Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1007e1013

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Is there an environmental advantage of using magnesium

components for light-weighting cars?
A. Tharumarajah*, P. Koltun
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, PO Box 56, 37 Graham Road, Hightett, Victoria 3190, Australia
Accepted 28 May 2006
Available online 18 September 2006

Abstract

Light-weighting of automobiles has been a key issue for reasons of meeting stringent requirements on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Weight reduction in cars can be achieved by design optimisation and/or direct substitution of heavier steel components with lighter metals.
In respect to direct substitution, aluminium alloys are widely used and accepted by the industry, though magnesium is lighter than aluminium
and has superior casting properties that make it attractive. This apparent advantage of using magnesium has to be assessed in light of the
environmental burden created in the entire life cycle of the magnesium component, including the fuel savings in the use stage. This study reports
on such an assessment, using lifecycle assessment (LCA) of an engine block (EB) that can be substituted for light-weighting. At each stage of
production, the impact of adopting more sustainable technologies (such as the use of low-impact cover gas for protecting magnesium melt from
oxidation in place of high-impact sulphur hexafluoride) are taken into account. The environmental performance of the magnesium EB is
compared with functionally equivalent blocks made from aluminium and conventional cast iron and the new compacted graphite iron (CGI).
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: LCA; Engine block; Magnesium; Light-weighting cars

1. Introduction
Magnesium is the eighth most abundant element on the
earth and constitutes about 2% of Earth’s crust by weight
[1]. It is the third most plentiful element in sea water, and is
concentrated in the minerals carnallite (KMgCl3$6H2O), mag-
nesite (MgCO3) and dolomite (MgCO3CaCO3). Its resource
base is sustainable with very low resource depletion potential.
Magnesium is a fairly strong, silvery-white metal that is
about a third lighter than aluminium. In powder form it can
ignite readily when exposed to moisture. It is produced by
electrolysis of fused magnesium chloride or by thermal reduc-
tion (Pidgeon process [2]) where it is vaporised in retorts to
produce pure magnesium crowns. Its compounds, mainly mag-
nesium oxide, are used as refractory material in furnace linings
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 9662 7752; fax: þ61 3 9662 7851.
E-mail address: rajah.tharumarajah@csiro.au (A. Tharumarajah).
for the production of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, glass and
cement. Other applications include magnesium fertilisers,
sugar refinement, paint making and insulation production. In
the metal industry its uses are mainly in the de-sulphurisation
of steel, alloying for high-strength cast iron, reducing uranium
and titanium from their ores, and as an alloying agent in
aluminium can production.
Its use in the automotive industry was first exhibited by
Volkswagon (Beetle) with almost 25 kg of magnesium cast-
ings in the transmission housing of an air-cooled engine [3].
The application of magnesium is being further extended in
cars to replace steel/cast iron components used in drive-train,
engine, trimmings, steering wheel and others as more special-
ised alloys are made to meet the structural properties of the
design. Other than its automotive use, its ease in making cast-
ings (die/sand castings and thixotropic mouldings) with thin
walls has made it attractive for applications in consumer
electronics, mobile phones, and laptops. The demand for mag-
nesium has been steadily growing with 2003 production levels

