By Lynn Brown, Long Point Associates, and
Shane Tredup, Custom Aluminum Products and the AEC Sustainability Team
Over the past 6-12 months, aluminum extruders have reported substantial growth in the number and frequency of requests for environmental data from customers, including the carbon footprint of their products, the extruders GHG Protocol Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions data, and whether an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) exists for the extrusion plant. In addition, customers are asking for information on the extruder’s plans to improve the environmental performance of their extrusion and finishing operations.
Extruders that do not actively supply the building and construction (B&C) market and/or do not work with global customers may not have received these types of requests yet. However, the concern about the environmental impact of various materials and processes is rapidly expanding from the B&C world to many other markets, including automotive, furniture, lighting, and other consumer durables in particular. In other words, the demand for environmental data is coming.
This should not be a surprise. Many extrusion-consuming companies and industries are currently working to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other climate impacts across their value chain in order to achieve carbon neutrality. Aluminum has a reputation for being carbon intensive. Aluminum is listed as the third largest source of embodied carbon for construction — accounting for about 7% of embodied carbon. While this amount is significantly less than concrete (50%) and steel (35%), the carbon intensity of aluminum is nevertheless significant. When one takes all of this into consideration, the pressure on extruders becomes obvious. Extrusion customers cannot achieve their carbon neutrality goals by themselves; therefore, they expect their suppliers to participate in that journey.
For example, in the B&C industry, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) — the government’s purchasing arm and the largest U.S. landlord — has a current test program, in which funding from the Inflation Reduction Act is available for 11 projects that use low carbon concrete, asphalt, steel, or glass. The GSA has identified the level of Global Warming Potential (GWP) emissions (i.e., CO2 equivalent emissions) in various products, with each one being ranked as the best 20th percentile, best 40th percentile, or midrange (Figure 1). Purchasing preference and IRA funding is given first to products listed in the best 20th percentile. If none are available, then products listed within the best 40th percentile are considered, followed by those listed as midrange. No funding is provided for products whose GWP is above the midrange level. Note that aluminum is not currently on GSA’s list, but is likely to be added to the program in its next iteration.
In the automotive industry, most of the major OEMs have announced carbon neutrality targets. General Motors, Mercedes, and Jaguar Land Rover are targeting carbon neutrality by 2040, while Ford, Audi, Toyota, and Volkswagen are targeting 2050. Even specialty car builder Lamborghini recently announced a carbon goal, with the aim of cutting emissions across the value chain by 40% by 2030. These OEMs certainly expect their suppliers — including those producing extrusion intensive parts—to help them get there. Or, put differently, the companies that help them meet their targets will continue to be suppliers, while those that don’t will likely lose a customer.
The Challenge for Aluminum Extrusion
Extruders will need to understand and document their environmental footprint. Then, they will have to develop and implement plans to improve it. To put this in context, consider the data provided within the 2022 Aluminum Extrusion Industry EPD conducted by the Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC). As part of the EPD, eight North American extruders contributed detailed data about their operational inputs (e.g., raw materials, electricity, natural gas, paint, etc.) and outputs (e.g., saleable product, scrap, emissions, packaging waste, etc.). Collectively, those eight extruders own about 30 extrusion facilities of varying size around the U.S. and Canada, operating a total of 100 presses along with multiple paint, anodizing, and thermal break operations. Their combined output represents close to 40% of North American industry shipments for the base year of 2021.
The results of the industry-wide EPD showed that for mill finish extrusion, slightly over 75% of the GWP of 10.26 kg CO2e/kg Al was attributable to the raw material (Figure 2). Put differently, all of the operations that go on in the extrusion plant — extruding, cooling, heat treating, etc. — represented less than one-fourth of the resulting carbon footprint. The remainder was all accounted for by the billet. The GWP increases somewhat when painted or anodized material is assessed (+14% and +5% respectively), but the story is still the same. Billet is by far the primary contributor to the GWP of aluminum extrusion.
Of course, the 2022 EPD only represents a snapshot of the industry, or more precisely, a snapshot of the participating companies from 2021 (the base data year). For that year, the reported raw material mix was 47% prime and 53% scrap. If one tweaks the raw material mix, one can significantly impact the GWP of the resulting product. Sensitivity analysis of the 2022 EPD data shows that increasing the scrap content from 53% to 70% reduces GWP by nearly a quarter. Conversely, running a 90% prime mix, increases GWP by two-thirds.
Similarly, changing the source (hence the carbon intensity) of the prime aluminum stock can also have a significant impact. It was estimated that the GWP attributed to the mix of prime identified in the EPD contributed 7.35 kg CO2e/kg Al for saleable extrusion. Shifting to a low-carbon prime with a footprint of around 4 kg CO2e/kg Al would drop the resulting GWP for the final product by about a third.
