Renault Mégane Iv - 2017 Life Cycle Assessment Results Renault Lca .

End of lifeRecycling credits0,08-0,300,75%-6,45%Table 6 : Environmental impact of the new MÉGANE IV according the recycling scenario includingrecycling creditsIII.2 COMPARAISON BETWEEN MÉGANE III AND MÉGANE IVThe following figure shows the comparison between the Mégane III and Mégane IVFigure 4 : Comparison between MÉGANE III and MÉGANE IV for the selected impactsThe difference between the Mégane IV and the Mégane III is comprised for each environmentalimpact between 5 and 30%.The main difference for each impact concerns the use phase (despite the same engine use). Wecan notice an improvement of production impact for MÉGANE IV.The new materials used for the vehicle help to maintain as minimum the same performance asMégane III for the production phase.III.3 RESULTS ANALYSISBefore the results explanations, we can notice below some explanations of the cut-offs application:Regarding the non-reassembled flows:The table below shows that cutoffs on vehicle mass are lower than 1%.Total mass cut off (kg)Cut off %Cut off criteriaMEGANE III0,000,00%MEGANE IV0,430,03%Table 7 : Cut off criteria (Study of non reassembled flows)Regarding the spare parts:For the moment, we don’t take into account all the spare parts. We are thinking about amodification of our processes. Nevertheless, we can notice below the mass of spare partsregarding the vehicle mass. We have to keep in mind our goal which is making a comparisonbetween 2 vehicles with the same hypothesis in term of spare parts used (Like it is explained inthe table below).11

x leadx acidx brake fluidx cooling fluidx glass washx lubricantx tireGlobal Weight (kg)Vehicle weight kg)% Maintenance ratioMegane 5,55%Megane IV13,005,200,904,629,6059,50109,20maintenance: Lead of battery (kg)*maintenance: Acid of battery (kg)*maintenance: Brake fluid (kg)maintenance: Cooling fluid (kg)maintenance: 4 x washing fluid (kg)maintenance: 7 x engine oil (kg)maintenance: 3 x Tires (kg)202,021302,4015,51%Table 8 : Evaluation of the maintenance impact*: We have modelized the battery only with Lead and Acid.Regarding the manufacturing scraps :For the moment, we don’t take into account the scraps coming from plants. As for the spareparts, we are planning to reconsider the inclusion of them into the modelling S2 2017.Looking at the indicators results for both vehicles over their entire life cycle, we can conclude thatthe use phase is the major contributor for all studied indicators.The results analysis shows the details of the contributions of each phase of the vehicle life cycle.Vehicle production:The following figure shows the different contributions for vehicle production.12

100%50%0%ADP fossil : Abiotic AP : AcidificationGWP : GlobalEP : Eutrophicationdepletion Potential Potential [kg SO2- Warming PotentialPotential [kg[MJ]Equiv.]100 years [kg CO2- Phosphate-Equiv.]Equiv.]-50%vehicle production - material - tirePOCP :PhotochemicalOzone CreationPotential [kgEthene-Equiv.]vehicle production - material - glass and ceramicsvehicle production - material - electronicsvehicle production - material - plasticsvehicle production - material - metalvehicle production - material - fluidsvehicle production - material - elastomers, duromersvehicle production - material - Adhesivevehicle production - manufacturing - assemblyvehicle production - logisticFigure 5 : Contributions for vehicle productionFirst of all and as usual for a conventional car, the contribution of materials is preponderant in theproduction phase. Logistics and manufacturing represent less than 20 to 30 % of the impacts(except for the POCP).More precisely, metal and plastics are responsible for more than 70% of the impacts except forphotochemical ozone creation.NB : If the reader wish to make a comparison with Table 3, please note that the modelling usedana another material repartition (ore detailed). However, it is still possible to identify the mainmaterial categories, glass, plastics (polymers), metals, and fluids.Use phase:The following figure presents results for the different contributions of the use phase.13

Figure 6 : Contributions for use phaseFor the use phase, the contributions are linked to different factors, but the production of fuel is themain contributor for almost all impacts indicators (between 40% and up to 95% for ADP) exceptfor the global warming which is mainly due to the customer use phase & emissions.If we consider the driving phase of the vehicle (well to tank tank to wheel), it represents morethan 90% of the global impacts.End of life:The following figure presents the contributions of end of life for each environmental impact.14

