In recent years, the materials we use in building construction and product manufacture have become subject to very close scrutiny. The toxicity of materials and the long term effects on human health - whether it is the health of those that handle or process materials during construction and manufacture, or the health of those that inhabit buildings or consume the end products - has become a very serious issue.
Most readers will be aware of the EU’s RoHS Directive, eliminating certain hazardous materials from the manufacturing process, which became mandatory in 2006. More recently, the European Community’s REACH legislation, which came into force just over a year ago, lays greater responsibility on industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances used in their manufacturing processes and end products. REACH is expected to have a profound effect on manufacturing organisations, as more chemicals come within its orbit and the materials or processes that are taken for granted today become obsolete or prohibitively expensive to undertake because of health and safety issues.
In addition to toxicity and human health matters, for many years we have had to consider the impact of materials and manufacturing processes on the environment. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, published nearly half a century ago, alerted us all to the environmental quagmire we were getting ourselves into. Today, global warming has become the environmental driving force and the ‘carbon footprint’ the marker of a manufacturer’s environmental credentials. Manufacturers cannot afford to ignore this new measure of their environmental performance, but just how do you begin to calculate, let alone minimise, the carbon footprint of a product containing materials from multiple sources, and created via a plethora of processes – many beyond the immediate control of the manufacturer?
Just last month, the Cambridge based materials information technology specialist, Granta Design launched a collaborative project designed, in part, to help manufacturers gain a carbon foothold. The Environmental Materials Information Technology (EMIT) Consortium, which is co-ordinated by the UK’s National Physical Laboratory (NPL), is now available to target materials and process decisions that control the environmental impact of engineered products.
According to Granta, EMIT will develop information resources and software to aid members’ response to environmental regulations and to enable design for minimum environmental impact, including low carbon footprint, energy efficiency, reduced wastes and emissions, and avoidance of restricted substances. The three-year project was set in motion at the beginning of last month, with founder members including Emerson Electric, Eurocopter, NASA and Rolls-Royce. It is expected to grow to between ten and fifteen member organisations, with Granta providing a primary software development resource for the Consortium.
REACH compliance will inevitably introduce problems for manufacturers, but other environmental objectives, such as low carbon footprint or design for end-of-life, are becoming just as important, thanks to the demands of a more enlightened consumer base and government actions like carbon allowances and trading schemes. By far the best response is to build consideration of these factors into the design process – where modifications to products cost least and have the greatest impact. Choices of material and of manufacturing process are of central importance, since these determine the use of restricted substances and can have a major influence on energy usage and emissions over a product’s lifetime.
If a manufacturer is to make these choices, it will need not just accurate information on restricted substances but also on the ‘eco’ properties of materials - the carbon dioxide generated in their extraction, cultivation, raw state processing and transportation. A manufacturer will also need to estimate the carbon dioxide that a potential product will generate at each stage in its lifecycle, based on the materials and processes it uses. A well-integrated corporate materials information database is essential, enabling all materials in a company’s products to be identified and, importantly, the impact of material substitutions to be assessed.
In Granta’s opinion, most manufacturing enterprises have none of these elements in place, yet excellence in eco design demands integrated and easy access to all of them. This, then, is the focus of the EMIT Consortium. The starting point will be proven technology developed at Granta and the University of Cambridge in each of the key areas: eco property data, eco analysis software, and materials information management. Consortium members will implement and apply this technology in their design processes, and guide its further development and integration.
The model for the project is the successful Material Data Management Consortium (www.mdmc.net), which has brought together leaders in aerospace, defence, and energy to develop best practice approaches and software to manage mission-critical materials data. The MDMC is now in its sixth year, with seventeen active member organisations.
Granta managing director, David Cebon says the calibre of EMIT’s initial membership and the broad interest the initiative has generated across industry sectors has demonstrated that its time has come. Whether you are an aerospace organisation seeking to avoid use of materials that may become obsolete in future, or an appliance manufacturer aiming to reduce the environmental impact of products without increasing cost, Professor Cebon believes these are vital issues that must be addressed now. The EMIT Consortium aims to tackle them, placing materials information technology to the fore, while also helping to achieve the wider environmental objectives of manufacturers.
Les Hunt
Editor
Do you have any comments to make on this or any other subject covered in these newsletters? We are always pleased to receive feedback from readers; simply email les.hunt@imlgroup.co.uk.
We received a number of responses to the leader in our last newsletter, a couple of which we reproduce here:
From Mr Reg Dixon:
“Isn’t it amazing how politicians never seem to learn. Not realising that the UK is only a bystander in nuclear power, it is now hoped to do some trivial research on the back of a late starting nuclear power station build programme. The result, of course, will be that the eventual contractor(s) will be persuaded not to be responsible for some part(s) of the build, on the basis that ‘the UK can do it’. In the event the UK fudged bit will fail to materialise on time, if at all, delivery of the complete programme will therefore be late, and the by then reimbursed foreign contractor will just shrug. Let’s call it ‘Chinook Thinking’. Why can’t they understand that the nuclear power programme is already long overdue, and its urgent completion is vastly more important than a miserable bit of research employment.”
….and from Mr John Houston:
“That the UK should be turning its attention back to nuclear power generation was inevitable. Pragmatism alone dictates that until efficient alternatives are developed, nuclear power stations are the most effective and least environmentally damaging of our viable options. The UK already lacks capacity and is a major importer of electricity - mostly from the French EdF's nuclear dominated supply. One must also presume, given the UK's reticence to deploy new nuclear power, that we shall be importing experience and technology from overseas - at least in the short term. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's still indicative of how UK Limited has again allowed its engineering talents to wither.
A final note, before scaremongers reach for their ‘everything atomic is bad’ banners, when one examines all of the ‘green’ alternatives, such as wind, wave and solar power, all of them lack a fundamental technology. Wind turbines create less dramatic environmental impact when sited far out at sea, but this is costly and inefficient - there also remains the issue of developing suitably compact and reliable 55kVA transformers and equipment to stabilise supply. Solar power will improve as photovoltaic technology develops. Wave power is costly and poses many of the power fluctuation problems associated with wind power.
Perhaps our Government should consider vigorously funding research and development into these emerging but still flawed technologies at the same time as investing in nuclear generation. That way we really could have the best of both clean worlds.”
Our thanks to Mr Dixon, Mr Houston and others for taking the trouble to comment on this issue.
Meanwhile, we hope you find the information provided in this newsletter both interesting and useful. Please read on…..