Additive Manufacturing (AM) is increasingly becoming a key driver in the green transition of the manufacturing industry, as more and more people recognise the technology’s potential. However, the full potential is still unrealised, and it is therefore necessary to view the technology from a 360-degree perspective.
Text by Dansk AM Hub – the article can be read at Business Insights.
Significantly reduced material consumption and waste. Distributed, local “on-demand” production. Less need for large inventories. Far more sustainable materials in production and finished parts made up of fewer components and more energy-efficient. These are just some of the benefits of Additive Manufacturing (AM)/3D printing that can make production more sustainable.
Instead of conventional production with old-fashioned heavy machines that cast or mill products using large amounts of material, the 3D printer uses only the material that is strictly necessary. The machine can be located in the same city as the consumer, and “print” can be pressed once the item has been ordered and paid for.
However, to access these benefits, it is crucial that companies are not hesitant to invest in new and perhaps less familiar technology. An improved version of a traditional machine may feel like a safer investment, but it may potentially be a better investment to look at new production technology.
AM as a circular solution
Additive manufacturing can help us reduce CO2 emissions associated with production. According to the analysis ‘Completing the Picture’ by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, material processing accounts for around a quarter of global emissions, and emissions from production are expected only to rise in the coming years as purchasing power in developing countries increases.
However, AM enables better and smarter designs and tailored products, and the digital value chains create the former green benefits. This means the technology holds enormous potential to reduce our CO2 emissions in production, transport, and warehousing. A potential that is only strengthened as more and more sustainable materials gain ground, making it possible to print in, for example, recyclable plastic and 100% bio-based material.
AM from a 360-degree perspective
Digital layer-by-layer manufacturing is sometimes criticised for being an energy-intensive process compared with conventional manufacturing methods—and existing data has focused on comparing AM with traditional production methods from a tonne-for-tonne perspective, where, for example, one tonne of plastic printed in Denmark has been compared with one tonne of plastic injection-moulded in China. But that is a misleading picture, and it is crucial to look at how additive manufacturing improves the entire system and to compare the whole process from design and development to production and transport.
Products in conventional manufacturing typically consist of many parts, whereas products made with AM technology have significantly fewer. If you manufacture a product or part in a 3D-printed design, you also have the opportunity to create an entirely new design free from the limitations of the mould, better suited to its purpose and more efficient. Our neighbouring countries’ aerospace and automotive industries have benefited from this for a long time, but other industries are also beginning to follow suit.
And that is good for Denmark. The South Jutland-based Danitech, a Jutland manufacturing company of the kind we have thousands of in Denmark, producing specialised products—especially hydraulic blocks and mechanical parts—has truly embraced this. Through our projects and collaboration with GTS institutes, Danitech has succeeded in developing a 3D-printed valve block for an actuator—a valve block that will be physically smaller, require less material, use up to 50% less energy, and still deliver the same performance. 3D printing therefore enables the company to reduce waste by 50–70% and lower transport costs and the associated CO2 footprint, while also giving Danitech’s customers exactly the right solution rather than a standard solution.
The comparison: Conventional vs additive
The point is that we need to view it from a 360-degree perspective to better understand the technology. We cannot simply compare tonne for tonne and declare a winning method—we must take the entire production into account, because the part also has to be packed and transported by train, plane, and truck from a factory in China to the buyer in Copenhagen, Kerteminde, and Kolding. That is where the difference lies: in local and more distributed production enabled by AM.
Let us take an example presented by one of our partners, the American company Ivaldi, which advises industrial companies on transitioning to digital production. They find that the decisive factor is, in particular, CO2 emissions from transport, and that it is safe to name AM as the most sustainable winner due to its ability to enable more digital and distributed production. We need many more such calculation models, but the figures point to an important parameter: “Time to Market”. With AM, Ivaldi finds time savings of up to 38 days depending on the mode of transport, compared with conventional production.
That very time saving has made a decisive difference for the Aarhus-based manufacturing company DAFA, which makes products in foam, rubber, and plastic materials for construction, industry, and wind energy, such as gaskets, sealing tapes, and sound- and vibration-damping solutions. After participating in one of our programmes, where they borrowed and tested a 3D printer for one month, they invested in the technology themselves—and have managed to cut eight weeks (!) off the development time for new products because they can deliver new prototypes in one working day. This is a significant competitive advantage for DAFA, which can and should also be leveraged to create more sustainable production, where AM is integrated into smarter, digital, and distributed value chains.
The sustainable potential
Their experience thus also supports Ivaldi’s conclusion: 3D printing is the most sustainable and green solution DESPITE the necessary energy consumption in the manufacturing process itself. In a direct comparison, conventional production will win, but we must compare the entire process to declare an—obvious—winner. By viewing AM from a 360-degree perspective, we can better understand the technology’s sustainable potential and the positive effects it creates for people and the planet—as well as for the individual company. AM can increase local employment, reduce transport, material consumption, and waste, while also contributing to greater independence within the respective manufacturing company, which can likewise benefit from increased design freedom and strengthened competitiveness.
AM undeniably holds an unrealised sustainable potential—but also a potential that will gradually be realised as, globally, we learn to view the technology in its full perspective and carry out further research and calculations like Ivaldi’s, which equip us to apply the technology in the best possible way. For the benefit of today’s generations, but certainly also for those to come—and for the planet they will live on.
