1. Life Cycle Analysis of Glass vs. Polycarbonate Sidelights Natalie Henry Jaymie Meliker Mike Turnbull Melissa Vernon April 14, 1999

2. Agenda Goals System Overview Life Cycle Costs Impacts - Energy, Solid Waste, Air, Water Drivers Summary Recommendations

3. Goal Evaluate two automobile sidelight systems Sidelight = all windows except windshield Polycarbonate: –40% lighter than glass –200 times more resistant to shatter Glass: –scratch resistant

4. System Overview Data Sources: –Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: polycarbonate –Life Cycle Inventories for Packaging: packaging glass

5. Assumptions Packaging glass data equivalent to flat glass PC does not need scratch resistant coating Equivalent mfg, recycling practices in Europe & US Identical mechanisms for window function during use phase

6. Polycarbonate Flow Diagram

7. Glass Flow Diagram

8. Vehicle of Study Vehicle: Chevy Express G Van Total surface area of sidelights = 51 sq ft Useful life of van = 110,000 miles Fuel Economy = 16.4 mpg

9. Life Cycle Costs

16. Energy, Solid Waste, Water Emissions Summary

17. Air Emissions Summary

18. Key Drivers PC Glass

19. Summary of Results Glass Lower environmental impact in Mfg phase Lower total: –Particulate matter –SO2 Lower total cost Polycarbonate Lower environmental impact in Use phase Lower total: –NOx & HC –Solid waste –CO –Lead in air emissions Overall: Neither product system is more environmentally friendly

20. Recommendations PC Manufacturers Reduce manufacturing costs Improve scratch resistant coating Develop single unit for sidelight & encapsulation Glass Manufacturers Reduce/recover energy used in manufacturing Increase recycled content from 15% to 50% Overall: Improve mpg of automobile End of life material recovery and recycling

21. Questions & Answers