Graphene has been touted as the next wunderkind material for the better part of this millennium, due to its exceptional mechanical, electronic, and thermal properties. However, one look at the rocky history of carbon nanotubes shows that a research and patent boom along with impressive technical performance is far from a guarantee of commercial success, as major challenges like high costs, processing issues, and competing emerging material classes loom large. What’s more, a slew of recent capacity expansion announcements threaten to throw the space into oversupply. At times when the hype bandwagon is easy to jump on, assessment of the leading developers, the current value proposition on offer versus application needs, and progress in scale-up always provide a data-driven dose of realism.

Our results reveal that the aggregate graphene market will grow from a base of $9 million in 2012  to only $126 million in 2020. Composites and energy storage will duke it out for GNP supremacy, while conductive opaque inks and anti-corrosion coatings also provide meaningful volumes. Despite the hot pursuit by start-ups and multinationals alike, adoption of graphene-based transparent conductive films (TCFs) will be delayed by a slew of technical and economic challenges, growing to just $6 million in 2020. As graphene developers continue to wrestle with the material’s exceptional properties but bevy of commercialization hurdles, savvy developers will move down the graphene value chain into graphene intermediates and products in order to garner wider profit margins and larger potential revenues. In addition, to succeed financially and avoid getting downtrodden by a looming oversupply situation, developers need to focus on ‘drop-in’ opportunities where value proposition exists versus incumbent carbon materials. In the long run, if the multifunctional capabilities of the material – including modulus, electrical and thermal conductivity, transparency, impermeability, and elasticity – can be combined in an economic and scalable manner, it could serve as an enabling platform for novel uses ranging from tissue engineering to flexible optoelectronic devices.

The focus needs to remain on a mix of creative R and disciplined D. The material in its current commercial state, don’t buy the hockey sticks the beneficiaries of hype are pitching.

Source: Lux Research report “Is Graphene the Next Silicon … Or Just the Next Carbon Nanotube?” — client registration required.

Share this

facebook   twitter   email   linkedin  

Due to the high cost and other technical hurdles for these advanced composite materials, their use has been restricted to high-end niche applications. Nevertheless, CFRPs are dropping in cost and starting to progress beyond sporting goods and defense applications and into the commercial realm of aerospace, wind, and automotive uses. Aerospace and wind dominate on a volume and revenue basis today, but material costs remain an issue for CFRPs to win the big automotive volumes.

Opportunities exists throughout the automotive value chain to drive cost out of CFRPs, starting with the fiber itself. Ambitious automotive targets include reducing fiber cost to half of today’s $21.2/kg requiring innovations among different steps of the synthesis process to be combined. The industry’s best shot at achieving the carbon fiber price reduction necessary for high-volume applications like automotive, is the employment of polyolefin-precursor carbon fiber combined with atmospheric pressure plasma oxidation and microwave-assisted plasma carbonization, which will yield a pilot-scale cost of $10.5/kg in 2017.

How will this impact the total CFRP market? It will reach $36 billion in 2020, growing at a CAGR of 13% from its base of $14.6 billion in 2012, with demand for carbon fiber rising from 35,000 MT to 110,000 MT. Within this aggregate, aerospace and wind will continue to duke it out for supremacy. In contrast, while the foreseeable innovations that will advance high-volume automotive uses are there, their later in the decade realization pushes substantial volume beyond 2020. The opportunity is clear for innovative materials companies to position for predicted CFRP cost reductions and experience growth in the 10 year timeframe or deliver enabling technology that can bring this date forward.

To learn more about this topic, join us for the upcoming webinar, “Stronger, Lighter, Cheaper, Better: Harnessing the Power of Carbon Fiber” on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 11 am EDT

Share this

facebook   twitter   email   linkedin  

The transportation sector commands nearly one-third of global energy demand, which translates into a vast swath of energy saving opportunities. The most promising avenue to tap these opportunities is to enhance operating efficiency with lighter structural materials – including advanced high-strength steel (AHSS), aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), and carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP).

This week’s graphic comes from a recent Lux Research report, in which analysts conducted decision-tree analyses of where these materials are most likely to flourish in automotive (shown here) and aerospace over the next decade.

Material selection depends on the performance requirements of a component’s location and functional role in the automobile. These roles generally fall into one of three categories: body and exterior, interior, and powertrain.