40,00%20,00%0,00%ADP fossil : Abiotic AP : AcidificationGWP : GlobalEP : Eutrophicationdepletion Potential Potential [kg SO2- Warming PotentialPotential [kg-20,00%[MJ]Equiv.]100 years [kg CO2- Phosphate-Equiv.]Equiv.]-40,00%POCP :PhotochemicalOzone CreationPotential [kgEthene-Equiv.]-60,00%-80,00%-100,00%End of life - Car shredderEnd of life - Renault Catalyst recyclingEnd of life - Renault Lead battery recyclingEnd of life - Renault Tire recyclingEnd of life - Renault: oil recyclingRenault catalyst recyclingRenault lead battery recyclingRenault Tire recyclingRenault: oil recyclingEnd of life - Renault Aluminium recyclingEnd of life - Renault copper recyclingEnd of life - Renault Plastic recyclingEnd of life - Renault waste treatmentRenault Aluminium recycling (after shredding)Renault copper recycling (after shredding)Renault Plastic recyclingRenault: fuel recyclingFigure 7: contributions for end of lifeDistribution of impact is specific for each type of recycling and associated credits.The main contributions come from waste treatment.For recycling credits, the main benefits are due to aluminium and plastics recycling.III.4 NORMALIZATION OF THE RESULTSIn order to give another interpretation of the results, it is possible to normalize the several potentialimpacts presented in this study.Normalization consists in dividing the value of the product per the value of a reference case oneach indicator.This tool gives the contribution of the studied product on the chosen indicators.The normalization methodology is CML2001 Western Europe, which is in line with our scope.Normalization factors are available thanks to our GaBi software and Thinkstep database. Theyare gathered in the following table:CML2001 - Apr. 2013, Western Europe (EU)15

Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil)Acidification Potential (AP)3,06202 x 101327354100000MJkg SO2-Equiv.Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years)Eutrophication Potential (EP)4,8832 x 101212821957276kg CO2-Equiv.kg Phosphate-Equiv.Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)8241462011kg Ethene-Equiv.The results are presented E-090,00E 00ADP fossilAPGWP 100 yearsEPPOPCMegane 3 normalized by CML2001 - Apr. 2013, Western Europe (EU) normalization factor (withoutrecycling credits)Megane 3 normalized by CML2001 - Apr. 2013, Western Europe (EU) normalization factor (with recyclingcredits)Megane 4 normalized by CML2001 - Apr. 2013, Western Europe (EU) normalization factor (withoutrecycling credits)Megane 4 normalized by CML2001 - Apr. 2013, Western Europe (EU) normalization factor (with recyclingcredits)Figure 8 : Normalized results for MÉGANE III and MÉGANE IVFrom this normalization, we can see that eutrophication is the lowest vehicle contribution to theEuropean emissions.Concerning abiotic depletion potential, the vehicles’ contribution comes from the large use of fossilresources for fuel production.The figure highlights the improvement between Mégane III and Mégane IV on all environmentalburdens but also the positive contribution of recycling.16

