3D Printing Environmental and Moral Implications - Essay Example

3D Printing environmental and moral/ethical implications 3D Printing environmental and moral/ethical implications 3-D printing is well positioned to create a manufacturing revolution. However, it has not been spared of challenges with regard to the environment and moral obligations. Questions have been asked as to the technologies viability and realistic application. Some have questioned how it would ecologically impact on manufacturing, whether it would eliminate waste and whether it would do away with environmental challenges associated with manufacturing? Skeptics have however pondered whether the technology would produce more challenges that it will solve. This section dissects two aspects of 3-D printing; its environmental implications and its moral and ethical implications. Environmental implications of 3-D printing As climate experts continue to issue frantic warnings as to the impact of human activities on the climate, manufacturers have also heeded the call and put in place measures to cut carbon footprint substantially; will 3-D manufacturing technology reverse the gains made. This is a question that lingers in the minds of many stakeholders. It is therefore important to deeply analyze the environmental impacts of 3-D printing on the environment. Bold assertions have been made with regard to benefits associated with 3-D printing. Some enthusiasts have been quick to argue that it is the new model for sustainable production (Megan & Pearce, 2013). Most importantly, is the fact that it will alter not just how manufacturing is done but also where the manufacturing is done. There is however little research with regard to its environmental impacts. Experts argue that such researches can only be successful if questions such as what technologies are involved in 3-D printing? How efficient is the technology in terms of material and energy use? What materials are used and what is the worker exposure and environmental impacts? Does the printed objects’ design reduce end-of-life options? Does more localized production lower the carbon footprint? And will simplicity and ubiquity result into overprint things? Form the basis of study. Waste reduction Is 3-D printing a greener form of manufacturing? This is a question that remains emblazoned in the minds of many concerned stakeholders. Experts argue that reduction of wastes is one area where 3-D printing has a clear advantage, more especially where metals are involved. According to Barnes John, a leading figure in CSIRO’s titanium technologies research, using 3-D printing in making fish-tracking tags salvages up to 90% wastes typical of conventional machining processes where the fish-tracking tags are made from solid metal blocks. This is extremely important for titanium whose purification from its ore is extremely energy intensive. However, 3-D printing does not mean zero waste. A study by UC Berkeley mechanical engineering department (2013) dispelled some of the rumor milling around that 3-D printing produces zero waste. As a matter of fact, it emerged that when it comes to waste generation; 3-D printing cannot be looked at as a whole but rather should be assessed based individual technologies. In the study, two common kinds of 3-D printers were assessed; an FDM machine and an inkjet printer. The FDM machine which is made in the form of a hot glue gun and has an XYZ control was noted to nave negligible wastage but only in instances where the printing process does not require supporting materials to shore it during printing process. On the other hand, the inkjet 3D printer known for laying down polymeric ink and UV to cure layer by layer was found to waste between 40% and 45% even before factoring in supporting materials wasted, in addition to the fact that it does not allow recycling (Megan & Pearce, 2013). In the same manner, other studies have also found significant wastes from the various kinds of 3-D printing technology. Nonetheless, the fact that it does have some wastages, does not deny it a plus in terms of wastage. In evaluating 3D’s position in terms of sustainable production, a study compared 3D printing to machining using a computer-controlled mill which involved chipping away of all unwanted parts from a block to form the desired model. Noting that 3D is not about to replace injection molding, the comparison was limited to CNC milling which also focuses on production of smaller runs rather than bulk production. A controversial aspect of the study was the fact that comparing the method’s annual ecological impact, or even hourly usage due to the operational variations. For instance, while a CNC mill can take 30 minutes to produce a part, an inkjet printer could take 3 hours to print the same. Nonetheless, looking at ecological impact per part, it was discovered that how the tools are used mattered more than the tools themselves. As a matter of fact, while FDA 3-D printing did astonishingly well, inkjet printing was observed to produce high volume of wastes (Megan & Pearce, 2013). Wastage is not just reduced in production but also in finished products. Conventionally, many unsold products lying in dumpsites and hence continue to degrade the environment, 3-D printing allows printing products when needed and hence no unneeded products are produced hence there will be no issue of unsold products. Additionally, being able to print parts replacement will reduce the rate at which products are disposed at wastes either due to lack of replacement parts, or in accessibility of the replacement parts. In essence, product parts