For example, body and exterior applications rely heavily on AHSS and Al, and will continue to rely on them in the future. Both materials are sturdily entrenched in primary structure applications, including the front rails and crash boxes, pillars, door beams, and chassis. All of these parts must meet extremely rigorous safety standards for high ductility and elongation, and AHSS and Al meet these standards.

Al shines in exterior automotive components that must deliver top aesthetics, a Class A surface finish, and resistance to corrosion. While technical improvements are expected across all materials, Al is the current and future leader for the roof, hood, decklid, body panel outers, outer bumpers, fender, and door outers.

AI also leads the pack for non-primary structural body components that do not require a Class A finish, including floor panels, roof panels and rack, and the structural inners of the body panels, door, trunk, hood, and decklid. AHSS is also well-established in this category. But, CFRP is gaining due to its extremely high specific stiffness, which allows for construction of thinner components.

Opportunities await Mg in the interior of the vehicle, where semi-structural components – including parts of the seat, the instrument panel support beam, and the backseat head panel – are not in the primary crash path, and therefore do not require the same ductility and inspection requirements as exterior parts. But, the familiarity and lower pricepoints of AHSS and Al will make these current frontrunners difficult to overtake.

Lastly, for powertrain components demanding high thermal stability, Al leads the way, but Mg is hot on its tail. The battery box, engine cradle, engine mounts, and transmission tunnel all need to withstand hot engine temperatures without losing their strength and structure. AHSS and Al are the current frontrunners. But Al’s lighter weight gives it the edge. While high performance thermoplastics allow them to survive higher temperatures, they are generally too expensive for the auto industry’s taste. Mg’s comparatively higher price tag has given it a slow start as well. But its adequate high temperature performance, light weight, and anticipated processing improvements and cost reductions will increase its traction in this segment in the years to come.

Source: Lux Research report “Structural Navigation: Optimizing Materials Selection in Automotive and Aerospace.”

Share this

facebook   twitter   email   linkedin  

During a recent visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), we spoke with Cliff Eberle, Technology Development Manager of the lab’s Polymer Matrix Composites Division. Among the many topics we discussed was the launch* this year of ORNL’s Carbon Fiber Composites Consortium, which lists among its goals the development of carbon fiber for use in automotive applications. Key to this goal is the task of making carbon fiber cheaper. The Automotive Composites Consortium estimates that in order for the material to be a feasible solution for widespread automotive use its price needs to fall between $5/lb and $7/lb ($11/kg and $15.40/kg), about half of today’s selling price.

Production of the material involves a complex process. It begins with putting a carbon-fiber precursor – typically polyacrylonitrile (PAN), a derivative of petroleum, although rayon and pitch are occasionally used – through a series of mechanical, thermal, and chemical processes. According to Cliff, the PAN precursor contributes 43% of the final carbon fiber price, thus offering ample opportunity to reduce costs by utilizing alternative cheaper precursors. ORNL is currently exploring precursors composed of textile-grade PAN, polyolefins, and lignin.

Portuguese acrylic-fiber manufacturer FISIPE supplies ORNL’s textile-grade PAN, which is 30% cheaper than standard PAN. While the textile PAN’s quality would be insufficient for high-performance applications like aerospace, Cliff said that it has already surpassed its automotive mechanical performance targets of 250 ksi (1.72 GPa) tensile strength and 25 Msi (172 GPa) modulus. Its biggest drawback thus far, however, has been significant batch-to-batch variability in mechanical properties.

The second alternative precursor ORNL is researching is fibers based on polyolfefins, which are less expensive than PAN. What’s more, due to their higher carbon content – 86% for polyethylene vs. 68% for PAN – polyolefins offer a higher yield from precursor to fiber. Traditionally, the biggest hurdle encountered when using this precursor has been the required sulfonation step that requires several hours of processing time. But Cliff said ORNL has demonstrated its process can work in less than one hour at pilot scale. However, the Laboratory has yet to reach the required mechanical properties using this precursor.

While both PAN and polyolefins are petroleum derivatives, ORNL is also developing a carbon fiber synthesis process from a lignin-based precursor. This method has the potential to be the cheapest, as it is based on an inexpensive, plentiful, and renewable resource. But it is also the least far along in development. Lignin is a much more complex molecule than PAN or polyolefin, and there is no commercially available source – though ORNL believes that sufficiently pure lignin could be readily extracted from pulp mills and biorefineries.