0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.022
1008 A. Tharumarajah, P. Koltun / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1007e1013
exceeding 600 kilotonnes per annum [4]. Of this, about 56%
was produced in China followed by Canada with around
19%. This growth is predicted to increase with more applica-
tions in automotive and other industries.
The opportunity to reduce weight by directly substituting
heavier steel or cast iron that make up on average about
64% [5] of the weight of a car with lighter magnesium compo-
nents is tremendous. Magnesium has a density of 1.81 g/cm3
in its pure form compared to 7.87 g/cm3 for steel. However re-
placing steel/cast iron or even aluminium (density 2.68 g/cm3)
components with magnesium ones has its own challenges to
equal or exceed their mechanical strength, corrosion resistance
and other properties. To this end, there has been a growth of
new and specialised magnesium alloys, such as the new engine
alloy [6] that matches the performance on corrosion, strength
and ease of manufacture offered by other materials.
Nevertheless, the environmental benefit of light-weighting
with magnesium to save on weight and consequent tailpipe
emissions needs to be appraised. Production of magnesium
metal can be more energy intensive than steel/cast iron or alu-
minium and consequently its environmental impact can be
higher. But, this may not be the case if emissions in down-
stream manufacturing and in use (magnesium would have lower
fuel consumption due its lighter weight) is taken into account.
Thus, the investigation to assess the environmental impact of
using magnesium to substitute for heavier materials considers
all life cycle stages from producing magnesium ingots,
manufacturing and assembly of components, use in cars and
final recycling and/or disposal. A life cycle analysis (LCA)
approach is adopted to study the emissions at all stages and
report the global warming potential (GWP, measured in terms
of greenhouse gas or GHG emissions) of a magnesium engine
block (EB) for a six-cylinder car as an example of application.
An interesting extension of this study examines the sensitiv-
ity of employing more sustainable best-practice technologies in
three areas of manufacturing: production of specialised alloys
for making engine blocks [6]; use of environmentally friendly
cover gas [7] for melting and holding magnesium; and in-cell
recycling [8] of magnesium waste and rejects in the casting
process. The impact of magnesium block with and without
the application of these sustainable technologies is compared
with emissions from equivalent blocks made from cast iron, al-
uminium and compact graphite iron (CGI).
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the
lifecycle study of the magnesium engine block. It includes
computation of lifecycle inventory for the nominal system
and sensitivity to the application of sustainable technologies
mentioned before. Section 3 examines the results of the LCA
study with respect to light-weighting using magnesium. Finally,
conclusions are drawn with some pointers to future analysis.
2. Lifecycle study of engine block
2.1. Magnesium engine block
The engine block is the heaviest single component in a car,
and the block made from magnesium alloy represents an
example of light-weighting heavier automobile components
by direct substitution. It is also representative of advanced
and specialised magnesium alloy making technologies that is
competitive with both cast iron and aluminium engine blocks.
While aluminium engine blocks have been slowly replacing
cast iron blocks and saving around 66% in weight, magnesium
equivalents takes this reduction further to around 75%. Other
benefits of using magnesium can be its high shock and dent
resistance and its greater ability than aluminium to dampen
noise and vibration [9]. The magnesium EB shown in Fig. 1
for a V6 3.0 litre engine weighs 30 kg compared to 39 kg
and 84.6 kg, respectively, for an aluminium and cast iron block.
2.2. Goal and scope
The principal goal of the LCA study is to assess the envi-
ronmental performance of light-weighting engine block using
magnesium and examine impact reduction from adopting more
sustainable best-practice technologies in manufacturing. In
contributing to this goal, the comparative environmental
impact of producing an EB using three principal materials:
magnesium, cast iron and aluminium are assessed. Since the
GHG impact can vary depending on the source of metals as
well as the production technologies, the comparison considers
many variants including magnesium (Canada and China), alu-
minium (Australia and USA), and cast iron (World). The func-
tional unit for comparison is chosen to be the product itself,
i.e. one unit of EB. The underlying design equivalence of an
EB made from afore-mentioned three metals is compared
and is expressed in terms of GHG impact per EB, e.g. GHG
of magnesium EB vs. aluminium EB.
The life cycle product system of EB is a collection of the
four life cycle stages as shown in Fig. 2: primary magnesium
production, manufacturing and assembly of components into
vehicles, use of vehicles, and finally, secondary magnesium
production by open loop recycling. Each life cycle stage in
