by 
The EBN Velocity online theme this month is “green,” which means different things to different people. There's lots of talk about the material that goes into electronic equipment, what those materials contain, and what to do with them once their usefulness is over.
The discussion is now going further, not only to the materials that are used, but to where those materials originate, the way those materials are produced or mined, and whether they originate in a conflict region. In all cases, those materials need to be transported via ocean, rail, truck, air, or most likely a combination of them.
I got to thinking about how the end consumer might view this matter. Consumers care about where their stuff comes from (fair-trade coffee, conflict-free diamonds) and how their stuff gets to them, as evident in “buy local” campaigns.
As I followed this trail of thought I was intrigued as to how transportation costs and carbon footprints might affect the purchasing patterns of consumers of electronic gear. Would a greener footprint lead to a tangible benefit for the producer, or would the consumer pay a higher price?
After reading a paper from David Hummels and Georg Schaur on the impact of transportation modes on a macroeconomic scale, I was faced with some interesting facts. The use of airfreight has grown 2.6 times faster than the use of ocean freight, is on average 6.6 times more expensive than ocean freight, and everyday the product is in transit adds 0.6 to 2 percent to the value of the goods, potentially making them more expensive. Add to that the fact that airfreight is over 60 times more carbon intensive than ocean freight, according to a paper published by TATA Consultancy Services, and you can clearly see both the cost and environmental advantages of ocean freight.
If a consumer believes that the use of ocean freight is more fuel efficient and produces a lower carbon footprint than air, I could be led to the conclusion that green-conscience consumers would be willing to wait for their products… but would they?
Summing up, it looks like this to me: When a new, hot electronic gadget is available, the consumer wants it now, with little regard to the carbon footprint. However, there is a concern as to how it was made, and where the materials and labor come from. On the other hand, when things are less time or emotionally sensitive, consumers will give more consideration to the overall green quotient of the product.
Each of these results has an impact on our supply chains, and on how we design them.
Great statistics! Thanks for digging those up. I was wondering if you found anything on carbon footprint and train transport. I know the rail industry claims to move tons of freight per gallon and know that the last mile is by truck so can you post some comparison stats that will allow us to assess the comparison between ocean and rail as a function of weight and distance? I appreciate your evident initiative on this blog.
We're looking into that. We've had that question asked by quite a few others….
“When a new, hot electronic gadget is available, the consumer wants it now, with little regard to the carbon footprint. “
That is true, Usually, consumers don't care that much about what a product is made of as they think that is the duty of the regulatory agencies. But we have to start changing our mentalities and make “green awareness” everyone's fight. Most of time end users can't do that much at the production stage. but they can do a lot at the recycling stage.
@HH, how best could the awareness of consumers achieved? Though, stakeholders pushing and championing for green footprints are unrelenting but i think, appealing strategic approaches for consumers not really in place.
The Tata report provides the basic numbers for rail, air, ocean and road freight. Road freight contributes about 65% of the total global logistics emissions, while ocean, rail and air contribute 19%, 11% & 5% respectively.
More to the point of to the CO2 efficiency of each mode, the Tata report measures it by kg CO2/tonne-km. Sea is the most efficient at 0.01, with rail next at 0.02. These contrast sharply with air at 0.65.
What is the name of the plastics manufacturer with more than 100 selectable recipes for 3D printing materials?
@Apocaloptimist, http://www.3dprinter.net/objet-3d-printer-has-107-materials
For 3D printer material can be interchnageable or other other material provider can easily provide alternate source of material and 3D printer will also work fine. Also, 3D priner may be for concept design and standard material may be good enough. 3D printer may not face dilemma similar to injet and laser printers.
@_hm: I didn't know that you could use interchangeable material with 3D printers. Sounds like a really useful feature. It can give you an idea about the material strength of your 3D model as well. Any idea what kinds of materials are supported by most printers?
There are certain things that consumers find difficult comprehending or even getting enough information about to make a reasonable decision. One of them is the impact of electronics on the environment. We don't even know for certain 100 percent whether our cellphones are harming us, for instance.
That's why relying on consumers to police manufacturers is not a great strategy. It's not going to work. As Wade said, there are so many factors a company must consider when reviewing compliance with environmental regulations that achieving the “green” status becomes extremely difficult. A company must still consider its profit goals and too often these clash with the “green” goals.
>>3D printer may not face dilemma similar to injet and laser printers.>>
How do you think consumers would react to this? As the piece captioned, it would be a really nice opportunity lies in supply chain sector if 3D printing eventually matured.
Douglas, I've read about the 3D printer but I have never seen one or understand exactly how it operates. Have you and what do they look like? What's the progression of the technology, the size and cost of the equipment?
Wale, It's likely to turn the supply chain on its head. Some companies will benefit while others will see a decline in operations. It's how disruptive technologies work!
