First LCA on 3D Printer Sustainability: Green Manufacturing Revolution or Overrated Gadget?

Written by Moritz Bühner   // July 2, 2013    3 Comments

Rapid prototyping, also called 3D printing, is the name of a much praised technological innovation touted as revolutionizing the well-established patterns of industrial manufacturing. It is a fascinating thought: each and every one of us will soon be capable of making sophisticated, customized products at home and no longer depend on a limited range of mass-produced industrial fabrications. But how real are our expectations? Does the collective euphoria for the new affect our capacity for a mindful, neutral evaluation of the potential behind low-budget 3D printing? And what are the hidden hick-ups concerning its overall sustainability?

By adding one layer to another and another and so forth, printing has entered the third dimension. It starts with digital data, like a CAD-file or a 3D scan of an existing object, typically takes a solid, thermoplastic “spaghetti” called filament instead of liquid ink, and produces objects, not images. That is captivating news indeed, and it has inspired many to formulate big hopes. The main advantage of a printed object, apart from its infinite variability, is material efficiency. Compared to the two other forms of making an object, either pouring melted material into a mold or cutting material out of a solid block of raw material, printing produces virtually no production scrap. It is an additive process, not a subtractive one, so 100% of the input ends up in the final product. Second, you dramatically reduce transport emissions by on-site production. The machine sits where the product is needed, at your house or in your office, not in a central manufacturing plant from which it has to be stored and transported to the final user through a mind-boggling, energy-intensive distribution network. What’s more, the days of overproduction would seem to be numbered: with 3D printing, you only produce as many pieces as you need.

Mara Grunbaum paraphrased these advantages well, at ecomagination. It is clear why rapid prototyping became so popular in professional manufacturing throughout the last decade:

On the industrial level, the technology, also called additive manufacturing, has three main environmental selling points: Because plastic or metal is laid down only where it’s needed, there’s very little scrap, unlike when objects are stamped or sculpted out of a larger piece of material. The same machine can build many different things, so you don’t have to create specialized machinery for each piece you want to make. And since the printers take direction from digital design files that are easy to transmit electronically, parts and products can — at least in theory — be printed out right where they’re needed, rather than shipped long distances from a factory where they’re mass-produced.

These sophisticated rapid prototypers can also melt and print metals and even food. However, the 3D printers that have become affordable for the home user in the last few years, the revolutionary ones, usually only process two kinds of raw material. Either fossil-based ABS thermoplastics (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) or plant-derived polylactic acid (PLA). Because it is hard to imagine this three-dimensional ink, I mentioned the similarity of this filament to spaghetti earlier. However, in contrast to a stove top’s ability to boil semolina, you can’t expect a 3D printer to produce quick results. With a digital model that you want replicated in the real world, what you most need is patience: “The process, known as ‘additive manufacturing’, can take anywhere between several hours to several days”, wrote Catherine Wilson from edie.net in her blog post on 3D printing and sustainability.

Well, if it is capable of making any custom spare part, I’m happy to wait a few hours for my printer to complete its job. By doing so, it extends the lifespan of my existing products beyond any limit of the manufacturer, who may possibly decide to stop providing spare parts tomorrow. By eliminating the main reason behind obsolete products, 3D printers help to enter an era of sustainable products with extended phases of use in the product life cycle. So say the advocates. Moreover, as some thrilled supporters argue, the printers help to make more suitable – because more highly customized – products right away. And they will have longer lifetimes due to being exactly appropriate for the specific use. Considering this, we can conclude that 3D printers really should boost expectations for improved environmental sustainability in production systems. But other expectations are even higher. An anticipated benefit of 3D printing could easily be dubbed revolutionary when it comes to social sustainability: knowledge and the means of production no longer in the hands of a few multinational corporations in the Northern hemisphere, but rather democratically distributed among tens of thousands of globally equal users. As Joy Hughes from Solar Gardens put it:

3D printing has the potential to do for manufacturing what the PC did for computing and what the solar panel is doing for energy. The ability to make things is becoming a commodity, available to many at low cost, decentralized, with innovation democratized.

