PACT –WP3 “Producing goods and services in post-carbon societies”

PACT –WP3 “Producing goods and services in post-carbon societies” Bruxelles, midterm meeting, 17-18 May 2010 ArcelorMittal Research, France, JP. Birat, M. Chiappini MEFOS-SWEREA, Sweden, C. Ryman SOVAMATSOcial VAlue of MATerials www.sovamat.org

PACT –WP3 “Producing goods and services in post-carbon societies” • technology offer for production of goods and services • qualitative description of the links between social services and technologies in a post-carbon society • and preliminary data for energy- and CO2-intensity of materials

Menu • prolegomena • materials in general • data sources and their reliability • trends for materials • qualitative use of materials in society • bulk materials 101, present and future • methodological caveats • midterm conclusions

Prolegomena • we, as producer and research related to materials, joined this program as part of the SOVAMAT initiative • we were expecting a strong support from the Commission on this initiative, but it did not materialize • we are continuing this effort by other means, especially our annual "Society and Materials Seminars". • SAM-4 took place 2 weeks ago in Nancy • we hope that representatives of the Commission can answer positively to our invitations to attend for SAM-5.

PACT proper issues • what does 2050 mean? • a well-defined date? i.e. not 2040 and not 2060! • a symbolic future horizon identified with the large paradigm shift of the "post-carbon" society? • what is a post-carbon society? • a zero-carbon society? • a post-CO2 society? • as far as structural material production is concerned, "zero-carbon" production is a misconception, a dream out of this world. A CCS-based society, for materials production at least, is a very ambitious target, but not an impossible one. In this sense also, CCS IS NOT a bridging technology!!! Making steel or cement or aluminum from wind turbines and solar power is not realistic, it is actually impossible!

Why materials and bulk materials?

Why materials and bulk materials? • bulk, structural materials (metals, wood, glass, cement, plastics, paper & cardboard) are cumulative materials • green, cheap and historically robust: • lean in terms of energy and raw materials, • high usage properties, • low price and hence a high property/price ratio. • at the heart of the technological episteme of today, also quite robust over time. • amount of capital frozen in industrial equipment related to these materials also huge: another reason for their robustness & for the viscosity of their sector in terms of time duration. • high social impact: in Europe (EU) the Steel sector alone accounts for 422,000 direct jobs, 23 million jobs in the steel value (supply) chain and 190 million jobs in the local communities (teachers, bankers, doctors, etc.). • high economic impact: In terms of GDP, in the EU and Europe, 187 G€ total turnover of the steel sector (1.5 % of 12,260 G€ PPP, regional GNP), while 8,440 G€ of the EU GDP is related to steel.

Why materials and bulk materials? • The distinction between structural and functional materialsis common among material scientists and economists to separate bulk materials from functional materials. The former constitute the structural core of most human artifacts - from infrastructure, investments goods and consumer goods, while the latter provide very focused and sophisticated properties to goods and products: for example, carbon steel is a structural material while electrical steel is a functional one. • Studies on new materials abound, which promise extraordinary new properties, but they come in waves, the new wave chasing the former one, or putting it back into a more confined perspective: • e.g. composite materials, monocrystalline materials, metallic glasses, bucky balls, intelligent materials, self-replicating materials, biomimetic materials, nanomaterials

Where can good data be found? • "good data" are rare and difficult to get by • present data are not presented very consistently • best practices, best-in-class, world class • best available technologies • sectoral average • boundaries (scope I, II & III of the GHG protocol, for example), "crude steel" vs. market steel, etc.

Where can good data be found? • foresight/prospective data even rarer and often quite biased • incremental progress • radical progress • roadmaps (from targets to "wishful thinking" & lobbing statements): not robust at all!! • reports on on-going research and demonstrations (more robust, but also with risk) • some very visible sources, like the IEA, are not very transparent on these issues and their data ought to be considered as opinions (not even expert opinions!!!) and political targets. The IEA Blue scenario, for example, is meant to show what the world should do to match the expectations of climate change expert, not what is under way or can be done in a consensual manner! • data collection ought to be a priority: they are needed for basing sound policies and strategies and ought to be supported by institutions (data on recycling, on MFA/SFA, LCA, etc.). They simply are not out there… on the internet or someone's commercial database!!

Historical trend

Steel foresight… (ULCOS program)

Steel foresight (RITE) crude steel production (Mt/yr)

Steel foresight (RITE)

Steel (University of Tokyo, dynamic MFA)

Cement foresight F4/450 scenario BAU/baseline BAU/baseline

Glass foresight BAU/baseline F4 scenario

Aluminum foresight BAU/baseline F4 scenario

Volume (m3) Mass (t) resistance/volume

Mobility vehicles infrastructure

Mobility

Buildings and shelters

Samples of IEA data

Energy

CO2 and GHG

Methodological caveats • point 1: there is a need to include the whole life cycle in the analysis and not simply the use phase, to properly and fairly describe the environmental footprint, but most especially CO2 emissions (Greenhouse Warming Potential) and energy use • point 2: there is a need to take on board the availability and scarcity of raw materials, especially when some new and promising technology appears that is based on some specific and rare element • point 3: the importance of some elements of the environmental footprint is often not appreciated early enough, for example the issue of very small particulate materials that might eventually lead to the waning of diesel engines, even if equipped with particulate filters. • point 4: a discussion on recycling is also proposed, as this criterion has indeed a robust and universal appeal, even though it does not necessarily offer much leeway in terms of change and progress as the idea is not new everywhere and, therefore has already been implemented in some existing industries to a very large extend.

Midterm conclusions • we have a structure for responding to the material issues • the data base for materials still needs to be criticized and completed • the material/social service matrix has to be made quantitative; this requires a vision of the foresight scenarios, work upcoming in phase II • the volume of work allocated is small compared to the needs (data collection, in particular) • some very important methodological caveats (2050? post-carbon? data quality and availability? LC viewpoint, MFA & sustainability viewpoint?)

Merci !

PACT –WP3 “Producing goods and services in post-carbon societies”