Not the same as the industrial revolution

An important figure actively involved in the tide of 3D printing entrepreneurship, as well as Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of the famous new technology magazine “Wired” in the United States. He left his prestigious post of 12 years at the end of last year to become CEO of 3DRobotics, a robotics company.

Chris Anderson has taken 3D printing to the heights of the “new industrial revolution.” In his new book, Creator: The New Industrial Revolution, the best-selling author says that 3D printers are as historic as the Jenny loom of the First Industrial Revolution:

From now on, those things that were traditionally made in factories will move to the consumer’s own desktop, and the era of Ford-style mass production will be replaced by an era of personalized customization, “do it yourself” design and manufacturing innovation. In turn, the collective wisdom of millions of inventors and hobbyists will “spill out” not only on the Web but also in reality.

Anderson took this as proof that she wasn’t quitting her job “on impulse.” However, there are also colleagues in the industry to evaluate him, just “an excellent speaker and sensationalist master”, and very skeptical, “a 3D printer that can only make plastic things can have much subversive impact on modern industry?”

Peter Marsh, manufacturing editor of the Financial Times, should be a fan of Chris Anderson, and he raises the new changes in manufacturing to the level of national competition. In 2012, he wrote a series of books advocating the “new industrial revolution”, and predicted that once 3D printing, robotics, digital manufacturing and other processes take root in the United States and Western European countries, developed countries are likely to lose the share of manufacturing, from China and other emerging countries to grab back.

His logic is quite persuasive. The new type of manufacturing is characterized by personalized “customization on demand”, so the production location must be close to the place of use. In this way, the manufacturing industry that has been transferred from developed countries to emerging countries will be “repatriated”. Once “smart manufacturing” such as 3D printing begins to spread, coupled with the continuous reduction of energy costs in the United States, then China’s “labor cost advantage” will no longer be as competitive as before.

In 2000, developed countries accounted for 73% of global manufacturing output, but in 2011 it fell to 54%. China’s share of global manufacturing output rose from 7 per cent in 2000 to 19.8 per cent in 2011, snatching the top spot from the US. Over that period, Brazil’s share of global manufacturing output rose from 1.7 per cent to 2.9 per cent; India rose from 1.2 per cent to 2.3 per cent and Russia from 0.8 per cent to 2.3 per cent.

In Peter Marsh’s view, advocating technological progress has always been the advantage of Western developed countries. In 1800, economies with China at their core (today’s so-called “emerging economies”) accounted for 71 per cent of global manufacturing output, compared with 29 per cent for the West. But that share is largely based on China’s demographic advantage.

Instead, it was the invention of the steam engine that led to the “first Industrial Revolution,” in which the West caught up. By 1900, China’s share of global manufacturing output had fallen to 6 per cent, while the combined share of the “emerging economies” had fallen to 13 per cent, with the West accounting for the remaining 87 per cent. This advantage, after the later “electrical revolution” and “information revolution”, has been maintained by Western countries.

Will the “new Industrial Revolution” of the 21st century repeat “yesterday’s story”? Peter Marsh did not give a definitive conclusion, but he stressed that the technology leaders must win out from the competition.

There are some signs that big US companies such as General Electric, Caterpillar and Ford are waking up and investing heavily in advanced manufacturing at home, while manufacturing growth in China and other emerging economies has shown signs of weakening in 2012.

American scholar Jeremy Rifkin has injected new elements into the “new Industrial Revolution.” He emphasized that the combination of the Internet and new energy will bring great changes to human life.

Last year, the European Union said it would convert 190 million buildings into “micro-green power plants.” What does that mean? That means putting solar power on the roofs of traditional buildings, wind power in the front and back of houses, geothermal heating, and even converting kitchen waste into bioenergy. At the same time, individual households can use hydrogen storage technology and smart power distribution network to connect together, freely exchange energy shares on the network to achieve maximum intensive utilization.