Design for the environment

Reflection Ecodesign Tijmen van Gurp Year: B.1.2 S081936

What I learned out of the lectures I think that sustainability is a growing subject in the world. You always had organizations like Greenpeace, and WNF, who were there to tell the world what is happening. But nowadays you get more and more information about climate change and problems with the milieu. People around the whole world are watching movies like the inconvenient truth, and the age of stupid. Millions of people agree that there has to happen something in this world, more than 14 million people signed the partition that there has to happen something in Copenhagen.

What do I think that eco design is?

Eco design is not just designing for the people’s needs, but also design in such a way that future generations are still possible to live in such a way as we live now. While designing you have to take 3 factors in count. Design a better quality products, people only pay for products if they know they have quality. Design a product that has more value for money, you can make a nice eco friendly concept but it won’t work in this world if you can’t make enough profit with it. And the most obvious thing is to make it more eco efficient to actually make a better Planet where future generations can live like we do now.

These three aspects are also called in people planet profit.

The problem is that there are not enough recourse on this planet to let everyone live like us on this planet, what kind of design strategies and tools can we use as designers to do something about this problem?

Eco Design strategies By designing products you can use different design strategies.

But you have to look at the whole picture. For example you can make a product who scores good at optimizing in productions, but maybe because it is a easy to form plastic it doesn’t score good in optimizing end of life system.

We had to find a good and a bad example for a design strategy. I chose for the extend lifecycle strategy, and compared a laptop with a desktop computer. I thought a desktop computer is good example in this strategy because of the following points: •

It is build in users desires to care for the product for a longer period than a laptop

•

It is designed for maintenance, design of laptop is after a while outdated

•

Different components fit in the product, laptop needs components of a specific brand

•

Components can be replaced more easily in a desktop

Material choice A great aspect in eco design is material choice, what is good and what is a bad material? You can’t say that, here again you have to look to the greater picture of the product.

Different design strategies will use different materials. You can use natural resources, but if you have to transport them over a really long way you can ask if it is not better to choose a less natural product from source nearby.

To see if we could make a product better, we analyzed a sunshade using an eco design checklist. With the results you could say something about, recycling, materials, weight, usability etc. We saw that the given sunshade used a lot of material to create the effect of some shade. So what we did was take the only requirement of making shade, and design something that makes shade. We started with some crazy ideas, and we came with a total new concept. I learned that sometimes it is better to think of only the basis as starting point, and out of there create something new.

Without looking at the bigger picture you can say something general over good and bad qualities of a product. Some good qualities are for example, 100% natural recourses (without oil), materials with a long lifetime, and fully recyclable etc. But how do you really know what the impact is of a certain product?

Therefore we used a tool idemat an online database with environmental properties, showing the environmental effects normalized with the European effect scores, associated with the production of one kilogram of the particular material. The problem with this that you sometimes get results that seems like they aren’t right. You can’t verify how they calculated the impact score. So you still have to use your common sense to verify if you missed something in your calculations.

Another point of view to eco design is to make Product service systems (PSS). Consumers don’t choose products because of the product but most of the time good service is what people want. A good combination between a product and service will people let buy a product. I think that this is a good aim for future eco design because most of the time you have to pay more for a more sustainable product.

But if companies are willing to invest in good services they can easily replace a lot of large energy consuming products. Such product as the many cars we drive. There is already a bunch of systems for transport like, train, buss, taxi etc. But replacing it by one good service that will fulfill everybody’s needs will be more efficient.

Back casting Another tool we used for eco design was back casting. Think of it like this, first you think of possible future scenarios for the far future. And after that you look how the situation is known and you can think of possible ways to the end scenarios. We had to do this with the subject auto mobility. In about 20 years there is expected there will be 40 % more people in this world. Nowadays some city’s already have problems with transporting all these people from a to b. We first had to make a worst case scenario; I think this made it really clear what the problem is now. We people are not good in seeing problems until they are really there, some problems we only can prevent if we start working on it a couple of years before. We noticed that in city’s the traffic is not efficient as it could be because, if you want to travel nowadays you can either choose to use your car and be stuck in a traffic jam wait for every traffic light, and search for a good parking spot. Or you can use the available services, such as the train and the buss. The only problem then is, that it is not one system that works together, it is not from a to b but many times from one place to another, and you have to wait a lot of your time to come to the place you want.

