Researchers conducted preliminary lifecycle analyses of three small plastic objects: a child's building block, a spout for a watering can, and a citrus juicer. (Source: Joshua Pearce, Michigan Technological University)
Thanks Ann, for such an informative post , According to me 3D printers used for personal use will be more cost effective as compared to those used for mass production because less raw material will be used. The example that you mentioned in your article regarding children block makes it very clear that 3D printing can be cheap because when we make objects by orselves we can chooe the type of the product , traditionally such blocks are made of wood but we can make them with plastic making them partially totally hollow from inside this reduces the material and drop down the cost of manufacturing as well.
3D printing is no doubt a greener technology , less energy is required in this process which in result produces very little carbon dioxide which is harmfull to the enviornment . I have read somewhere that people are using filamaker that is a machine in their homes with 3D printers that takes in used plastic and releases fresh strings of plastic.
Color me skeptical with the quote of "an average household could save up to $2,000 a year making their own plastic products at home". I guess that the "Up To" clause covers them, but I really don't see many households purchasing $2000 worth of plastic products a year which can be printed at home!
That's a good point. "Up to" can be great qualifier to exaggerate.
Printing children's product is problematic. There are scores of regulations for reasons. Making children's toys from recycled plastic is nice and trendy but not very safe. For example, it would be almost impossible to know if the toy is BPA free. Anyone giving them away as gifts or selling the item at a DIY/Makers Fair could get into trouble for endangering children.
Jim_E, I was skeptical, too about the $2,000 figure. But it's amazing a) how much plastic the average American household consumes in a year and b) how many things can now be printed at home using 3D printers because of the machines and the availabilty of online open-source .STL files, plus cheap materials. The earlier open-access article we give a link to details how the researchers arrived at that figure as the maximum.
Good perspective on the energy savings benefits of 3D printing. However, one further consideration to evaluate when classifying a 3D printer as 'green' is which process is being used? I may have a different definition than others, but I assume that 'green' also means less harmful or toxic to human beings.
Some 3D printers may use less energy, but certain processes use hazardous or toxic materials (which can be harmful to humans). One 3D process that I used would cause skin allergies if the user was over-exposed due to frequent contact. Another process caused my co-worker to have a brief case of silicosis. I would suggest that in addition to energy consumption, that 'green' metrics also include the potential impact to the environment and to the operator's health.
Greg, the health effects of the plastics used in 3D printing is definitely a subject that's received some attention recently. But the measurements of "green" are quite specific and don't take health effects on human users into consideration: they're usually aimed specifically at reducing energy use, and therefore carbon emissions in the environment. That requires using an entirely different set of variables and measurements from those used to measure health effects. I think it would be confusing to merge the two. OTOH, I do agree that the health effects of the materials need more attention.
3D printing may be cheap in the long run but the costs of the same in the short term are prohibitively high. Very few companies can afford to use any 3D printers, let alone afford to buy the same. The costs go way beyond the costs of buying regular plastic raw materials and, as such, most companies will most likely stick to the latter for a long while to come.
3D printing is no longer a monolithic entity: it consists of many different technologies and materials, and a wide range of printers. So the costs of printing, depending on how one defines them, also range very widely, and generalizations don't really apply. The point of this particular study is that, at the low end with a cheap printer, consumers can save money making actual end-production objects. Regarding what will or won't happen with the higher end of 3D printing, including the proportion of end-products vs prototypes, a recent study by the long-term market research firm in this area (Wohler Associates) shows that finished goods have grown from 3.9% to 28.3% of revenue in just eight years (2003 to 2012) across all 3D printing sectors. This is true for GE Aviation and other high-end manufacturers. Stay tuned.
These new 3D-printing technologies and printers include some that are truly boundary-breaking: a sophisticated new sub-$10,000, 10-plus materials bioprinter, the first industrial-strength silicone 3D-printing service, and a clever twist on 3D printing and thermoforming for making high-quality realistic models.
Using simulation to guide the drafting process can speed up the design and production of 3D-printed nanostructures, reduce errors, and even make it possible to scale up the structures. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has developed a model that does this.
Engineers need workhorse materials with beefy mechanical properties for industrial designs made with 3D printing. Very few have been designed from the ground up for additive manufacturing, but that picture is beginning to change.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies.
You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived.
So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.