by Max and Sam
It’s no secret that carbon fibre could have a big impact in a number of industries. It has a lightweight combined with high strength, which makes it an ideal candidate for the automotive and aviation industries. The electric cars from BMW, i3 and i8, as well as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (engineering.com) are well known success stories of products using carbon fibre extensively. From a sustainability perspective, the use of carbon fibre reduces shadow when vehicles require less fuel to move lighter designs, and increase the casting of light when longer wind turbine blades generate more electricity (guardian.com). From this we can get the impression that carbon fibre is a profitable and sustainable slam-dunk.
So what is the hold up? If carbon fibre is so fantastic and the efficiency gains so obvious, why are there not more success stories like the ones from BMW and Boeing? A part of the problem lies in the production process. Long strands of carbon based fibres are heated to extreme temperatures and set in resin (zoltek.com). The energy required is 14x that of steel and up to 1/3 of the total material that is produced can be lost when trimming the finished carbon fibre to the desired shape (recyclenation.com).
That being said, a relatively new technology can expect efficiency gains after investment in processes and technology. Given the obvious benefits there must be a barrier to investment from the industries with the most to gain. For example, the automotive industry is no stranger to investment in new materials. Ford spent six years and close to $1B changing their truck chassis from steel to aluminium. For these players not to have capitalized on carbon fibre there must be something besides high costs holding back investment.
In Europe the end-of-life-vehicle directive requires that all post-2015 models are made from 85% reusable or recyclable materials by weight (eur-lex.europa.eu). This means car manufacturers are prohibited from using carbon fibre because the recycling industry is too far behind. So why did the car industry not recycle carbon fibre to make use of it in new cars? Low recycling potential was stifling investment. Both the recycling industry and the automotive industry were waiting for the other to move first. The recycling industry did not have enough supply coming from scrap carbon fibre from the automotive industry. The automotive industry did not have the guarantee that their carbon fibre could be recycled.
Recently, carbon fibre recycling firms have been looking outside the stalemate with the automotive industry for supply. Manufacturers of new wind turbine blades have been quick to adopt carbon fibre. Such large components create a lot of waste when trimming to the correct shape (compositesworld.com). Having found an innovative new supply of waste carbon fibre by utilizing the waste carbon fibre from new turbine blades, the recycling firms have pushed the whole automotive industry closer to efficiency gains once recycled carbon fibre meets the EU directive requirements. Furthermore, the real dollar savings are not just projections. Car seat manufacturer Johnson Controls Inc. reports a 20%-40% cost saving using recycled rather than virgin carbon fibre (compositesworld.com).
Recycling companies are closing the loop (Bocken et al.) in carbon fibre manufacturing. Waste virgin material from the aerospace and energy industries is being reused by the automotive industries. The automotive industry is recycling used carbon fibre from old vehicles to make components for new vehicles. Not only does this mean less waste from virgin manufacturing going to landfill, but also less energy intensive virgin material being created in the first place, thus reducing shadow while at the same time increasing the casting of light.
Surely carbon fibre will not be the last innovation to be halted by underinvestment as firms wait for one another to move first. How can firms reduce their reliance on other firms to become more sustainable? Can a part of the solution be to coordinate sustainability efforts more closely? Should companies establish a common sustainability hub to reduce their risk when improving sustainability? What is more, should the government play a more active role to ensure that sustainable innovations receive the investment they need to move forward?
Sources:
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225438257_Life_cycle_assessment_of_carbon_fiber-reinforced_polymer_composites
• http://recyclenation.com/2015/10/is-carbon-fiber-better-for-environment-than-steel
• https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/22/carbon-fibre-wonder-material-dirty-secret
• http://zoltek.com/carbonfiber/how-is-it-made/
• http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/recycled-carbon-fiber-update-closing-the-cfrp-lifecycle-loop
• http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/6810/Boeing-Carbon-Fiber-and-Engineering-the-Future-of-Aviation.aspx
• http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al21225
BUS446 
Very interesting. When I think of carbon fibre in cars, I think of really exotic sports cars. If costs associated with recycled and/or virgin carbon fibre will be reduced, it might be possible for manufacturers to actively use this type of material in cheaper cars as well. Today, though, I believe the cost differential between aluminium and carbon fibre is simply too large to be exploited in production of regular cars to make any sense.
