The Value of Remanufactured Engines: Life‐Cycle Environmental and Economic Perspectives

Abstract

Remanufacturing restores used automotive engines to like‐new condition, providing engines that are functionally equivalent to a new engine at much lower environmental and economic costs than the manufacture of a new engine. A life‐cycle assessment (LCA) model was developed to investigate the energy savings and pollution prevention that are achieved in the United States through remanufacturing a midsized automotive gasoline engine compared to an original equipment manufacturer manufacturing a new one. A typical full‐service machine shop, which is representative of 55% of the engine remanufacturers in the United States, was inventoried, and three scenarios for part replacement were analyzed. The life‐cycle model showed that the remanufactured engine could be produced with 68% to 83% less energy and 73% to 87% fewer carbon dioxide emissions. The life‐cycle model showed significant savings for other air emissions as well, with 48% to 88% carbon monoxide (CO) reductions, 72% to 85% nitrogen oxide (NOx) reductions, 71% to 84% sulfur oxide (SOx) reductions, and 50% to 61% nonmethane hydrocarbon reductions. Raw material consumption was reduced by 26% to 90%, and solid waste generation was reduced by 65% to 88%. The comparison of environmental burdens is accompanied by an economic survey of suppliers of new and remanufactured automotive engines showing a price difference for the consumer of between 30% and 53% for the remanufactured engine, with the greatest savings realized when the remanufactured engine is purchased directly from the remanufacturer.

A review of the state of the art in tools and techniques used to evaluate remanufacturing feasibility

“…This can potentially reduce the need to manufacture products from new, thus saving precious natural resources. The remanufacture of a starter motor has the potential of saving nine times the quantity of material and use seven times less energy than to manufacture from new (Matsumoto and Umeda, 2011), whilst the process of engine remanufacture has been quoted as using 83% less energy than a newly manufactured equivalent (Smith and Keoleian, 2004). Remanufacturing is also seen as environmentally preferable to other EoL options such as recycling as not only is the material preserved but also the 'embodied energy' from the initial manufacturing processes.…”

“…An activity based model is employed to determine original production and remanufacturing costs, whilst environmental impacts are calculated using a commercial Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) package. LCA has been used solely to determine the environmental impacts for remanufacturing products such as engines (Adler et al, 2007;Smith and Keoleian, 2004;Yang and Chen, 2005), and telecommunications equipment (Goldey et al, 2010). Emphasis here is placed upon comparing remanufacturing to manufacturing using quantitative environmental factors such as energy consumption, CO2 emissions and material waste.…”

Optimal manufacturing/remanufacturing policies with fixed investment for the underdeveloped remanufacturing system

“…In particular, "it can extend the product life cycle, and reduce resource consumption and waste generation over entire life cycle" [2]. For example, energy consumption is cut by 68 to 83%, and carbon emissions are reduced by 73 to 87% during the production process of remanufacturing auto engines in the United States, leading to the sale price reduction by approximately 30 to 50% of the new product price [3]. Remanufacturing is also favourable for increasing number of manufacturing clients.…”

Optimal acquisition policy in remanufacturing systems with quantity discount and carbon tax scheme

“…In practice, firms develop remanufacturing businesses to obtain social, economic, and environmental benefits [3,4].…”