In recent years aluminium alloys have been favoured by the automotive manufacturing industry for their lightweight properties and lower cost.
However, a new study carried out by researchers at Cranfield University suggests that the use of zinc alloys rather than aluminium could greatly enhance the longevity and sustainability of automotive components.
The study conducted by a team at the university’s Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre and published ‘International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing’, compared three different alloys (Aluminium-A380, Magnesium-AZ91D and Zinc-ZA8).
A zinc alloy can be better value for money as well as being more sustainable
Professor Konstantinos Salonitis
It suggests that aluminium is frequently chosen ahead of other alloys because of a failure to fully factor the sustainability of the end-product into consideration. When examining sustainability alongside traditional factors such as time, cost and flexibility, Cranfield’s research demonstrated that the zinc rather than the aluminium or magnesium alloys offered the better choice for automotive manufacturers.
Process brings more aluminium alloys into automotive
Warwick team turn polythene into “transparent aluminium”
JLR promises new life for old aluminium
The zinc alloy proved to be a more sustainable and higher performing option, when considering measures such as the environmental impact caused by the extraction of the metal and the quality of the parts it produces. Despite the aluminium alloy being a lower cost option, the study found that the zinc alloy also offered better value for money as the parts it creates are likely to have a much longer life than the other alloys.
Previous Cranfield research has demonstrated that the automotive industry’s focus on increasingly lighter weight cars to increase fuel efficiency, often through lightweight aluminium, may not actually be a more environmentally sustainable option.
Professor Konstantinos Salonitis, Head of Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre at Cranfield University, said: “Aluminium has become the favoured material of the automotive industry for its lightweight properties and comparatively low cost.
“However, our study which looked in depth at sustainability, alongside traditional factors such as time, cost and flexibility, showed that actually a zinc alloy can be better value for money as well as being more sustainable.”
What happened to Birmabright? We know the company folded and since then Land Rovers have been subject to enhanced panel corrosion. Lots of Birmabright after the second world war. How does this new material compare with that?
Planned obsolescence.
Car manufacturers are in the business of selling cars not selling long lasting cars.
Not really a shock that they pick whatever is cheapest rather than longest lasting.
Similar to the nonsense of paying people to scrap old cars and buy new ones. Even if the old car is more polluting it’s still better for the environment to keep it on the road as long as possible rather than have the pollution of creating a whole new car to replace it.
Be careful, some zinc alloys crack and shrink with time.
And here’s an idea to make cars lighter and more efficient – stop making such big SUVs!
Problem solved using today’s technology.
I had a boxed set of Dinky Toys aeroplanes which were made of Mazak, some sort of alloy of zinc and magnesium I believe, and like most people’s, the wings cracked off, and other parts of the models just crumbled to dust.
This probably took longer than the average life of a car to happen, but that average includes long life as well as short, and if you’re driving an old car, you wouldn’t want the wheels,for instance, to start breaking up while you’re driving
Do we have the technology to persuade the politicians and climate deniers to stop making SUVs?
Processes which consume large amounts of electricity could play a more effective and economic demand side role in balancing the electricity grid (increasingly inconstant, due to renewables) rather than supply side solutions (batteries, pumped water, suspended weights) which have nugatory capacity in the scheme of things. Zinc electrowinning is certainly a candidate for this. Make the electricity tariff attractive enough – dirt cheap when there’s plenty of electricity and prohibitive when there is not – and investors will build plant on an interruptible power supply business model. And if zinc alloys (or for that matter aluminium) displace steel, there will be a carbon saving from reduced consumption of coke at the blast furnace as well
sorry SUV is our only real alternative as we tow…choose wisely and they are no more polluting than small petrols larger diesels a far more relaxed and produce their torque at much lower levels and are far less fuel hungrey
John – Politicians and climate deniers live in their own worlds with their own agendas and aren’t in touch with down-to-earth, sensible people, the environment or the climate. They listen to industry lobbyists without standing back and thinking what’s best for the country and climate in the long term. All they’re interested in is short-term gain. It’s going to have to change one day, hopefully before the planet becomes too toxic (in more ways than one) to comfortably live in.
It is not “climate deniers” who buy SUVs, it is mums looking to take children to school , stupid show-offs and e-car posers. No one denies we have a climate. Stop making poser-cars. This small, over-populated country does not warrant them.
I’m wondering what applications they ar recommending ZA-8 for? It’s density is more than double that of aluminium alloys meaning adoption for wheels may result in poor handling due to the high unsprung weight. It’s lower melting temperature seems to indicate that use in cylinder heads & blocks wouldn’t be appropriate. As these are the largest applications for cast aluminium in automobiles it would appear that the zinc alloy would be confined to relatively minor useage.
I can think of a number of car manufacturers who used zinc rather than aluminium. Matchbox, Corgi, Dinky, . . . . !?!
John I am neither a Politician nor a climate denier I just prefer the easy accessibility and the room in the SUV. Why do you think every one should be put in a box that suits your ideology.
Realities are somewhat different to individual views and the reality is that most SUV’s are smaller in footprint than most modern large family saloons, and often less polluting in their overall lifecycle than many similar replacement vehicles, and certainly much less polluting in their overall lifecycle then the smallest electric vehicles.
Vehicle manufacturers are in business solely for profit, they do not want long life vehicles which is why they replace parts instead of repairing things, they are under pressure from businesses to reduce their overall running costs for the first 3 years, which is the average life of a company vehicle.
I would also ask the anti SUV brigade to define what they actually mean? are they using the populist rhetoric of defining any 4X4 as an SUV or are they describing the current jacked up saloon cars with 4 wheel drive as SUV’s. In point of fact the claimed SUV is certainly not sporting and is certainly more utility than a family saloon, but it cannot tow anywhere that of a traditional 4X4 and it certainly won’t touch a traditional 4X4 off road as these will crucify the current crop of SUV’s.
If there wasn’t a market for them then they wouldn’t be built, and like anything in life, they follow trends and cars are no exception to this, what about convertibles, coupes, and sports cars, they have all had trends and the SUV is no exception. Traditional 4X4’s will always have a market as farmers, forestry workers, rescue vehicles, and anyone with the requirement for a true 4X4 will provide this market, along with people using them for other applications such as towing, usually as a second car.
We all know about the huge amounts of power used in the production of aluminium but I’m still surprised by this recommendation. Like wood burning power stations, I suspect that every aspect has not been fully considered.
First, these metals are not necessarily for casting, they are for pressing. They can be used for bodies and chassis.
But consider: the industry builds DOWN to a budget, not UP to a spec.
Corrosion resistance makes vehicles last too long and the industry thrives on replacements.
Scrappage schemes definitely benefit the industry and blows more carbon into the atmosphere.
They are selling to only one bloke – the first buyer. They don’t have any interest in the second-hand market or the vehicles that live there, or the people who buy there.
Just watch, this new batch of electric cars will be obsolete in ten years . Who cares? The first users won’t. They will have flogged the junk on. Then try and find a new battery set, if you can get the mortgage.
If someone was offering a hydrogen-powered 4WD made of Birmabright that could be maintained with spanners I would mortgage my soul to get one.
Cynical? Me?
“SUVs were the second largest contributor to the increase in global carbon emissions from 2010 to 2018. Only power generation is causing a bigger increase in emissions, putting SUVs ahead of heavy industry (including iron, steel, cement and aluminium), aviation and shipping.” sources The Guardian and Bloomberg