Carbon, Energy and Manufacturing

Tim Gutowski MIT

April 22, 2010

Outline

1.  Carbon Algebra

2.  Mfg: 5 Big Pieces

3.  Mfg: the other 44%

4.  Technology Evaluation and “pampered products”

Carbon emissions

Carbon = Population × GWPPop

×EnergyGWP

×CarbonEnergy

ΔCarbonCarbon

= +1% + 2% −1.25% − 0.25% = +1.5%

These are rough averages over the last 3 decades, data taken or calculated from Pacala & Socolow, Science 2004

Business as Usual (BAU)

2000 2050

CO

2

100

200

1.4%

IPCC 2050 Target*

2000 2050

CO

2

100

200

50

1.4%

1.4%

ΔT<2.5C CO2< 450ppm

*Similar to “Blue Map” of IEA

IEA, 2008

Procrastination

2000 2050

CO

2

100

200

50

T

T = June 2012

1

i=12.5%

Worldwide CO2

Allwood, et al 2010

McKinsey 2004

The FIVE BIG PIECES of Manufacturing

Allwood, et al 2010

World Historical Data

Dahmus & Gutowski, 2010

Pig Iron Aluminum

Carbon = Quantity × 1eco − efficiency

ΔQQ

>Δee

ΔQQ

<Δee

Dahmus & Gutowski, 2010

Dahmus & Gutowski, 2010

Coal Prices increase significantly in the 1970’s

Iron Ore Prices increase significantly in the 1970’s

To Reduce Carbon by Half; Partitioning between Sectors

(Hypothesis)

Target for Mfg Targets for Transportation & Buildings

Ashby 2009

Ref Allwood, 2009

What about the other 44%?

Opportunities for the other 44%:

•  Process efficiency •  Mat’l Efficiency: Recycling/Remfg •  Greening of the Grid •  Supply chain reconfiguration •  NEW PRODUCTS TO REDUCE

CARBON

Process Efficiency Opportunities

Gutowski et al, 2010

20 Products in the United States

Dahmus & Gutowski, 2007

Trends in Product Design

Dahmus & Gutowski, 2007

Ashby, 2009

Carbon optimal supply chains

•  Competitive Supply Chains

– eg. Notebook Computer

•  Cooperative Supply Chains

– eg. Worldwide Photovoltaic

Notebook Computer mfg in, and air freighted from China

788 kgCO2/kWh 578 kgCO2/kWh

Colon, 2010

It would pay to bring mfg back to the US For < $100/tCO2

After Kawajiri (AIST, Japan), Install PV where sun is good and grid is bad. Mfg where the grid is good (i.e. low CO2/kWh)

Are we going to be cooperative or competitive?

Technology Evaluation

•  Will a new technology save energy? •  Will a new technology reduce CO2? •  Will a new technology contribute

quickly?

Energy to make SWNT “HiPco” Process 2CO →CO2 + C

Nikolaev et al 1999

HiPco Process Estimates

Gutowski & Liow 2010 IEEE

SWNT Energy Paradox

•  One of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind

•  Less than 1% of the mfg cost (Healy, Isaacs, 2008)

Problem

•  Most new technologies are not evaluated for their large scale effects on the planet

•  They are evaluated for cost using usually narrow boundaries

•  Energy payback is calculated using very favorable conditions

“Pampered Products”

The Sustainability “Revolution”

•  Parallel with “Quality Revolution”

•  Build Sustainability In

•  Interdisciplinary teams

•  Concurrent Evaluation

•  But, this all awaits incentives…

“Pampered Technologies”

•  Technology development guidance •  Life Cycle Perspective •  Large boundaries include:

– nature – human behavior – growth

•  “guidance with room to grow”

Thank You,

gutowski@mit.edu