After making this problem clear we thought of some solutions. We came with a monorail system for in the city, which is like one big system wherein you always know how late you will arrive. A monorail is expensive to build but uses really little amount of energy because of the low friction. Different services within a monorail would be possible replacing the existing services. Like if you want you can have you own monorail/car. You first drive to the city, you connect to the system, and the rest will go automatically. Larger trains or renting monorail capsules for city trips would also be possible.

The last thing we did was visiting an exhibition, where we filled in a simplified sustainability screen. I chose for a concept wherein someone had the idea to make a house less energy consuming by adding prebuilt parts to house. The house gets a bit bigger, you use less energy, and it is faster than completely rebuild your house. It is less expensive because they can build these parts in “mass production�.

The score for this concept was, 3 for economical/profit aspects (profit), and 1 point on environmental aspects ( because moving this big parts is less eco friendly then bring the materials and build it on the place itself (planet), and 2 points on social aspects (people).

I think this is a good score, because it has good potential on economical aspects. So that will mean that that the chance that people will invest in such project is bigger. But I have my questions about how good this will work. How many houses are in such a way the same that you can build all these prebuilt parts the same?

Conclusions I learned a lot this course, and not only that I am now in the position of some tools to actually make a difference in this world by designing. I now can analyze a product and see on what points there can be improvements. I can analyze on different levels, with my new general acquired knowledge, with the ecodesign checklist, idemat, and the simplified sustainability screen. I also learned how to use different design strategies in all the phases of designing. I see possibilities in the back casting technique, as a good brainstorm method, and also for myself to make better learning goals for the future. I liked the different elements in this course, I had weeks that I prepared more, and where I prepared less, I have learned that it is really good to go a bit more in depth, and get some side information. Overall I know now enough to become an eco designer.

Thank you,

Appendix Some presentations are not complete, sorry for that.

Slide 1

Eco design strategies

Tijmen van Gurp Kim van Iersel Filippo Imperiali Jonas Rehn

Slide 2

Extended product life time

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Material choice

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

However • Starch is real food • can be gained from waste (e.g. potato skin) • if consumption increases using real food → might become common • less land = less food • biodegrading of these materials takes four times as long as normal • biological waste → processing is more expensive

Slide 13

Power saving

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 1

EcoDesign Workshop Product: Sunshade DG409 Design for the environment 25.11.2009

Kim Tijmen Filippo Jonas

Slide 2

Brainstorming & bad aspects

Slide 3

PARTS NOT CHANGEABLE: -restyling -repairing (fabric + parts) -cleaning

NO RECYCLING OF MATERIALS (blended materials + painted iron)

OVER STYLING appendixes around umbrella

NOT DIRECTIONABLE the umbrella is fixed

HEAVY (45kg) solution: base made with a bucket filled with water

USELESS WHEELS a fixed base wheels do not work on soil

UNFRIENDLY MECHANISM heavy to open/close

Slide 4

Some ideas

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Some concepts

Slide 10

Concept 1 – the tree flag

Using living elements Cleaning air effect Aesthetically fitting to the environment

Slide 11

Concept 2 – the tent

• Fast building up • Only to separated materials • Light and small in storage

Slide 12

Concept 3 – the living roof

• Using living elements • Cleaning air effect • Individual and flexible use • Only one major material

Slide 13

Concept 4 – table of shadow

• Fast and easy build up • Only two separated materials • Small packaging size

Slide 14

Concept 5 – table of shadow

• Fast and easy build up • Only two separated materials • Small packaging size • Multiple functionality

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Twisting to smaller size

Slide 19

Ecological improvements

Slide 20

•Choice of raw materials PA66 (Nylon 6.6) and spring steel

•Production •Very simple production methods

•Transport •Lightweight and flat

•Product dismantling •You just have to take the spring out

Slide 21

Other improvements

Slide 22

•Easy to store •Fold down flat in seconds

•Easy to clean •Just one flat surface to clean

•Easy to set up and move •Pops open in seconds •Lightweight, so easy to move

Slide 23

Thank you for your attention!

Questions or remarks?