are replaced through 3D printing, so a whole product does not have to be thrown away or replaced each time it malfunctions. Carbon footprint Scientists believe that earth CO2 have already surpassed stable levels underlying the importance of ensuring all technologies are efficient and beneficial to the environment. An EADS report reported that 3D printing can reduce CO2 emission by up to 40%. Megan & Pearce (2013) reported that 3D printers have lower carbon footprints as compared to traditional manufacturing approaches, thanks to the fact that 3D printed products are made at specified fill levels where considerably less material are used in comparison to factory-made products. Additionally, it cannot be ignored that a substantial percentage of traditional product’s carbon foot-print arise from supply chain; this is not an issue with 3D printing. 3D printing shortens the supply chain (Megan & Pearce, 2013). A product can be produced when needed at the location of need and hence there is no need for transportation for warehousing, to wholesalers, retailers and eventually consumers. The carbon footprint in between is eliminated. Electrical footprint In 2008, a group of researchers from Loughborough University in collaboration with industry specialists undertook a comparison of carbon footprint of components built using 3D printing and similar components from traditional manufacturing. The project, focused on low carb found that 3D printers consumed 100 times the amount of heat consumed by traditional manufacturing processes in manufacturing a product of the same weight and materials. According to Owen, the fact the process uses heating processes or powerful lights in curing resins makes it extremely hungry for power. Some however argue that with 3D you only melt the material you would need to form part of your final product unlike traditional manufacturing processes where there are lots of wastes. Arguably, despite the vast potential offered by 3D printing and its ability to promote cleaner production, it is yet to be eco-friendly due to its high energy consumption and as some critics put it, irrespective of the materials used, 3D printing is an energy hog. As already mentioned, Loughborough University’s research in the United Kingdom revealed that 3D-printing process uses freakishly large amount of electrical energy (Wittbrodt et al., 2013). In the end, this large energy consumption adds to its carbon footprint given that electrical energy production is associated with considerable levels of carbon emissions. Secondhand fumes It has taken years to prove that second-hand smoke is harmful to human health. However, much recently, research has proven that secondhand printing fumes have toxic by-products released when plastic is subjected to heating at high temperatures. This is a hard-hitting blow to 3D printing aficionados who previously took pride in the fact that 3D-printing plastics gives off a nice smell, similar to that of burning corn kernels. Recent research reported that air quality analysis showed that 3D printers are characterized as high emitters of ultra-fine particles. These particles, according to Heath Effects Institute (HFI), affect lung functional changes, results into airway inflammation, causes enhanced allergic responses, are associated with vascular thrombogenic effects; produces altered endothelial function, altered heart rate as well as heart rate variability (Megan & Pearce, 2013). Additionally, the particles reportedly cause accelerated atherosclerosis, and increased brain inflammation markers. However, the UFP’s emitted by 3D are equivalent to those emitted through indoor cooking. The lower side is that there is still insufficient research to discern the exact UFPs emitted by home-scale plastic printers as well as the impact that UFP emissions have on industrial-scale 3D printing environments. Plastic Scourge Other than energy consumption in manufacturing process, the processes’ heavy reliance on plastic creates a not-so-ideal environmental impact. As a matter of fact, injection molding is considered cleaner in this respect due to the fact that leaves behind negligible used pieces of plastic. On the other hand, industrial grade plastic 3-D printers use powdered/molten polymers and leave behind considerable amount of unused raw materials on its print bed. Although the plastic by-products which are left behind during print jobs can be reused sometimes, the materials properties are more often than not, compromised and hence no suitable for further use. Sadly, plastic has never been good news to environmentalists. Nonetheless, there is a ray of hope offered by corn-based printing plastic known as PLA due its biodegradability. Rapid waste generation 3-D printing is expected to create a new kind of pollution in future, that is, rapid garbage generation. Conventionally, engineers are trained to respect raw materials and always consider acceptable disposal ways. However, this scenario is likely to change in instances where easy production tools are accessible to untrained personnel. Like is the case with regular paper printing, soon 3D printing might be available but at an environmentally costly process. Moral and Ethical implications of 3D Printing Conventional manufacturing has set and operates under predefined standards that address moral and ethical issues arising from manufacturing. The rate at which this emergent technology is rising however raises serious ethical and moral issues bound to create unavoidable challenges in future. As the technology continues take grip, more and more ethical and moral challenges are