Is Additive Manufacturing an Environmentally and Economically Preferred Alternative for Mass Production?

[Image: see text] The manufacturing sector accounts for a large percentage of global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and there is growing interest in the potential of additive manufacturing (AM) to reduce the sector’s environmental impacts. Across multiple industries, AM has been used to reduce material use in final parts by 35–80%, and recent publications have predicted that AM will enable the fabrication of customized products locally and on-demand, reducing shipping and material waste. In many contexts, however, AM is not a viable alternative to traditional manufacturing methods due to its high production costs. And in high-volume mass production, AM can lead to increased energy use and material waste, worsening environmental impacts compared to traditional production methods. Whether AM is an environmentally and economically preferred alternative to traditional manufacturing depends on several hidden aspects of AM that are not readily apparent when comparing final products, including energy-intensive and expensive material feedstocks, excessive material waste during production, high machine costs, and slow rates of production. We systematically review comparative studies of the environmental impacts and costs of AM in contrast with traditional manufacturing methods and identify the conditions under which AM is the environmentally and economically preferred alternative. We find that AM has lower production costs and environmental impacts when production volumes are relatively low (below ∼1,000 per year for environmental impacts and below 42–87,000 per year for costs, depending on the AM process and part geometry) or the parts are small and would have high material waste if traditionally manufactured. In cases when the geometric freedom of AM enables performance improvements that reduce environmental impacts and costs during a product’s use phase, these can counteract the higher production impacts of AM, making it the preferred alternative at larger production volumes. AM’s ability to be environmentally and economically beneficial for mass manufacturing in a wider variety of contexts is dependent on reducing the cost and energy intensity of material feedstock production, eliminating the need for support structures, raising production speeds, and reducing per unit machine costs. These challenges are not primarily caused by economies of scale, and therefore, they are not likely to be addressed by the increasing expansion of the AM sector. Instead, they will require fundamental advances in material science, AM production technologies, and computer-aided design software.