LikeLike
I also relate carbon fiber in cars to expensive sports cars. Carbon fiber has several positive attributes, one of them being low weight, hence why they are used in sports cars. It’s very interesting to see this from a recycling perspective though.
In regards to your suggestion of coordinating cross-company activities, the risk of this coordination to lead to some sort of collusion might be too big. Like you point out, the solution could be for the government to have a more pronounced and active role. Maybe as an intermediary between companies to ensure that the focus is on solutions that are equally beneficial for all involved parties.
LikeLike
There is quite a lot of research that underlines the importance of governments interfering in these kind of markets. The benefits of of tedious R&D on topics like these are not captured solely by the investors. The competition will be able to somewhat copy and build upon the technology, and society as a whole will gain as emissions go down. Thus, underinvestment is present in almost all topics of R&D whose goal is to reduce emissions and energy intensity. So from a societal point of view, it is important that cooperation and funding is to some degree facilitated by f.ex. the EU.
LikeLike
When I think of carbon fibre, it’s mainly sports equipment that comes to mind. It’s light weight, strong, can be produced with smart characteristics such as flex in one direction and stiffness in another – and it’s totally corrosion free. Materials such as steel and aluminium oxidize and corrode, making carbon fibre long lasting in comparison. However, carbon fibre is still a relatively new consumer technology, mainly used in high quality products because of it’s high cost. The technology is still developing, finding new ways of producing (https://www.tek.no/artikler/forskere-lagde-karbonfiber-ved-a-hente-ut-co-sub-2-sub-fra-lose-luften/192172) and when it’s slowly becoming more widespread, recycling may gain a higher focus – as we see. Consumer goods and environmentally friendly cars, planes and wind turbines makes more sense if the material is reclaimed.
LikeLike
Interesting blog post! I relate carbon fibre to fast cars, bicycles and other sporting goods. This due to it weight-strength ratio.
Though, I don’t think producers can take all costs by itself. costs and risk needs to be shared to be able to deliver products within a reasonable price range and hence cooperate within the value chain (or perhaps horizontal as well) when it comes to facing recycle and sustainability issues. Incentives or higher costs, may be more effective for sustainable investments to gain higher interests!
LikeLike
I agree to some extent with Sigmund. Placing all cost and risk on the producers can endanger the entire value chain. But on the other hand – if you were to make consumers share the cost through an increase in the product prices, then this environmental-friendly alternative suddenly becomes less of an option for many people, and the whole effort becomes pointless. No point in making products no one will buy. It’s always easy to call for the need of subsidies, but if you’re serious about the environment, then subsidizing environmental-friendly alternatives should be a priority.
LikeLike
Very interesting post! Personally I’m not a big fan of to much governments interfering, but it has worked well in similar cases. The problem might be that to much restrictions and regulations can make the industry taking back the use of old materials and not put enough resources into investing and research in the use of carbon fibre.
LikeLike
Very interesting article! I definetly think there is a lot of unused potential for carbon fiber. We have already experienced some of the benefits, e.g. in the sports industry, but I believe more industries will follow for the coming years.
LikeLike
This is a very interesting topic. The increase of production can clearly create waste problems in the future, unless we find any recycling solution. At the same time, a more efficient recycling could have big implications for the production costs. Which can make it easier for other companies to use carbon fibre in their production and make the products last longer.
LikeLike
I think that government should definitely play an active role in supporting sustainable innovations. I come from a country, where one of the biggest national industries (coal) is not very sustainable and environment-friendly. Unfortunately, the government is doing its best to save this industry – as a result, any sustainable energy initiatives get pushed back, as they are competing with this unsustainable giant.
LikeLike
It is unclear for my why such high-profit companies as automotive industry leaders should wait for recycling industry. Automotive companies have enough resources to make own researches and developements. And I think if they would see enough potential in carbon fibre as in sustainable material they would invest in R&D themselves.
LikeLike
Very interesting article! In agreeance with several of the comments above, I believe that there is a lot of unused potential. I also believe that the main problem is regarding the cost level. If they are able to decrease the cost of production, we will be able to use carbon fiber in a higher number of production cars – not just sport cars.
LikeLike