this generic product system consists of several unit processes.
The details of these processes are described in the next section.
Fig. 1. Magnesium alloy engine block (V6, 3.0L).
 A. Tharumarajah, P. Koltun / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1007e1013
Primary Mg
production
Pr. Mg
Ingots
Manufacturing stage
Precision Sand Casting Use Stage
& assembly
Sec. Mg
Energy & Waste
Fuel & Waste
Ingots Materials Emissions
Materials Emissions
Scrap
Secondary Mg
production
Fig. 2. Generic product system of engine block for LCA study.
The impact category considered in this study is the Global
Warming Potential represented by GHG emission of EB over
the total life cycle. GHG is reported in terms of the estimated
carbon dioxide equivalents (shown as kg CO2-eqt in the
figures, tables and text). In allocating the GHG emissions,
a zero allocation is given to wastes (whether they are recycled
or not) meaning that the product carries the burden associated
with the waste as well. Also, the environmental burden created
during (open loop) recycling is allocated based on the amount
of recycled magnesium used in the production of EB (which is
assumed as 30% of total magnesium input to manufacturing).
Much of the process data for manufacturing magnesium,
cast iron and aluminium EB variants has been obtained from
published data, industries, personal communication with pro-
cess experts, SimaPro database [10] and our previous studies
[11e13].
2.3. Impact from manufacturing
The environmental impact study reported here considers the
stages from cradle to grave, including: primary magnesium in-
got production, alloy making, casting, finishing and assembly
of engine block, use and final recycling/disposal. Of these
stages, detailed study is undertaken for alloy making, and cast-
ing, finishing and assembly. The impact for primary magne-
sium production is obtained from previous studies [14]. The
study also considers alternative sources of magnesium ingot
supply (Chinese [12] and Hydro Magnesium with SO2 cover
gas, Canada [14]) to highlight light weighting performance
(discussed in Section 3), though Hydro Magnesium with SF6
cover gas is considered as the nominal system.
2.3.1. Magnesium production
Magnesium ingots for the production of EB are obtained
both from primary (70%) and secondary (30%) supplies.
Zr
Zirmax – 4%
AM-Cast – 2.1%*
AM-SC1
making
Mg
Zirmax – 96%
AM-Cast – 98%
Fig. 3. Material inputs and outputs for producing AM-SC1 alloy (AM-Cast vs. Zirmax process).
1009
The source of primary magnesium assumed is that made by
Hydro Magnesium in Canada using an electrolytic process.
Its impact is 19 kg CO2-eqt/kg of ingot [14]. This includes
Mg recovery
impacts from all upstream stages of mining of ore, all the
EOL vehicles
processes that are used for making pure magnesium, and the
EOL vehicle processes for making ingots of standard magnesium alloys
Scrap from pure magnesium. It should be pointed out that this
impact assumes the use of high impact sulphur hexafluoride
(SF6 with a GWP of 22,000 kg CO2-eqt/kg) as the cover gas
for protecting molten magnesium from oxidation.
The source of secondary magnesium is mainly from scrap
produced in manufacturing (casting), end of life vehicles
(ELVs), recycled beverage cans, and other magnesium con-
taining products. Currently, magnesium scrap is classified
into seven classes with Class I being clean and readily recycla-
ble scrap, such as that produced by the casting process (e.g.
runners and reject castings). Assuming current practice of
the magnesium recycling industry in the USA, new scrap
sent from component manufacturing plants (about 60% of
all scrap), and old scrap received from recycled cans (mostly)
and others (such as ELVs), are used to produce secondary
magnesium alloy ingots that meet the quality standards of
manufacturers [15]. GHG emission from this process is
worked out to be 3.6 kg CO2-eqt/kg of secondary magnesium.
It assumes the use of SF6 as the cover gas.
Assuming a ratio of 70%:30% of primary and secondary,
the average GHG impact of magnesium supplied (32.6 kg)
would be 599 kg CO2-eqt/EB.
2.3.2. Alloy making
Magnesium engine blocks must be able to withstand the po-
tential for corrosion from rain, road salt and dirt, and engine
coolants, meet conditions for optimised performance and
cost, and must be appropriate for the production of precision
castings using a standard sand casting process. A typical alloy
of magnesium that can meet these challenges is the fine grained
(30e50 mm) MgeZr alloy [6]. Continuous development of this
alloy has further led to major improvements in ambient and
high temperature mechanical properties than earlier MgeZr
alloys, such as the AM-SC1 alloy considered here.
The assessment of environmental impact for making
MgeZr alloy considers the nominal Zirmax and the improved
AM-Cast processes. The unit processes for both are similar
and consist of preheating the zirconium master alloy and
pure magnesium (99.9%) ingots, melting the ingots and pud-
dling the melt to obtain the correct grain size, and casting
Alloy
1% Zr, 99% Mg*
Zr lost
Zirmax – 75%*
alloy AM-Cast – ~52%
Sludge
Zirmax – 25%* Mg waste
AM-Cast – 5%*
1010 A. Tharumarajah, P. Koltun / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1007e1013

