Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The transition toward low-carbon mobility requires material-selection approaches that account for extended use cycles and cross-sector reuse pathways. However, early-stage automotive design decisions are typically informed by single-life cradle-to-grave assessments, which do not explicitly integrate reuse-induced substitution effects or multi-stage emission accounting within development timelines. This study operationalizes an integrated cradle-to-reuse-to-grave (C2R2G) assessment approach by combining established life cycle assessment (LCA), system expansion, and substitution modeling principles into an automotive-specific decision-support structure. The framework formalizes emission accounting across primary use, reuse preparation, secondary application, and end-of-life treatment, including explicit system expansion, substitution, and circular scenario modeling parameters. A bio-based laminated veneer lumber (LVL) seat-shell is evaluated as a demonstrative case within passenger vehicle applications. Scenario modeling compares single-life, recycling, and open-loop reuse pathways under varying lifetime and energy-intensity assumptions. Results indicate that reuse-driven substitution effects can significantly alter cumulative carbon footprints compared to single-life configurations, though outcomes remain highly sensitive to assumed service lifetimes, displaced material emission factors, and energy mixes in second-life sectors. Sensitivity analysis highlights key parameters influencing ranking stability and identifies boundary conditions under which reuse advantages diminish. Rather than proposing a new LCA methodology, this work demonstrates how established analytical components can be systematically integrated to support early-stage automotive material pathway evaluation. The approach enhances transparency in allocation choices and trade-off identification, contributing to more informed low-carbon design decisions in circular mobility systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaswal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: