Open Access

Was hat Design mit Umwelt und Nachhaltigkeit zu tun? Die globale Erwärmung und der Klimawandel lassen sich auf verschiedene Ursachen zurückführen. Design, das die Umwelt außen vor lässt, ist einer der Gründe. Viele Produkte und Dienstleistungen verbrauchen nämlich viel Energie und Ressourcen haben auch eine hohe soziale Relevanz - sie sorgen beispielsweise für Teilhabe oder Exklusion. Wie eine Transformation hin zu mehr Nachhaltigkeit in diesem Bereich besser gelingt, fasst der neue "Transition Design Guide" des Wuppertal Instituts und der Folkwang Universität der Künste in Kooperation mit der ecosign - Akademie für Gestaltung Köln und der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal zusammen. Der Leitfaden gibt interessierten Gestaltenden, Entwickelnden, Transformatorinnen und Transformatoren sowie Forschenden in Universitäten, Unternehmen und Kommunen 16 Praxis-Werkzeuge an die Hand, um Produkte, Dienstleistungen, soziale Räume oder andere Erfahrungswelten nachhaltiger und umweltbewusster zu entwerfen. Anhand der Arbeitsblätter lassen sich gestalterische Ideen und Konzepte auf ihre Nachhaltigkeitspotenziale untersuchen und weiterentwickeln. Nachhaltigkeitsaspekte werden dabei mit den Methoden und Arbeitsschritten eines klassischen Designprozesses zusammengeführt. Ausführliche Hintergrundinformationen ergänzen die Themen der Tools inhaltlich.

Nowadays, the main impetus to apply additive manufacturing (AM) of metals is the high geometric flexibility of the processes and its ability to produce pilot or small batch series. In contrast, resource and energy intensities are often not considered as constraints, even though the turnout of additive manufacturing is high, at least compared to chip removing processes. The study at hand analyses the material characteristics and environmental impacts of a hose nozzle as an example of a commercial product of simple geometry. The production routes turning (conventional manufacturing) and laser beam melting (additive manufacturing) are compared to each other in terms of natural resource use, climate change potential and primary energy demand. It is found, that the product shows a lower demand for natural resources when produced via AM, but higher carbon emissions and energy demand when using a steel, that is mainly (80%) produced from high-alloyed steel scrap. However, different case studies during the sensitivity analyses showed that a number of factors highly influence the results: the steel source as well as the source of electricity play a major role in determining the environmental performance of the production routes. The authors also found that other production processes (here cold forging of tubes) might be an eco-friendly alternative to both routes, if feasible from an economic point of view. In regard to the material characteristics, experimental testing revealed that the material advantages of AM produced hose nozzles (in particular higher yield strength) are reduced after a solution heat treatment is applied to the as-produced material, in order to increase corrosion resistance. However, products that do not require this production step might benefit from the higher yield strength, as a lower wall thickness could be realised.

The implementation of energy efficiency improvement actions not only yields energy and greenhouse gas emission savings, but also leads to other multiple impacts such as air pollution reductions and subsequent health and eco-system effects, resource impacts, economic effects on labour markets, aggregate demand and energy prices or on energy security. While many of these impacts have been studied in previous research, this work quantifies them in one consistent framework based on a common underlying bottom-up funded energy efficiency scenario across the EU. These scenario data are used to quantify multiple impacts by energy efficiency improvement action and for all EU28 member states using existing approaches and partially further developing methodologies. Where possible, impacts are integrated into cost-benefit analyses. We find that with a conservative estimate, multiple impacts sum up to a size of at least 50% of energy cost savings, with substantial impacts coming from e.g., air pollution, energy poverty reduction and economic impacts.

Improvements in energy efficiency have numerous impacts additional to energy and greenhouse gas savings. This paper presents key findings and policy recommendations of the COMBI project ("Calculating and Operationalising the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Europe"). This project aimed at quantifying the energy and non-energy impacts that a realisation of the EU energy efficiency potential would have in 2030. It covered the most relevant technical energy efficiency improvement actions in buildings, transport and industry. Quantified impacts include reduced air pollution (and its effects on human health, eco-systems), improved social welfare (health, productivity), saved biotic and abiotic resources, effects on the energy system and energy security, and the economy (employment, GDP, public budgets and energy/EU-ETS prices). The paper shows that a more ambitious energy efficiency policy in Europe would lead to substantial impacts: overall, in 2030 alone, monetized multiple impacts (MI) would amount to 61 bn Euros per year in 2030, i.e. corresponding to approx. 50% of energy cost savings (131 bn Euros). Consequently, the conservative CBA approach of COMBI yields that including MI quantifications to energy efficiency impact assessments would increase the benefit side by at least 50-70%. As this analysis excludes numerous impacts that could either not be quantified or monetized or where any double-counting potential exists, actual benefits may be much larger. Based on these findings, the paper formulates several recommendations for EU policy making: (1) the inclusion of MI into the assessment of policy instruments and scenarios, (2) the need of reliable MI quantifications for policy design and target setting, (3) the use of MI for encouraging inter-departmental and cross-sectoral cooperation in policy making to pursue common goals, and (4) the importance of MI evaluations for their communication and promotion to decision-makers, stakeholders, investors and the general public.