DG409 Design for the environment 25.11.2009

Kim Tijmen Filippo Jonas

Slide 1

Design a public bench Concerning the: Production impact

DG409 Design for the environment 25.11.2009

Kim Tijmen Filippo Jonas

Slide 2

Introduction • Same appearance – use same sort of material

• Modernization – Focus, 2 total different materials

• General redesign – Focus on shape and material

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Modernization

Slide 7

Modernization

CRITERIA AMOUNT PRODUCTION - material or process wood willow(NL) 40 kg plastic PS (GPPS)+injection total USE - process 4 (10/truck) delivery van - 3.5t

ORIGINAL BENCH INDICATOR 1,47

TOTAL

REDESIGNED BENCH INDICATOR

0,14

20 kg

0.36+0.21= 0.57

11,4 11,4

0,56

1 (30/truck)

0,14

0,14

0,56 -

-

RESULT

58,8 58,8

total DISPOSAL - material & processing type recycling willow recycling PS total

RESULT AMOUNT

0,14

0

-4,8 -4,8

59,36

20 kg

6,74

Weight of original bench was found online.

We considered using 1/2 of it for redesigned bench as density is.

Slide 8

General r e d e s i g n

-0,24

Slide 9

Case study Public bench Series Company Material

‘Elegance‘ urban selection Runge 100% Stainless Steel electro polished

Slide 10

The Calculation • • • • • • • • • •

Material production Extrusion Sheet production Bending Cutting Welding Electro polishing 4 Transport Packaging Recycling

47 kg * 0,13 30 kg * 0,072 17 kg * 0,03

= = =

6,11 2,16 0,51

7 kg * 0,11 47 kg * 0,022

= =

5,17 1,03

47 kg * 0,07

=

3,29

not mentionable not mentionable not mentionable

11,69

Slide 11

Public Bench plastic

concrete

Slide 12

Advantages of materials Concrete • Concrete not reinforced 3.8 mPt (density of 2200 kg/ m³) • 0,06785 m³ = 149,27 kg = EI 567,226 mPt = 0,567 Pt • Can be produced at location Water provided -> little transportation costs • Good recycling possibilities • Durability (Vandalism)

Slide 13

Slide 14

The difference Old version

Redesign

Material production

6,11

0,567

Processing

8,51

0,716

Recycling

-3,29

- 0,244

Results

11,33

1,039

Slide 15

Version 1

Slide 16

Version 2

Slide 17

Version 2 Multi Purpose Parts

Slide 18

Version 3 – modular system

Slide 19

Thank you for your attention

Slide 1

Design for the environment Future of mobility Kim Filippo Tijmen Jonas

Slide 2

2040

if....

Slide 3

Worst case scenario Why car are destroying our world

TIME CARTASTROPHY

Slide 4

Problem • Inefficient use of vehicles • Too many people are using too many vehicles • CO2 emission • Waste • Chemical and visual pollution • Focus -> City

Slide 5

City 3

Situation now

City 2

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V V

V V

V

V

V

V City 1 City 4

Slide 6

City 3

Situation now

City 2

V

V V

V V

V

V

V V

V V

V

V

V

V City 1 City 4

Slide 7

City 3

Situation now

City 2

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V V

V V

V

V

V

V City 1 City 4

Slide 8

City 3

Situation now

City 2

V

V V

V V

V

V

V V

V V

V

V

V

V City 1 City 4

Slide 9

Solution 1 new system

Slide 10

Solution 1

City 3

City 2

V

V

V V V

V

V V V V V V

V

V

V

City 1 City 4

Slide 11

Solution 1

City 3

City 2

V

V

V V V

V

V V V V V V

V

V

V

City 1 City 4

Slide 12

Solution 1 The five stages of transport User Car Metro Tram Bike Walking

Slide 13

Solution 1 The five stages of transport User Car Electrical Monorail

Metro Tram Bike Walking

Electrical Monorail - replacing cars

- replacing buses - added service to tram, metro and train

Slide 14

Solution 1

• For special occasions Taxis are provided • For transport of goods – special system

Slide 15

Solution 1 Services and products which are needed

Taxi

Transport service

Bikes to rent

Elaborated tram system

Elaborated metro system

electrical Monorail

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

ck sustainability of ideas - Simplified sustainability screen Source: Tukker, A. & Tischner, U (Eds.) (2006) New Business for Old Europe. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK. Available at the library of TU/e ID.