IV CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITSWe performed in this report a comparison between Mégane III and Mégane IV to identify thedifferences in term of environmental impact by using LCA.We have defined 5 environmental impacts to measure and compare our vehicles, and the analysisof each of them show us an improvment on Mégane IV compared to Mégane III.We identify a substantial improvement between the 2 cars and the results are detailed below.3 different ways of improvements are mentioned above following the classification explainedhereafter :- Technical (T) : Improvement proposed on the vehicle or its production processes- Organisation (O) : Improvement which concern the company management.- Methodological (M): Concern the improvement of LCA calculations.PhaseKind ferences IV vs IIIMaterial compositionTechnical &Methodology- Megane IV is lighter than Meg IIIwith more plastics and less metals.- More Recycled materials are usedin Megane IV (33,5% of the totalweight) BUT these values are nottaken into account in thecalculations.*Decrease of materialimpacts thanks tolightweightningManufacturingTechnicalSame plants (engine, body andgearbox)No differenceLogisticsTechnicalSame schemaNo differenceDepolluting levelTechnicalEURO 6 vs EURO 5EmissionsMethodological &OrganizationLower than Megane III except onHCTopicLCA impactsProductionUseEnd of lifeTechnical &OrganizationMore aluminium on Megane IVthan III .LCA performance ofMegane IVWays of improvementRecommendationsEnvironmentalMidterm strategy 2017-2022outputs- (T) Switch to recycledmaterials as often as possibleto decrease the impact of rawmaterials extraction- (M) Taken into account inDefine and reinforce targets of Rthe methodology the realmaterials using.content of R-materials per carNo real improvement onto monitore the real impactsthis stage of the life cycle.of R-materials usage.The Megane IV is alwaysbetter than Megane III,Define a common objective for allnevertheless we don't- (T) Decrease or emissionsthe plants to decrease thehave a significativeper vehicle produced atemissions and the energydifference between the 2Palencia.consumption per produced car.cars.Define targets in term of sourcinglocalization (Metrics on the local- (T) Localize our partssourcing). We will recommandsourcing close to our plants,transport mode linked to a globaland our plants close to ourpurchasing policy includind amarkets.combined approach between thelogistics & the part purchaser.Signficative improvementStrong decrease ofbetween Megane IV andemissions except for HCMegane III. The(due to an optimizationperformance of thebetween Nox & HCMegane IV is linked to itsemissions.)better emissions level.Same impacts for theSignificative increase ofrecycling phase but moreearnings thanks to the Alusavings linked torecycling.Alumnium content.- (T) Follow-up the newregulations and anticipate thenew cycles.- (M)We will propose for ournext vehicles (end 2017) aWLTC approach for the usephase earlier than regulationrequests. We will modify ourmethodology inconsequence.Follow and anticipate as often aspossible the emissions levels.Define a strong management ofCAFE in the company and prepareas well as possible the newcertifications cycle (WLTC & RDE)Reinforce and continue ourcircular economy policy with thesame goals : increase the lifetimeof our products, promote theparts reusing, and developp newrecycling pathways.*As it is mentioned in the methodology, we do not take into account the real content of recycledmaterials. Currently, we’re using the Gabi dataset for each materials of the vehicle. However,following our strong policy on this topic, we’re thinking about real value introduction following the2 stages: Define environmental impacts for R-materials compared to Virgin ones. Modelize the R-materials in Gabi following the real content per car which is certified yearlyby an external review as the others environemental urposes & results (EY until 2017 seeregistration document 2016).In general for the LCA performance at Renault, we have identify some ways of improvement:-17We will study the possibility to include all the waste for both vehicles (maintenance).We don’t take into account the contribution of the plants in term of building andinfrastructure but we will study the possibility to include them.

B. RENAULT LCA METHODOLOGYThis part of the document presents the framework to conduct the Life Cycle Assessment studiesof Renault vehicles.The current version of this methodology, submitted to a critical review in 2016, is v1.0This methodology is the same for all vehicle studies.I INTRODUCTION / CONTEXTBased on ISO 14040-44 standards, Life Cycle Assessment is a technique to assess in a scientificand objective way, all potential environmental impacts of a product, considering its whole life cycle:from cradle to grave as described in Figure 9.Figure 9 : Life cycle of a productLCA studies comply with the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards [ISO 2006], and the followingframework shows how to conduct LCA studies.Generally Renault LCA studies compare the results for a vehicle launched with the predecessorvehicle.Context: Who, why?Goal and scope definition: Scope of thestudy and its context (temporal, geographicand technological)Inventory analysis: Identify and quantify thesystem’s incoming and outgoing flows. Identifyerrors from this step.Impacts assessment: Transcription of flowsin potential environmental impact.Interpretation: Summary of environmentalrecords and their use to achieve consideredgoalsFigure 10 : Schematic table of LCA steps [EC 2010a]18

II GOALS AND SCOPE OF RENAULT’S LCASTUDIESII.1 GOALS OF RENAULT’SLCA STUDIESThe goal of Renault’s LCA studies is to assess the environmental impacts of all new vehicles.When it exists, the goal of LCA studies is to compare the new vehicle with its predecessor.The goal of the study is precisely detailed through six aspects: Intended application(s) and decision context Limitations Targeted audience Comparative studies to be disclosed to the public Commissioner of the study and other influential actorsII.1.1 INTENDED APPLICATIONS AND DECISION CONTEXTLCA create new opportunities for the Group’s strategy to diverse dialogues with stakeholders,thus improving the knowledge of the environmental impacts of Renault products.This methodolo

Figure 2 : Repartition of environmental impact of MÉGANE IV along its life cycle QUANTITY PART IN LIFE CYCLE ADP fossil: Abiotic depletion Potential (fossil) [MJ] Vehicle Production 78363,67 26,37% Use Phase 216706,68 72,93% End of life 2086,32 0,70% AP: Acidification Potential [kg SO2-Equiv.] Vehicle Production 20,80 51,63%