to cast the EB. The raw casting is finished and transported

EB Mg-Zr Preheating
to assemble the engine. The production processes in
alloy furnace
manufacturing and assembly are shown in Fig. 4. It consists
Op/Aux Mtls of preheating, melting and holding, precision sand casting, fin-
Melting furnace
Energy Dross 1.5% ishing (fettling and grinding) and final inspection for defects.
(AM-Conv)

Mould, core
Magnesium waste generated (in terms of % of magnesium in-
making & sand put) at each process step of casting are shown in Fig. 4. An
reclamation
process
Precision sand
Losses 1%
OLR/ average reject rate of 3% at the final inspection of the EB cast-
casting Disposal
ing is assumed. Auxiliary processes include sand mould prep-
Trim
aration and reclamation of sand from used moulds, and others
Water treatment
& subsidiary
Fettling waste
15%
for treatment of water and so on. Table 1 summarises the prin-
processes cipal inputs and outputs of materials and energy at the unit
Heat treatment processes mainly derived from [13].
The impact from using conventional casting processes is
Machining
computed using SimaPro LCA software to be 2448 kg CO2-
Finishing
Precision Sand losses 1%
eqt/kg of finished casting (up to manufacturing and assembly
Casting Process stage). This impact can be substantially reduced when im-
Inspection Rejects 3%
proved technologies for cover gas and in-cell recycling is
OLR: Open Loop
Recycling
used. Using in-cell recycling, the magnesium waste (mainly
Engine Block
from the fettling operation, see Fig. 4) is directly remelted
Fig. 4. Unit processes in manufacture and assembly of engine block. in the melt furnace. Assuming recycling of 80% of fettling
waste and all of the rejects, in-cell recycling would reduce
the alloy ingots. However, AM-Cast process uses low impact the amount of magnesium that must be externally supplied
HFC-134a based cover gas ([7], GWP of 1600 kg CO2- by 4.63 kg per EB or approximately 14%. Table 2 summarises
eqt/kg) while SF6 is used by the nominal system. Also, the comparative GHG impacts from using the improved
AM-Cast produces much less Zr and magnesium waste in technologies.
the melting process. Using data shown in Fig. 3 (derived
from R. Bailey, personal communication, September 2004), 2.4. Impact from use
comparative GHG emissions for making the alloy for the
Zirmax and AM-Cast processes is worked out to be 55.78 During use phase, the fuel consumption (and hence the
and 18.95 kg CO2-eqt/kg of alloy for the assumed source of emission) is assigned to the components on the basis of the
magnesium supplied, i.e. 70% of Hydro Magnesium (with mass contribution to the whole mass of the car. A medium-
SF6) and 30% secondary (with SF6). size car with a mass MV ¼ 1300 kg and fuel consumption of
K ¼ 8.5 l per 100 km of driving [22] is considered for the
study, and it is assumed that the car reaches the end of its
2.3.3. Manufacturing and assembly of engine block life after a driving distance of L ¼ 200,000 km. Assuming
Ingots of the engine alloy are transported to the casting that the fuel consumption is evenly distributed over whole
plant, where a precision sand casting (PSC) process is used mass of the car, the amount of fuel consumed over the life