The starting point is a solution (Product/Service/System) that has the same functionality as a competing system. So, first define the reference (or: old) solution. Then briefly describe the selected (or: new) solution.

The tool then works as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3 main evaluation aspects are discerned (People, Planet, Profit) For each aspect, 4 key criteria are defined.

Each criteria can be scored 1 (better than the product), 0 (equal) or –1 (worse).

Scores are totaled per sustainability aspect (hence maximum 4 points per aspect) This is probably enough to discern ‘good’ from ‘bad’ ideas; hence no further weighting is required.

Discuss the ranking obtained; if you feel that specific ideas are better than others do not stick too mechanically to the ranking data.

Description of reference (or: old) solution: totally rebuild the house to make it less energy consuming Description of selected (or: new) solution: add prebuild parts to the house to make it less energy consuming ……

A) Economic/profit aspects

-

-

How profitable/ valuable is the solution for the providers? (can be a consortium of companies), including cost of production, cost of capital and market value of the solution for the provider(s) ? Is it cheaper to produce than the competing product?

How profitable/ valuable is the solution for customers/ consumers? Are there a concrete, tangible savings in time, material use etc. for the customer? Does it provide ‘priceless’,

Score ( 1 = better, 0 is equal, -1 is worse) 1, because it can be build at forhand, it can be mass production, the pruducers have an advantage 1, because consumers don’t need a long for

-

-

intangible added value like esteem, experiences, etc. for which the customer is willing to pay highly? (both in comparison to a traditional product system) How difficult to implement and risky is the solution for the providers? Can a promised result be measured and delivered with a high probability, or has the client a high and uncontrollable influence on the costs? When is the return on investment expected ?

How much does the solution contribute to the ability to sustain value creation in the future? Does it give the consortium that puts the Product/Service/System on the market now and in the future a crucial and dominant position in the value chain?

rebuilding the house

1, the product can be tested on one house, and than calculate the savings for the consumer 0 it is not a product specified on using materials that not effect the future

TOTAL

3

B) Environmental/planet aspects

Score ( 1 = better, 0 is equal, -1 is worse))

-

How good is the solution in terms of Material efficiency (including inputs and outputs/waste)

1, because no materials have to be spilled, mass production, build on forehand

-

How good is the solution in terms of Energy efficiency (energy input and recovery of energy without transportation) How good is the solution in terms of Toxicity (including input/ output of hazardous substances and emissions without transport) How good is the solution in terms of transport efficiency (transportation of goods and people including transport distances, transportation means, volume and packaging)

1, saves energy by isolation

-

-

0, not known

-1 moving the parts in this volume is more expensive than the materials on itselfs

TOTAL

1

C) Social/people aspects

Score ( 1 = better, 0 is equal, -1 is worse)

-

Does the Product/Service/System contribute to quality of work in the production chain (Environment, Health, Safety; enriching the life of workers by giving learning opportunities, etc.)

1

Does the Product/Service/System contribute to the 'enrichment' of life of users (by giving learning opportunities, enabling and promoting action rather than passiveness, etc.)

- Does the Product/Service/System contribute to intra- and intergeneration justice (equal wealth and power distribution between societal groups, North-South, not postponing problems to the next generation, etc.)

- How much does the solution contribute to respect of cultural values ad cultural diversity, e.g. customized solutions, contributing to the social well being of communities, regions etc. (cultural values) TOTAL -

1

0

0

2

SUMMARY (Transfer to form with Product/Service/System description)

Main aspect

Score (between –4 and +4)

A) Economic/profit

3

B) Environmental/planet

1

C) Social/people

2

Research on eco design strategies

Examples of ecodesign strategies: Material choice, renewable products, renewable energy, modular/multifunctional, dematerialisation, longevity, reuse, recycling, design for recycling, design for disassembly, ‘make it attractive’, change consumer behaviour, offering a service instead of owning a product, … http://www.wikid.eu/index.php/EcoDesign_strategy_wheel

http://www.ecodesignarc.info/servlet/is/216/EN_An%20Introduction%20to%20EcoDesig n%20Strategies.pdf?command=downloadContent&filename=EN_An%20Introduction%2 0to%20EcoDesign%20Strategies.pdf { For example, home and office appliances consume more than 25% of final electricity use, and domestic lighting is responsible for 17% of all residential energy use,} { The complexity of electrical and electronic devices means they contain a large variety of materials, some very specific to electronics, some known as hazardous for humans and the environment}