It sounds marvelous, doesn’t it? We found a technology that will save the world. Finally. Well, unfortunately, as with everything in the real world, there is a downside to 3D printing. First of all, even highly customized products will eventually break down. Given that the challenge of recycling has never been fully resolved, even with relatively homogeneous industrial manufacturing methods at the core of today’s waste, how are we supposed to deal with the leftovers of individual material mixtures and customized products at the end of their life cycle? Will the new, remarkably free users care for the principles of ecodesign, or will they shortsightedly produce only what best fits the needs of the use phase? Some raw materials utilized in sophisticated 3D printers such as metal powders pose health risks and can require even more energy than conventional manufacturing, as Mara Grunbaum wrote:

Mechanical engineer Tim Gutowski, who heads MIT’s Environmentally Benign Manufacturing group, found in a 2009 study that laser direct metal deposition — a type of additive manufacturing where metal powder is deposited and fused together by a high-energy beam — uses hundreds of times the electricity, per kilogram of metal processed, as more traditional methods like casting or machining.

Due to the different scale of a home-use 3D-printer, that builds one product once in a while, and an industrial machine, that constantly makes hundreds or thousands of products, the embodied energy of their products is totally different. Per item, the industrial machine’s impact is almost negligible, whereas it is not for the printer. On the other hand, while transport emissions for raw materials occur in both cases, the final product moves no further distance when made on-site with a 3D printer, which cuts the embodied product distribution energy by almost 100%. All this has to be taken into account when comparing conventional, centralized manufacturing with distributed 3D printing.

With affordable 3D-printers conquering all markets in Western countries, media did not wait long to report on possible misuse. In New Zealand, for instance, the replicators recently suffered bad publicity because of their reported capacity to produce handguns. So this is just the right moment to stop the gossip with the first life cycle assessments (LCAs) and, instead, to enrich the discussion at the other end of the scale for debate quality. By providing reliable data and an appropriate orientation to the framework necessary for 3D-printing with regard to its promise of sustainability, LCAs do what they do best. Megan Kreiger and Joshua Pearce from Michigan Technological University are among the first scientists to compare the environmental effects of a 3D-printed product with a conventional product throughout the products’ respective life cycles. They took a typical plastic juicer, made in China, and compared it to a home-manufactured one. The specific 3D printer used in the study is an open-source design named RepRap, which used a 15% fill composition only, saving a considerable share of material when compared to the 100% fill of conventional manufacturing. According to its wiki page, the RepRap is the current market leader, followed by the commercial Makerbot.

Kreiger and Pearce found that the 3D-printed juicer had a lower cumulative energy demand than their mass-produced counterpart, no matter if ABS or PLA were used. In terms of carbon emissions, however, results depended on two parameters: the electricity source and which material is used. When using the fossil-based, but more rugged ABS as raw material, 3D printing generated lower emissions only when the electricity to run the printer was solar-powered. With regular power from the carbon-intensive US-American grid, it was the conventional method of mass-manufacturing with ABS that resulted in lower emissions. However, with PLA, 3D-printing always had a better environmental performance than conventional mass-manufacturing, both using less energy and emitting less carbon. The juicer that was made with a PLA-fitted, solar-powered 3D-printer was far better than its conventional equivalent. It used roughly half the energy and only caused a third of the greenhouse gas emissions.

The technology may indeed have become more affordable in recent years and studies like Krieger’s and Pearce’s show that 3D printing can already reduce the burden on the environment. However, they also emphasized how vast is the space for future efficiency improvement and energy savings, e.g. in the losses related to an open heat plate:

The emissions are lower for the distributed manufacturing systems for all cases except the ABS juicer without PV [solar photovoltaics]. This is due to the relatively large amount of energy needed to keep the heated build platform at operating temperature for the ABS. Future work is necessary to reduce the energy needed for the build platform. This can be done by using chemical means to enable better adhesion, using zoned heating so only the part of the bed that is needed for the part is heated, better insulating the bed, or using a controlled environmental chamber to insulate the entire RepRap from cold ambient temperatures. […] If more products are printed simultaneously on the heating bed, it may be possible to reduce the energy to print even further due to the initial heating energy being dispersed among more individual products.