Table 1
Major inputs and outputs at unit processes of sand casting and assembly
Process Major input per engine block Principal product(s) References
Preheating and melting MgeZr alloy ingots, 32.6 kg; cover gas, Molten MgeZr alloy, 31.5 kg [7,16e19]
Mg alloy ingots SF6 or HFC-134a; electrical energy,
13.1 MJ; natural gas, 59.1 MJ
Precision sand casting and Molten Mg alloy, 32.6 kg; Engine block, 30.0 kg (magnesium alloy, [10,11,20]
finishing steel liners, 4.0 kg; water, 73.9 kg; 26.0 kg, steel liners, 4.0 kg)
electrical energy, 51.8 MJ
Sand preparation and Sand for mould and core making, Sand moulds [10]
core making 46.8 kg (primary 4.7 kg; recycled 42.1);
binders, 3.62 kg; electrical energy, 30.2 MJ;
natural gas, 67.2 MJ
Water treatment and Water from all processes, 33.8 kg; Treated water [21]
subsidiary processes electrical energy, 28.8 MJ; natural
gas/diesel fuel, 155.4 MJ
Transportation and assembly Energy from diesel fuel, 22.1 MJ; [10]
electrical energy, 14.6 MJ
 A. Tharumarajah, P. Koltun / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1007e1013 1011

Table 2 nominal conditions reflect current practice and is characterised

Summary of total cradle to grave GHG emission of magnesium engine block
Lifecycle stage GHG impact kg CO2-eqt/EB
Conventional Improved
Mg supplya 599 400
Mg alloy making 1216 125
Manufacturing and assembly 633 49
Use 1677 1677
Total 4125 2251
a
70% primary, 30% secondary Mg.
of the car in moving 1 kg of component is given by
F ¼ K  L/MV ¼ (8.5/100)  200,000/1400 ¼ 12.14 l of fuel/
kg of component. Using a GHG emission from cars of
2.85 kg CO2-eqt/l of gasoline [22], an emission of 34.60 kg
CO2-eqt/kg of component is emitted by a car over its life.
In calculating the GHG emissions resulting from the light-
weighting, one has to consider the reduction in mass of the
support structure, such as brackets. According to [23,24] this
secondary weight can save up to 50% of the primary weight
saved (the heavier component that is replaced, the more sec-
ondary weight savings). It is assumed that a saving of 10%
of the car mass leads to a saving of 6e7% of fuel consumption
[22] (in this study we have made a conservative assumption of
6% savings). Table 2 gives the impact of using the engine
block in a car.
2.5. Cradle to grave GHG impact of EB
GHG emissions of all stages in the cradle to grave life cycle
of magnesium EB is summarised in Table 2. Emissions for
both conventional (i.e. nominal system) and improved technol-
ogies in alloy making and casting are given. Emission reduc-
tion due to improved technologies is around 77% up to
manufacturing gate and 47% if the total cradle to grave life-
cycle is considered. The savings are more pronounced in alloy
making and casting mainly due to the use of lower impact
HFC134a compared to SF6 cover gas. Also, when in-cell recy-
cling is used in the manufacture of the castings, there is a net
reduction in externally supplied magnesium.
3. Light-weighting performance of a magnesium
engine block
The LCA study quantified the life cycle GHG impact of
producing and using an EB under nominal conditions. The
by the following: primary magnesium alloy is produced in
Canada (SF6 is used as cover gas); secondary magnesium alloy
ingots are produced in the USA using local scrap (SF6 is used
as cover gas); manufacturing of the engine block is done in the
USA using a mix of 70% primary magnesium and 30% sec-
ondary magnesium to make the engine block; the engine block
is assembled into a vehicle in the USA; and the car with the
manufactured engine block is used in the USA over a total
driving distance of 200,000 km.
Improvements to environmental performance from the
application of sustainable technologies considered using
AM-Cast process for alloy making, HFC134a as an alternative
cover gas in manufacturing and in-cell recycling of magne-
sium waste in casting (see Table 2). These improvements are
applied to two other sources of supply of primary magnesium:
Chinese and Hydro Magnesium with SO2 as the cover gas,
shown as product systems (PSs) 2 and 3 in Table 3. Chinese
magnesium uses carbo thermic reduction (or Pidgeon process)
and its impact is obtained from [12]. The emissions for these
two sources, respectively, are 42.1 kg [12] and 6.5 kg [14]
CO2-eqt/kg of ingot.
The other product systems are EBs made from: cast iron
(product system 4) assuming impact of average world supply;
aluminium sourced from Australia (PS 5); aluminium sourced
from USA (PS 6); and compacted graphite iron (CGI, PS 7).
Product system 7 reflects the current efforts of using lighter
CGI instead of cast-iron to make components. CGI is an
iron-based material that incorporates graphite and its micro-
structure can make it 80% stronger, 40% stiffer, and twice
as fatigue-resistant as ordinary cast iron [25]. Sample applica-
tions in engine blocks indicate a median 15% weight reduction
compared to conventional cast iron [25]. Basic data for calcu-
lating the impact from cast iron (i.e. as in product system 4) is
used with appropriate adjustment for weight savings.
The GHG impact of the seven product systems (shown by
reference symbol given in Table 3) is shown in Fig. 5. The im-
pacts are broken down into impacts caused at the different life
cycle stages, viz. primary metal production, secondary metal
production, manufacturing and assembly, and during use.
Impacts for use stage assume a total driving a distance of
200,000 km.
Comparing the total impacts of the product systems, the
iron based EBs (i.e. Fe and CGI, PS 4 and 7 respectively)
are higher than the light metals. In the light metal group, EB