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/eco-design-strategies

phases in a product’s lifecycle design raw material extraction Material processing Component manufacturing Assembly packaging Distribution &purchase Installation & use Maintenance & upgrading Transport Reuse, recycling composition Incineration or landfilling

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5711

Wood from forerst, oil, metal from mine, etc Wood to paper, oil to plastic Paper primed, plastic modeld, etc Assembly and packaging with documentation Distribution marketing and purchasing Energy and additional materials used Product cleaned, parts replaced or upgraded Via train, automobile, sea, or airplain Products or companies reuse materials Burned

Consider all of these if you leave something out you my leave something out something important Design strategies are coupled to the design phase Innovation ( most powerful: what is the primary service of this product, other way of delivering the survice, )( what are other tipical tools combination often around doesn’t make sense, make that it makes sense, combination of spoon and a knives) Low impact materials (designers go intuitively to it, designers minimize materials you use, or recyclable materials) Optimized manufacturing (minimizing waste, energy, materials) Efficient distribution (reduction in weight, packaging and product, design for local production) Low impact use (biggest impact, rich set, reusing water, reduces energy, vacuum cleaner without paper bag, solar energy, etc) Optimize lifetime ( build in users desires to care for the product long term, design for maintenance easy to repair, design for upgrades, components that can be replaced) Optimize end of lifetime ( how long the product lasts, want to keep for a long time because they look good iPod classic, timeless, biodegradable, recyclable, system doesn’t always work, you can make something recyclable, but the system has to support it. ) http://www.cdn-inc.com/sustain-approach.html

Laptop vs. old computer laptop portability Easily stolen Proprietary can only be replaced with components of one company More expencive

desktop Non portable, but more functions Not as easy Can be mixed with different components, Can be easily repaired at local pc store Less expensive

http://www.greenitblog.com/?p=35 Take for example the now generally accepted principle that it’s better to buy everybody a laptop instead of a desktop PC because laptops use less power.

Well, unless complete mobility is a necessity, a virtualized thin client will use less electricity than a laptop. Besides that, a laptop may not even be better for the planet just because it consumes less electricity when in use.

Research shows that 65%-80% of the carbon footprint of a computer is created in manufacturing and distribution, not use.

Laptops don’t generally last as long as desktop machines (which have shorter lives than thin clients) and so may actually end up with a larger eco-footprint than a desktop. If carbon footprint reduction is your goal, buying an energy efficient desktop machine and turning it off whenever it’s not in use may be the best answer. Keeping an existing machine in service is an even better answer for reducing carbon footprint.

On top of all this, in the real world, laptops end up acting like desktops. Ergonomics and utility general require that “laptop-only” users need a full-size display, keyboard and mouse for use at their desk. While all together this kit may consume less power during active use than even an efficient, properly-managed desktop machine, it certainly reduces the advantage of the laptop in direct power consumption.

This example is not to suggest that choosing a laptop over a desktop computer is a mistake.

Where mobility for people is enabled, the potential benefits in re-thinking buildings and workplace design to reduce the amount of space we need can overwhelm any consideration of laptop vs. desktop. It can also make people more productive.

What I am suggesting is that simplistic solutions to complex problems may actually be counterproductive. Good decisions require data, analysis, and a life-cycle approach for sustainability, not just a desire to be “green”.

My chosen product: Innovation: apple laptop, out of one piece, Low impact materials: desktop can be reused over and over Optimized manufacturing: easyer to manufacture desktop, because of different parts.

Efficient distribution: laptop is smaller, les weight, destop loses in this part Low impact use: laptop uses les energy Optimize lifetime: lifetime of desktop computer is higher, parts can be replaced Optimize end of lifetime: because of the separate parts of desktop computer you can easily brake it up in different pieces who can be recycled.