So the conclusion of a neutral assessment of 3D-printing is not that surprising. If we are into sustainable manufacturing, we learn that we should use biodegradable material, renewable energy, and improve our heat flows. And for simple things like plastic juicers, we can indeed consider 3D printers! I’m looking forward to seeing when the above-mentioned improvements are going to enter the 3D printing sphere. In the meantime, although I regret smashing an excellent idea such as wide-spread 3D printing on the hard floor of reality in the year 2013, I’ll let Mara Grunbaum and Bert Bras have the last word. I.e., there is one inevitable behavioral issue that most people overlook:

And the dream of Star Trek-style replicators in every home, printing everything from toys to toasters? That may not be the best idea either, according to Bras [Bert Bras, mechanical engineer at Georgia Tech who focuses on sustainable design and manufacturing]. As an analog, he says, think of the home photo printer. Sure, you save a bit of gas not driving to the drug store to get your glossy prints. But you also waste a lot of ink and paper when your printer glitches or your photos come out poorly and you start over, which is less likely to happen with a trained professional and a machine built to run off a thousand prints a day. And that’s not to mention the impact of manufacturing all those individual printers and ink cartridges in the first place. “It’s a lot more efficient if a big machine does it,” Bras says. By the same token, while 3D printing has its uses in industry, “you have to be careful when you hand it out to amateurs.”

Further Reading

  • Megan Kreiger and Joshua M. Pearce (2013). Environmental Impacts of Distributed Manufacturing from 3-D Printing of Polymer Components and Products. MRS Online Proceedings Library, 1492. open access Link
  • Johan Söderberg: Means of production. Digital manufacturing with 3D printers is for some enthusiasts an anti-consumer concept, promising a return to a craft ethos and an end to outsourcing. But this may not be the real future of the technique. Monde Diplomatique English edition 03/2013. Link here

Article image CC BY SA 2.0 by Tony Buser. It shows an earlier version of the 3D printer Makerbot.


Tags:

3D printing

distributed manufacturing

material efficiency

photovoltaics

Rapid prototyping

renewable raw material


3 COMMENTS

  1. By Tobias Viere, July 2, 2013

    Great topic for LCA, indeed! And an interesting challenge for the attributional vs. consequential LCA discussion. In consequential LCA we might want to explore the rebound-effect of that technology. Most likely the ability to produce almost anything you like quick and cheap will increase the overall load and overconsumption of products.

    Reply
    • By Moritz Bühner, July 15, 2013

      Yes, definitely. When people started discussing first consumer-size rapid replicators a few years ago, I was totally fascinated. But now, it seems like the 3D printer is just like any new technology. We are so overwhelmed by the surprising capabilities that we project all our hopes, every issue that current technology has failed to address, on the new thing, forgetting that it’s just a thing, one in a million things.

      Reply
  2. By Mary Rankin, July 25, 2013

    Just found this site about a film on 3D Printing…
    http://www.3dprintingrevolution.com/