Table 3
Product systems considered for comparison impacts
No Product System Primary source Secondary source Manufacture Manufacturing process technologies Ref.
1 HM-nom Nominal system; Open-loop US 30% USA SF6, Zirmax [14]
Canada (Hydro Mg); SF6
2 HM-i Hydro Mg; SO2 Open-loop US 30% USA HFC134a, AM-Cast, in-cell recycling [14]
3 CM-i China (Pidgeon) Mg; SF6 Open-loop US 30% USA HFC134a, AM-Cast, in-cell recycling This study
4 Fe (WO) Iron/steel world WO 50% USA N/A [9]
5 AI (AU) Australia AU 30% USA N/A [9,13]
6 AI (US) USA USA 60% USA N/A [9,13]
7 CGI (WO) Iron, graphite WO 50% (Fe) USA N/A [9,13,25]
1012 A. Tharumarajah, P. Koltun / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1007e1013

GHG emmissions of alternative Engine Block product systems

GHG emmission - kg
6000
5000

CO2-eqt/EB
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
HM-nom HM-i CM-i Fe (WO) Al (AU) Al (US) CGI (WO)
Product system

Primary prodn Secondary prod Manuf. & assy Use stage Total

Fig. 5. Comparison of life cycle GHG impacts for different engine blocks.