Comparatively lower strength and modulus requirements for automotive applications have enabled ORNL to pursue cheaper precursors. But reducing raw material costs is just one piece of the puzzle for broader adoption of carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP). Manufacturing composite parts consists of several additional steps, including preforming, molding, curing, cooling, and then trimming before final assembly (see the report “Chasing Cars: Can Composites Catch Up to Steel?“)*. Cycle times vary widely, but even the quickest of processes require several minutes – orders of magnitude longer than those used for steel, as metal stamping takes just seconds. Additionally, most molding processes suffer from much higher variability than the stamping and forming processes used for steel. In order for CFRPs to be a viable option beyond niche high-performance and electric vehicles, these production throughput and consistency issues will also need to be addressed.

* Client registration required.

Share this

facebook   twitter   email   linkedin  

During a recent visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), we spoke with Cliff Eberle, Technology Development Manager of the lab’s Polymer Matrix Composites Division. Among the many topics we discussed was the launch* this year of ORNL’s Carbon Fiber Composites Consortium, which lists among its goals the development of carbon fiber for use in automotive applications. Key to this goal is the task of making carbon fiber cheaper. The Automotive Composites Consortium estimates that in order for the material to be a feasible solution for widespread automotive use its price needs to fall between $5/lb and $7/lb ($11/kg and $15.40/kg), about half of today’s selling price.

Production of the material involves a complex process. It begins with putting a carbon-fiber precursor – typically polyacrylonitrile (PAN), a derivative of petroleum, although rayon and pitch are occasionally used – through a series of mechanical, thermal, and chemical processes. According to Cliff, the PAN precursor contributes 43% of the final carbon fiber price, thus offering ample opportunity to reduce costs by utilizing alternative cheaper precursors. ORNL is currently exploring precursors composed of textile-grade PAN, polyolefins, and lignin.

Portuguese acrylic-fiber manufacturer FISIPE supplies ORNL’s textile-grade PAN, which is 30% cheaper than standard PAN. While the textile PAN’s quality would be insufficient for high-performance applications like aerospace, Cliff said that it has already surpassed its automotive mechanical performance targets of 250 ksi (1.72 GPa) tensile strength and 25 Msi (172 GPa) modulus. Its biggest drawback thus far, however, has been significant batch-to-batch variability in mechanical properties.

The second alternative precursor ORNL is researching is fibers based on polyolfefins, which are less expensive than PAN. What’s more, due to their higher carbon content – 86% for polyethylene vs. 68% for PAN – polyolefins offer a higher yield from precursor to fiber. Traditionally, the biggest hurdle encountered when using this precursor has been the required sulfonation step that requires several hours of processing time. But Cliff said ORNL has demonstrated its process can work in less than one hour at pilot scale. However, the Laboratory has yet to reach the required mechanical properties using this precursor.

While both PAN and polyolefins are petroleum derivatives, ORNL is also developing a carbon fiber synthesis process from a lignin-based precursor. This method has the potential to be the cheapest, as it is based on an inexpensive, plentiful, and renewable resource. But it is also the least far along in development. Lignin is a much more complex molecule than PAN or polyolefin, and there is no commercially available source – though ORNL believes that sufficiently pure lignin could be readily extracted from pulp mills and biorefineries.

Comparatively lower strength and modulus requirements for automotive applications have enabled ORNL to pursue cheaper precursors. But reducing raw material costs is just one piece of the puzzle for broader adoption of carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP). Manufacturing composite parts consists of several additional steps, including preforming, molding, curing, cooling, and then trimming before final assembly (see the report “Chasing Cars: Can Composites Catch Up to Steel?“)*. Cycle times vary widely, but even the quickest of processes require several minutes – orders of magnitude longer than those used for steel, as metal stamping takes just seconds. Additionally, most molding processes suffer from much higher variability than the stamping and forming processes used for steel. In order for CFRPs to be a viable option beyond niche high-performance and electric vehicles, these production throughput and consistency issues will also need to be addressed.

* Client registration required.

Share this

facebook   twitter   email   linkedin