likely to be exhibited (Hayes, 2013). Consequently, 3D printing is likely to ignite major debate with regard to ethics and regulation of 3D printing. A number of the areas of concern are discussed. Intellectual Property Rights The rapid growth of the technology is expected to bring about lots of challenges in relation to intellectual property (IP) theft. According to Gartner (2014), by 2018, it is expected that 3D printing will contribute to loss of no less than $100 billion annually in IP globally across the globe (Gartners Special Report, 2014). Sadly, the same factors which foster innovation; R & D pooling, crowdsourcing and start-up funding alongside reduced product life cycles offer a fertile ground for theft of intellectual property using 3D printers. Already, it is easy to 3-D print lots of items, such as toys, machine as well as automotive parts. In such an environment, it is difficult to holistically monetize inventions and intellectual property licenses and hence limit benefit from the same. Such can be a demotivating factor for innovators. Interestingly, those who steal intellectual properties will have shorter product development as well as supply chain costs and hence will be able to sell counterfeit products at discounted costs. This is aggravated by the ease with which some websites allow sharing of 3D printing schematics. The shared designs are most unpatented and hence can be easily copied and sold to multiple people. Despite established companies going after sites which share their designs, some designs build upon the original designs to create better designs making it difficult to prove copyright infringement. Manufacturer’s responsibility Conventionally, product manufacturers are held responsible for their products. With manufacturing ability to all and sundry, the question will be, how can of products such as helmets, wheels for bikes, or toys, among others be guaranteed. Is someone breaks their leg while riding a 3D bike, who will be held accountable where fault is in manufacturing? Is it the printer owner, the product original manufacturer or the designer or is it the people who decide to reproduce the original design (LaBossiere, 2013). These are questions that need to be answered. As a matter of fact, the technology exposes consumers Risks associated with the technology Knowing quite well that 3D printing can be used to print a gun, imagine a scenario where the printer is accessible to all. There are obvious risks and ethical issues with respect to the possibility of printing guns using 3D printers. In the recent past, a 3D printer manufacturer has dissociated itself from Wilson and his Austin-based company known as Defense Distributed. However, this case has been widely equated to an endeavor to kill the spirit of gun control. The case reflects the risk posed by 3D printing in terms of possible misuse. This poses a serious Ethical Conundrum, take for instance and scenario where a 3D printer is used to manufacture a gun that is then used to kill another person (LaBossiere, 2013). Logically, anyone who assists people to create terror weapons is morally responsible for the resulting losses. It may be appropriate to develop a self-regulatory process or standards to save the world from possible unfolding dramas due to 3D printing. There might be a need to track down how the machines are used after being purchased. It is therefore unexpected that manufacturers have think through all the improper ways that this technology can be used and seek possible prevention mechanisms. A white paper released from National Defense University was used to highlight national security risks arising from use of 3D printing technology. In the paper, it is acknowledged that 3D printers’ offers ability to manufacture an extensive range of objects which cannot be regulated yet, and are definitely national security risks that require further analysis. Conclusion It is vital that all new technologies are designed such that they are efficient and beneficial to the people and the environment and avoid committing the same mistakes earlier generation and the current one has had to pay for. Irrespective of the potential negative effects on environment, economy, and other areas, the importance of altruistic innovation should be emphasizes from design phase. 3D printing is obviously bound to continue shaking the manufacturing industry. However, the need for extensive research into its environmental and moral/ethical is obvious and must be invested in. This is the only way that the world can rest assured that this emergent technology holds a better future to the world. Nonetheless, the final verdict is that 3-D printing can be even greener References Gartners Special Report. (2014). "Predicts 2014" http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/predicts/ Hayes, D. (2013). 3-D Printing: A Boon or a Bane? The Policy Journal of the Environmental Law Institute, 30 (6), pp. 33 – 38. LaBossiere, M. (2013). Ethics & 3D Printing. The Philosophers Magazine. Megan, K. & Pearce, J. M. (2013). Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Distributed Three-Dimensional Printing and Conventional Manufacturing of Polymer Products. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering DOI: 10.1021/sc400093k. Megan, K. & Pearce, J. M. (2013). Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Distributed 3-D Printing and Conventional Manufacturing of Polymer Products, ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering Wittbrodt BT et al. (2013). Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers. Mechatronics 23: 713–726. Read More