Additive manufacturing (AM) is a rapidly evolving technology, of which, 3D printing is the most popular method. Its growth trajectory has been marked by two relevant developments. First, affordability for users. Now virtually anyone, including public libraries and schools, has access to a 3D printer. Second, high performance and larger scales have made this technology a must for virtually any manufacturing team. These two growth boosters have given AM the potential to enable the circular economy by revolutionizing the existing manufacturing ecosystems (from foreign to local) and materials value chains (from waste to resource).
One of the key benefits of AM is its ability to facilitate the manufacturing of goods by using local feedstocks like post-consumer plastic and agricultural waste. This idea allows for local recycling centres and other stakeholders, like supermarkets, coffee shops, and restaurants, to divert their waste from landfills to local manufacturing facilities. These facilities can then turn "waste" into useful material for AM, closing local loops of waste generation and feedstock utilization. With this, there is a significant reduction in costs, pollution, waste, and carbon footprint associated with the production and transportation of goods.
Producing goods closer to where they are consumed also reduces the need for long supply chains, which can make production more efficient, resilient and flexible. In addition, local manufacturing can create jobs and stimulate local economic growth. The availability of goods and services is also expected to increase if manufacturing is done locally, providing greater access to local communities. Finally, local access to manufacturing can foster innovation by allowing for faster product development and customization.
In many metropolitan areas, the conditions for local AM in the circular economy already exist in the form of material flows, technology policy, and facilities. However, there are clear economic, technological, social, organizational, and regulatory barriers to the mainstream implementation of local AM.
The main economic barrier to implementing AM in the circular economy is the high initial cost of the technology. However, as the technology becomes more widely adopted, the costs are likely to decrease, making it more accessible to a wider range of businesses and individuals.
Technological barriers include the lack of standardization in additive manufacturing technology and the lack of knowledge and skills among potential users. Fortunately, technology continues to evolve and improve, which will likely overcome this barrier.
Social barriers include the lack of awareness and understanding of additive manufacturing and its potential benefits among the general public. However, as more people use the technology and more schools and libraries make it part of their programs, awareness and understanding will increase.
Organizational barriers include the lack of coordination and collaboration among stakeholders in the circular economy. However, as technology becomes more widely adopted, it is likely that collaboration and coordination will increase.
Regulatory barriers include the lack of clear guidelines and regulations for additive manufacturing printing in the circular economy. Here there is a lot of work to do. The potential benefits from local manufacturing in the circular economy can only become reality with the right regulations and support to stakeholders.
In conclusion, AM has the potential to enable the circular economy by disrupting the existing materials value chain and allowing for the local manufacturing of new goods from local sources. While there are economic, technological, social, organizational, and regulatory barriers to mainstream implementation, these barriers will likely be overcome as the technology becomes more widely adopted. Metropolitan areas, with their existing material flows, technology policy, and facilities, are a suitable test bed to assess AM viability as an enabler of a circular economy at the local level.