A D V A N C E D M A T E R I A L S & P R O C E S S E S | M A Y / J U N E 2 0 2 2 2 2 the generation of purchased energy from a utility provider. For most companies, electricity consumption is their one and only source of Scope 2 emissions. Companies intent on reducing their Scope 2 emissions tend to purchase their energy from utility providers with clean energy options, as well as purchasing carbon offsets. Today, Uddeholm products comprise 85 to 98% recycled material, LNG is being replaced with fossil-free LBG. Scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions not included in Scope 2 that occur in the value chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions. In other words, emissions linked to the company’s operations, according to the GHG Protocol. As previously mentioned, during Climate Neutral Week, Uddeholm replaced LNG with fossil-free LBG, and the goal is to replace up to 30% of today’s annual volume of LNG with fossil- free LBG, starting in April 2022. Uddeholm is look- ing into many things to be even more sustainable. Additive manu- facturing (AM) technology is one area that is developing quite fast and will most likely be more sustainable than traditional tool making. The value chain is shorter and reduces the waste of material and energy needed to produce the finished part (Fig. 4). It also allows more freedom of design, which will optimize the need of material for the tool function. This can be by conformal cooling channels that make the tool more efficient, increase tool life, and reduce scrap rates. AM also opens up more possibilities to combine materials and repair tools, ensuring a more efficient usage of raw materials in the tool. The flexibility of AM could also be a better alternative to traditional manufacturing of tool steels from a sustainability perspective. The majority of active tool inserts today can fit into a 3D printer. This means that a printer cannot only reduce the traditional extensive dimensional steel bar program, but also print any desired shape within this size. Today the printing cost is often higher than traditional tool making, but with higher demands on reducing carbon footprint and lead times, AM technology will be a more competitive and sustainable alternative for tool making in the near future. ~AM&P For more information: Patricia Miller, director technical services, Uddeholm North America, 2505 Millennium Dr., Elgin, IL 60124, patricia.miller@ uddeholm.com. Fig. 4 — Traditional powder tool steel production versus additive manufacturing tool steel production.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTYyMzk3NQ==