    Very Cool

    Mary

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Similar posts

20-20-20 Objectives

2012

3 scopes

3D printing

academia

ACHEMA

acidification

agriculture

air quality

aluminum

Ankara

antarctic ozone hole

apocalypse

assessment

atmospheric carbon measurement

B2B

Bachelor program

background database

BASF

battery change station

Bauwesen

best practice

bike sharing

bio capacity

bio-economy

biocapacity

biodiversity

biological gas treatment

biomass

blogs

BMBF

books

Brazil

BREEAM

building sector

building standards

business opportunity

carbon

carbon accouting

carbon assessment

carbon emissions

carbon footprint

carbon footprinting

carbon free city

carbon intensity

carbon leakage

carbon management

carbon neutral

carbon neutrality

carbon reduction

carbon relocation

carbon tax

carbon-neutral travel

cargo shipping

carton

central america

central asia

certification

CFC

change

chemical engineering

chemical industry

China

circular economy

circular flow economy

city

climate change

climate control

climate impact

climate neutral

climate protection

club of rome

CO2 balance

CO2 reduction

co2-equivalent

CO2-Fußabdruck

cogeneration

collaborative consumption

combined reporting

commercial sector

commons

comparative life cycle assessment

Competence Center

composite indicator

compost

composting

consistency

construction

construction industry

Consumer goods

consumption

container ship

cooperation along product life cycle

copenhagen

corporate carbon footprint

corporate culture

corporate material flow modeling

Corporate Social Responsibility

cost accounting

cost reduction

cost savings

cost-effective measures

Country Attractiveness

CPF

cradle to cradle

creative destruction

Creative Sustainability

Critique of the Green Economy

cross-collaboration

CSR

CSR report

customer-driven sustainability

cycling

dairy

Dashboard of Sustainability

database

Davos

de-growth economy

decarbonization

dematerialization

denmark

design

developing countries

developing world

development cooperation

Dienstleistungen

distributed manufacturing

divestment

domestic fuel consumption

domestic sector

double decoupling

e-car

e-mobility

e-sankey

e!Sankey

earth overshoot day

Earth Sciences

Earth summit

eCarUs

eco city

eco design

eco label

ecodesign

ecoinvent

Ecolabelling

ecologic footprint

ecological footprint

ecological resilience

ecological tax reform

economic indicators

ecosystem disturbance

ecovillage

education

efficiency

efficiency factory

efficiency investment

efficiency measures

efficient construction

Effizienzfabrik

EHS

eLCAr

electric car

emerging economies

emission gap

emission relocation

emissions

EMS

Energieeffizienz

energiewende

energy

energy contracting

energy efficiency

Energy Efficiency Directive

energy efficiency in production

energy efficient production

Energy Intensity by Sector

energy management

energy performance

energy reduction

energy sources

energy transition

engineering excellence

Enhipro

enms

environment

Environment Ministry

environmental accounting

environmental awareness

environmental balance

environmental capital

Environmental Contracting

environmental control

environmental cost accounting

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Goods and Services Sector

Environmental Governance

environmental impact

environmental impact data

environmental labeling

environmental LCA

environmental management

Environmental management accounting

environmental management system

environmental performance

environmental performance indicator

environmental policy

environmental product declaration

environmental product declarations

environmental profit and loss statement

environmental regulation

environmental standard

Environmental Sustainability Index

environmental technology verification

Environmentally Extend Input Output modelling

environmentally friendly raw materials

Environmentally Harmful Subsidy

Environmentally Weighed Material Consumption

EPD

EU

Europe

European Comission

european commission

European Green Cars Initiative

European Sustainable Development Strategy

eutrophication

EVALEAU

events

external effects

fashion

FIFA

fish

fishery

flow sheet simulation

food footprint

food industry

food loss

food production

food sector

food waste

footprinting

forest ecosystems

forestry

fouling

FPC

free trade

freighter travel

full cost accounting

gate-to-gate

gate-to-gate approach

geopolymer cement

Germany

Ghana

GHG emissions

GHG mitigation

GHG reduction

GHG reduction goals

glass

Global Compact

global justice

Global Supply Chains

global warming

global warming potential

GMO

governance

green building

green buildings

green business

green business models

green Christmas

green construction

green consumers

green economy

green growth

green investment

green jobs

green living

green new deal

green paradox

green production

greenhouse gas emissions

greenhouse gas inventory

greenhouse gas protocol

greenhouse gas reduction

greenhouse gases

greenwash

GRI

handprinting

Happy Life Years

harmonization

Harze

HDPE

heat integration

Herman Daly

HFC

holistic approach

holistic sustainability

human development index

HVAC

IEA

IFEU

ifu hamburg

ILCD Handbook

impact assessment

impact category

incentive

Incentive-based pay

incineration

India

industrial ecology

industrial location choice

industrial production

industrial sector

information design

innovation

input output

input-output databases

input-output economics

InReff

insulation

Integrated Reporting

integrated resource efficiency

integrative approach

intellectual property

internalization of externalities

international standards

interplant collaboration

IPCC

ISO

ISO 14000

ISO 14001

ISO 14008

ISO 14015

ISO 14025

ISO 14031

ISO 14040

ISO 14046

ISO 14051

ISO 14064

ISO 14067

ISO 50001

Jevon’s Paradox.