“Add to that the fact that airfreight is over 60 times more carbon intensive than ocean freight, according to a paper published by TATA Consultancy Services, and you can clearly see both the cost and environmental advantages of ocean freight.”
Might I add, who cares about the carbon footprint. If carbon dioxide is a pollutant (which it is not, it is a natural by-product of everyday life) then I would be concerned about CO2. The only real economic advantage of lower CO2 is enumerated in your prevision statement in that it costs less to transport.
I would also add, the proper solution to the largest environmental depredator electronic waste (or waste in general for that matter) is in the WEE proposal with some augmentation. Here it is: every electronic circuit manufacturer would be required to accept every piece they ever manufactured for recycling. Everything… There simply put… Now wouldn't that be a stringent demand. Large and small companies would be required to put money upfront so they could recycle the junk they produced. Also put teeth into the laws so the founders and executives would be held accountable with prison time if they don't heed the law. I know this is whole idea is very quixotic but I sure get sick of hearing about all this “green” initiatives when the real purpose of applying green is to forward an agenda. Efforts like lead-free solder in ROHS are driven by politics of protecting the home turf electronic companies then interested in protecting the environment. Talking about carbon footprint… is it a discussion of economics (more carbon = higher expense = more energy use) or is it a way for some third party to interfere with commerce by taxing everyone for the “common good” (whatever that means???).
End of bloviation….
@Bolaji,
Neither do I. My impression is that a 3D printer will not likely become a household device.
@Wale,
Most of us won't probably need a 3D printer and I doubt that its adoption will be mainstream. I will certainly become an industry tool rather than a home or an office tool.
HH,
“My impression is that a 3D printer will not likely become a household device.”
For now. All points out that 3D printers will become more common in a regular office and a household sooner than we think. 3D printers are already being used in different areas, not only manufacturing.
-Susan
Yes true. It will certainly be a tool which will be used in the enterprise level. I dont think home users will be much interested in it and even if they do the cost factor will make their interest go away 🙂
@SF,
We will see. The 3D printer has been around for a while now, but I can't really figure out what I can do with it in my house or my office right now. I am not sure if anyone on the site has ever used it either. Can someone share their experience with the 3D printer?
HH,
In your house you could have one in the kitchen, for example. I can't find the article now, but 3D-printed food is something that has reached the kitchen of some famous chefs. 🙂
-Susan
@SF,
I didn't know that it can be used in the kitchen. But I am not that much of a kichen guy. But it is good to know.
Thanks!
HH,
Yes, yes, it can. And did I tell you about the 3D-printed bones and organs for transplant? It's being done already. A woman in her eighties got a 3D-printed jaw.
-Susan
With meat being prepared using 3D printer ( see linkhttp://eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/the-engineering-life-around-the-web/4394165/Today-s-special–3D-printed-meat-)
tomorrows kitchens are sure to have the 3D printer as one of the gadgets like the microwave oven and the fridge.
This concept of 3D recipes opens up a whole new business domain for entrepreneurs.
Like Bolaji said, this is a disruptive technology. Printers and supplies with home kit for simple CAD will be a big deal. You know there will be DIY costume jewelry, doll furniture, picnic sets, mugs, and the list goes on and on. The Supply chain and store inventories will be altered as many household items will be printed at home. Need a new spatula? Print it Dano!
Like many people, my biggest complaint about printers is the cartridges. What a racket! Taking a loss on hardware is a common enough strategy, but I still can't see how printers can be given away for free. The best case scenario: disposable printers. When something goes wrong with one, it isn't even worth the trip to Best Buy. Anyway, imagine if the materials are not ink but plastic, silicon or some other substance, then think of all the things that could go wrong. That's the time to get into the printer repair business…
@Susan, It's being speculated if you get a printer that's big enough you might even print your own country and all the little people to populate it. Imagine the possibilities: 3D oceans, 3D rain (on-demand), 3D food, 3D gasoline and 3D plants. Cloning would no longer be a technological marvel and death would cease. Once the end seems to be near, you just 3D yourself into existence again with all the disease -free organs anyone could desire. This is one exciting product!
Bolaji,
Exciting, indeed!
Watch this kid explaining why he loves his 3D printer.
Here you can see the first 3D-printed plane in its 10 minute flight.
British Airbus engeneers want to print the entire wing of an airplane. Also last year there was a 3D-printed car prototype that worked by remote control. And as I said, a woman got a 3D-printed jaw, and the first 3D-printed kidney has been printed on stage during a TED talk. With the possibility of 3D-printed organs and bones for transplant humany will be as close as you imagine from immortality.
-Susan
Prabhakar,
Thanks for the link. Yes, the kitchen will be equipped with a 3D printer in the future, as it's equipped with a microwave and a fridge today. Now, what about using the 3D printer to print food for the parts of the world where it is more needed?
One of the charactristics of 3D printing technology is the reduction in cost of the printed product, and the speed. It's a perfect solution for feeding the people in need where there are not so many food resources.
-Susan