made from Australian aluminium (Al-AU, PS 5) is the highest using SO2 (HM-i, PS 2) outperforms all of the product sys-
due to the high impact of primary aluminium production (from tems, since its impact of manufacture is lower than others
high impact coal-based electricity) and the relatively lower re- and it is the lightest with the lowest rate of fuel consumption
cycling rates. Chinese magnesium (CM-I, PS 3) is second during use.
highest, even with application of sustainable technologies.
This is mainly because of its high GHG emissions in the pro-
4. Conclusions
duction of primary magnesium. EB made from aluminium
produced in the USA (Al-US, PS 6) is lower than the nominal
Weight reduction through direct substitution of lighter ma-
system (HM-nom, PS 1) that uses Hydro Magnesium with
terials to improve fuel economy and consequent savings in
high impact SF6. When SF6 is replaced with lower impact
GHG emissions has been a routine automotive practice for
cover gases (HFC-134 in casting manufacture and SO2 in pro-
sometime now. Magnesium alloys, in this respect, offer an ad-
ducing primary magnesium), HM-i (PS 2) has the lowest
vantage due to their lower density along with mechanical
impact.
properties that can match functional capabilities offered by
Fig. 6 gives another interesting perspective of the GHG im-
heavier steel and cast iron components in certain automotive
pact of the seven product systems as a function of the driving
applications.
distance. The x-axis gives the driving distance and the y-axis
The resulting GHG emission performance of a magnesium
the GHG emissions. The y-intercept is the GHG impact
engine block is compared for directly substituting blocks made
from manufacturing an EB. As the car is driven, emission
from cast iron, CGI and aluminium. It highlights the environ-
from use (i.e. fuel consumed) is added.
mental advantage in using magnesium. Nevertheless, the size
Comparison of performance of a product system is given as
of this advantage can diminish, even with the application of
the distances at which the accumulated emissions break even
sustainable technologies, depending on the impact of the
with emissions of other product systems. For instance, the ap-
source of magnesium used, in particular the high impact mag-
proximate competitive break-even distances of the nominal
nesium metal produced by the Pidgeon process in China.
product system (HM-nom, PS 1) are: 36,000 km (Fe, PS 4),
Finally, selecting the best material for applying weight re-
136,000 km (Al-AU, PS 5), 347,000 km (Al-USA, PS 6),
duction, nevertheless, can be a difficult choice. Often, compe-
and 75,000 km (CGI, PS 7). For Chinese magnesium with ap-
tition between suppliers of different materials results in
plication of sustainable technologies, the break-even distances
improving structural performance and/or weight of materials
are reduced to, respectively, 20,000, 40,000, 236,000 and
and costs, such as the case between CGI and aluminium.
36,000 km. The improved EB made from Hydro Magnesium
Thus, choice is dictated by the relative merits of competing
materials at any point in time. In this respect, as demonstrated
GHG break-even distance between product systems
GHG emmissions - kg CO2-

10000
here, currently magnesium may be favoured as having an en-
vironmental advantage over other competing materials for
Fe (WO)
8000 light-weighting of selected automotive components.
CGI (WO)
eqt/EB

6000
HM-nom Al (AU)
4000 Acknowledgements
2000
HM-i Al (US) We wish to thank the Cooperative Research Centre for Cast
CM-i
0 Metals Manufacturing (CAST) for supporting this work. We
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 also thank Dr Nigel Ricketts of CAST and Mr Rob Bailey,
Distance (1000 km) Dr Malcolm Frost and Dr Gordon Dunlop of Australian
Fig. 6. Comparison of break-even driving distance for equivalent GHG impact Magnesium Technology for providing information and data for
of different material product systems. this study.
 A. Tharumarajah, P. Koltun / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1007e1013 1013

References [13] Tharumarajah A, Koltun P. Lifecycle assessment of magnesium compo-