Clearly, there is some low hanging fruit for GWP reduction by simply tweaking the raw material. However, extruders cannot assume — and should not expect—that they can ignore the carbon impact of the extrusion process itself. Sensitivity analysis of the 2022 EPD showed the potential for GWP reductions in the extrusion process. For example, shifting 50% of the electrical usage for the typical extrusion operation to renewable energy (solar, wind, or nuclear) will reduce the GWP contribution from plant operations by nearly 25%. Similarly, achieving a 20% improvement in plant operating efficiency through a combination of press productivity improvements, more efficient pumps, etc. will reduce the plant’s GWP generation by 13%.
Additional EPD Considerations
The examination of the 2022 EPD clearly points out routes for extruders to achieve significant GWP reductions — both from raw materials and from their extrusion plant operations. So, why not just get started? Why not simply develop an EPD and start adjusting raw materials and power supplies?
Unfortunately, it’s not that straightforward. First, EPDs are costly and take significant development time. Starting from scratch, the total process, including certification of the results, will likely take over six months and more than $50,000. Furthermore, requirements are changing, and a traditional EPD, which presents a company’s environmental data based on prior year results and with a five-year lifetime, may not be what one’s market is asking for today. New parameters might include the following examples:
- The U.S. GSA requires current, site-specific data for the specified products as part of the project noted in the current test program.
- Architects are also looking for site-specific data. In other words, they are inquiring about the carbon footprint for their specific project and this may include data specific to a desired low-carbon feedstock — not just the data for last year’s feedstock.
- Customers with European ownership may specifically want environmental data based on a methodology (known as co-product allocation) that includes a carbon burden for pre-consumer scrap — not the methodology historically used in North America (called cutoff) that assumes all scrap is essentially carbon free.
In light of this increasing demand for more precise and more granular environmental data, the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) released its “Aluminum GHG Emissions Guidance” at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai last December. RMI is a 40 year old non-profit focused on “transforming global energy systems through market-driven solutions to align with a 1.5°C future and secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.” The organization plays a significant role in advising corporations and the investment community on the topic. The RMI guidance was developed through an interchange with stakeholders, including the AEC, the Aluminum Association, the International Aluminium Institute, Honda, Tesla, Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope, Permasteelisa, Arconic, and others. The primary objective of the guidance is to increase the transparency of the GHG emissions for aluminum products using a globally consistent methodology. The key takeaways from the RMI guidance are:
- Emissions shall be reported annually at the product level for an individual site.
- Emissions related to primary metal and scrap input shall be reported. Additional reporting on the type of scrap (pre-consumer or post-consumer) will be used to provide more context.
- Emissions disclosures shall include the share of the emissions footprint based on primary data.
- The carbon footprint shall primarily be calculated using the cutoff approach (all scrap is carbon free). The co-product allocation approach (calculating the burden of process or pre-consumer scrap) shall also be used, if reliable data on scrap embodied emissions is available.
It is not yet clear how rapidly the RMI guidance will find its way into the procurement programs and Product Category Rules (PCRs) that drive EPDs. However, it is clear that the traditional five-year EDP is being left by the wayside due to rapidly emerging demands for more current, more granular, and more precise (i.e., less average-based) environmental data.
AEC Response
In light of the evolution in environmental data and the cost and time demands of traditional EPDs, the AEC launched a program in February 2024 to provide member extruders with the ability to quickly and inexpensively generate, analyze, and — if needed — receive certified EPDs and/or Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) reports. The Council has contracted with SCS Global Services, a global leader in environmental assessment and verification services, for this initiative.
The new program will yield a secure online tool for AEC member use (Figure 3). A participating member starts by uploading data on their operational inputs (raw materials, utilities, chemicals, packaging, etc.) and outputs (saleable product, emissions, scrap, waste, etc.). Note that this will not be a trivial process, as up to 300+ potential data points will likely be needed to cover all modules, including casthouse, extrusion, painting, anodizing, heat treatment, and fabrication. Following quality/logic testing and generation of the environmental footprint elements, participating members will be able to download the EPD and PCF data. They can then use this data to monitor their performance or model the impact of potential changes in feedstocks or utility sources. They can also elect to have the data certified by a third-party for external use.
This tool is being developed to be consistent with the RMI guidance (as well as with relevant ISO and EN guidelines) with default reporting based on cutoff methodology, and the provision that co-product reporting can be selected when the member believes the data regarding the GWP of their pre-consumer scrap is sufficiently accurate. External reports will contain significant narrative about the data sources, assumptions, and averages employed, so that users can make realistic judgements about the reports.
Conclusion
Clearly there is need for more cost- and time-effective environmental data reporting. Whether to establish a starting benchmark for an extruder’s plan for decarbonization or to satisfy the data demands (and likely performance improvement demands) of the extruder’s customers, a tool such as the one being developed by the AEC should prove invaluable to extruders trying to successfully navigate the rapidly changing sustainability landscape. Already, extruders are planning to make use of the tool. Fourteen extruders, representing at least half of North American production, have already signed on to the project. The AEC expects more members to enlist in the program as it nears its mid-year release date.
Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in the April 2024 issue of Light Metal Age. To receive the current issue, please subscribe.