trade) accepting premium. Sustainable use / consumption, minimise consumption of energy & materials Directing products and materials to the appropriate collection / disposal / recovery facilities Shared Life Cycle Stakeholder Responsibilities Role of endof-life operators Information to enduser Establishing sustainable recovery routes, social standards Information to producers, sustainable supply of recovery products.

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. 20

21 Motivation Business Case Internal voluntary tool no external pressure to do so (no legal, no competitive pressure) -> prerequisite to find the optimal fit to Ford structure No legal requirement is tracked by PSI Allowing long-term perspective (life cycle environmental impacts) Ensuring current product competitiveness (economic indicator) Allowing a comprehensive overview about impact of design actions to sustainability aspects 21

22 Global Warming Potential What are the impacts of End-of-Life technology variation on the overall environmental profile? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 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 22 0% MAX and MIN are representing the range of different vehicle scenarios 1000 kg Scenario 900 kg Scenario 750 kg Scenario No significant difference between EOL options Situation today (Metal recycling, organics/ceramics to landfilling) Mechanical Recycling Energy Recovery of organics, recycling of metals, landfilling of ceramics/glass

23 Shredders and Material Separation Application 23

24 Post-Shredder Treatment (PST) vs. dismantling / mechanical Recycling Reduction of Emissions (refering to considered part of Life Cycle) 24 SiCon Process Global Warm ing Potential (CO 2 etc.) Acidification potential (SO 2 etc.) Summer smogpot. (HC, NOx...) Dismantling Source: ISO14040 reviewed LCA study of VW Eutrophication potential (PO 4 etc.) 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 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.