knowledge economy

Konsumgüter

Kooperation entlang des Produktlebenszyklus

Kuznets curve

Kyoto protocol

LCA

LCA data from suppliers

LCA database

LCA Databases

LCA inventory analysis

LCA recommendations

LCA software

LCM Berlin

lean manufacturing

Lebenszyklusperspektive

LEED

life cycle

life cycle analysis

life cycle assessment

life cycle engineering

life cycle inventory

life cycle management

life cycle perspective

life cycle thinking

life style

lifecycle

limits to growth

LinkedIn

living planet report

Long-Term Pay

low carbon economy

low-carbon transport

low-energy house

management models

manufacturing industry

masdar city

master program

material consumption

material efficiency

material flow

material flow accounting

Material Flow Accounts

material flow analysis

material flow balance

material flow cost accounting

material flow cost analysis

Material Flow Management

material flow modeling

material flow networks

material flowcosts

material flows

material footprint

material losses

materialeffizienz

meat

mechanical-biological treatment

media

metal industry

methodology

Mexico

MFA

MFCA

milk

modeling

Monetize external costs

Montreal Protocol

municipal solid waste

Natural Cost Accounting

nature conservation

Nepal

NIMBY

nitrate pollution

nuclear phase out

nutrients balance

nutrients cycle

OECD

OECD Environment Policy Committee

Ökobilanz

Ökobilanzdaten

Ökobilanzdaten vom Zulieferer

Ökobilanzdatenbanken

Ökobilanzierung

Ökolabelling

Ökologischer Fußabdruck

oligolopoly

Online Resource Efficiency Platform OREP

operational efficiency

optimization

organic agriculture

outsourcing

ozone layer recovery

packaging

PAS

passive house

patents

PET

philippines

phosphorus

photovoltaics

pilot program

pinch analysis

plastic industry

policy

policy instruments

politics

pollution haven hypothesis

post growth economy

post oil age

PR

process engineering

process heat

process improvement

process modeling

process modelling

Process Optimization

process system engineering

product carbon footprint

product environmental footprint

Product life time

product stewardship

production

production circle

production planning

production system

Production-based CO2 Productivity

productivity

Produktlebensdauer

protection proprietary data

PUMA

PVC

qatar

quality

quality journalism

quantified self

Rapid prototyping

rebound effect

recycling

refuse-derived fuel plant

remuneration

remuneration of environmental performance

renewable energy

renewable energy in manufacturing

renewable heat

renewable hydrogen

renewable methane

renewable process heat

renewable raw material

Renewable Resources

renewable thermal energy

resilience

resource conflicts

resource efficiency

Resource Efficiency Framework

resource flows

resource politics

resource productivity

resources

ressource efficiency analysis

ressourceneffizienz

retailer

reuse

RFID

Rio+20 summit

rising material demand

risk management

Rolf Dobelli

sankey diagram

saving potentials

savings

Schutz vertraulicher Daten

scope 3

seafood

season's greetings

seattle

services industry

shopping rage

smart grid

smart meter

SMB

social cost accounting

social LCA

social media

social metabolism

Social-Ecological Resilience

software

solar energy

solar heat

solar thermal energy

South Africa

South America

South Korea

soy milk

stakeholder management

standards

statistics

steady state economy

steel

stranded assets

strong sustainability

studies

sufficiency

supermarket chain

sustainability

sustainability consulting

sustainability control

sustainability indicators

sustainability innovation

sustainability management

sustainability performance

sustainability projects

sustainability reporting

Sustainability Science

sustainability strategy

sustainability triangle

sustainable agriculture

sustainable architecture

sustainable business

sustainable construction

sustainable development

sustainable housing

sustainable lifestyle

Sustainable Living

Sustainable Process Index

sustainable resins

Sustainable Resource Management

sustainable transport

sydney

system analysis

tajikistan

telecommunications

Telekommunikation

Tesco

textile industry

textile refinement

Tobias Viere

total material consumption

trade

transparency

transport

transport emissions

transport sector

Treibhauspotenzial

trends

triple bottom line principles

Turkey

Umberto

umberto for carbon footprint

umberto user workshop

Umweltbilanz

Umweltbundesamt

umweltfreundliche Rohmaterialien

university

upcycling

urban carbon emissions

VDMA

Vélib’

vernon curve

vertical cooperation

Vertragsnaturschutz

virtual water

waste air treatment

waste cycle

waste disposal

waste hierarchy

waste management

waste prevention

wastewater

wastewater treatment

water abstraction rate

Water Consumption by Sector

water extraction

water filter

water footprint

Water Management

water stress

web 2.0

Wellbeing Index

wind gas

wind power

wine

with both eyes open

working conditions

world cup

world statistics day

world vegan day

YET

zero carbon

zero carbon city

zero emission mobility

zero growth

zero growth economy