nent supply chain. 62nd Annual World Magnesium Conference, Berlin:
Germany; May 22e24, 2005.
[1] Lide DR, editor. CRC handbook on chemistry and physics. 85th ed.
[14] Albright DL, Haagensen JO. Life cycle inventory of magnesium.
USA: NIST; 2003.
International Magnesium Association Annual Conference (IMA-54),
[2] Pidgeon LM, Alexander WA. Thermal production of magnesium e pilot
Toronto; June 8e10, 1997.
plant studies on the retort ferrosilicon process. Transactions of the
[15] Kramer DA. Magnesium recycling in the United States in 1998. US
American Institute of Mining and Materials Engineers 1944;159:315e52.
Geological Survey, Circular 1196-E. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1196e.
[3] Cole GD. Lightweight strategies. Chemical & Engineering News, Amer-
[16] Dorsam H, Westofen S. Magnesium melting, casting and remelting in
ican Chemical Society, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/magnesium.html;
foundries. In: Kaplan HI, Hryn JN, Clow BB, editors. Magnesium
2003.
technology, The Minerals, Metals & Material Society; 2000. p. 725e37.
[4] Kramer D. Magnesium. US Geological Survey minerals yearbook, http://
[17] Magnesium machine furnace MMO and MMOSL, <http://www.rauch-ft.
minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/magnesium/magnemyb03.
com/e001home.htm>; 2003.
pdf; 2003. p. 46.1e46.8.
[18] Heffron JF, Saha D. Practical aspects of using sulphur hexafluoride in
[5] Schmidt W, Dahlqvist E, Finkbeiner M, Krinke S, Lazzari S,
fluxless melting of magnesium and its alloys. NADCA Conference:
Oschmann D, et al. Life cycle assessment of lightweight and end-of-
Die-Casting Technology, Cleveland, USA; October 18e23, 1993. p.
life scenarios for generic compact class passenger vehicles. International
323e29.
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2004;9:405e16.
[19] Gjestland H, Magers D. Practical usage of sulphur hexafluoride for melt
[6] Bettles CJ, Forwood CT, St. John DH, Frost MH, Jones SA, Qian M,
protection in the magnesium die-casting industry. Proceedings of interna-
et al. AMC-SC1 a new magnesium alloy suitable for powertrain applica-
tional magnesium conference (IMA-53) Ube City, Japan. McLean (VA),
tions. SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-1365, SAE World Congress; 2003.
USA: International Magnesium Association; 1996. p. 83e5.
[7] Ricketts N, Cashion S, Bailey R. Industrial trials with the AM-cover gas
[20] Kusik CL, Dale SE, Gott PG, Parameswaran K. Life cycle energy
system for magnesium melt protection. In: Proceedings of the First
requirements for selected automotive sheet materials. SAE technical
International Light Metal Technology Conference, Brisbane: Australia;
paper no. 820150, 1982.
18e20 September, 2003. p. 275e80.
[21] Tharumarajah A, Koltun P, Ramakrisnan S. Improving environmental
[8] Bolstad J, Bækkeda D, Cashion S, Dunlop G, Kettler C. Cost effective
performance of Australian aluminium industry. Australian Die-Casting
solutions for handling magnesium alloys in diecasting plants, http://
Association Conference, Melbourne, Australia; October 13e15, 2003.
www.am-technologies.com.au/pdf/amconverter.pdf; 8 May 2005.
[22] Moore DM. Environment and life cycle benefit of automotive aluminium.
[9] Ma Q, Graham D, Zheng L, St. John DH, Frost MT. Alloying of pure
Toronto, Canada: Canadian Technology Development, http://www.alcan.
magnesium with Mg-33.3Zr master alloy. Materials Science and Tech-
com; October, 2001.
nology 2003;19:156e62.
[23] Chubbs S, van Schaik M, Harrington J, Peterson P. Dynamic LCA of ma-
[10] SimaPro 6 LCA Software (Franklin and EcoInvent databases). The Neth-
terials in cars. Report of American Iron, Steel Institute (AISI), USA; 2002.
erlands: Pre Consultants, http://www.pre.nl/simapro/default.htm; 2005.
[24] Dhingra R, Overly JG, Davis GA. Environmental evaluation of materials
[11] Ramakrishnan S, Tharumarajah A, Koltun P, Roberts MJ. Eco-efficient
in new generation vehicles. Report, ‘‘The Center for Clean Products
light-metals component manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the First
and Clean Technologies’’, University of Tennessee, USA, May, 2001,
International Light Metal Technology Conference, Brisbane: Australia;
p. 98.
18e20 September, 2003. p. 125e30.
[25] DeCicco JM. Steel and iron technologies for automotive lightweighting.
[12] Ramakrishnan S, Koltun P. Global warming impact of the magnesium
Environmental Defense, www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/
produced in China using the Pidgeon process. Resources, Conservation
4724_LtWtSteelTechs2005.pdf; March 3, 2005.
and Recycling 2004;42:49e64.