Form and Function have new roles in materials science. Environmental consistency or awareness can be viewed through these different watch glass lenses. Is improved Function (e.g. a new “wow” compound or nanostructure) worth a new application if the materials used disruptively change the outdoor environment and human/animal physiology? Is better Form (on the small scale a core element or molecule, or on the large scale a wind or solar station) worthy of development if the supplier cannot meet demand for a growing industry?

Let’s view the materials in technologies like advanced photovoltaic design from an environmental perspective. And not necessarily as a pejorative concept of “bad for the environment”...

The environment is much more than a biological greenspace—it is also the raw minerals from the crust that drive our technologies, the water we cannot live without and the air that we breath. With all our metals and semiconductors used in industry, one must “dig up” the raw ore, then separate the ore into constituents, and finally refine the element or salt before research and industry can use it and convert it into a specific chemical compound. This takes energy, land space, water, and green space. But if you want your next i-pod, blackberry, laptop, television, hybrid car, electric car, solar cell, or wind farm; you need to dig into the dirt to get the materials to make them function with such an appealing form. As a formally trained geologist and an environmental materials scientist (and the grandson of a mining engineer), these reflections are smack in the middle of my think-space. As such, I am constantly reminded of the links tying technologies to geology and environmental chemistry.

I encourage all materials researchers to use tools of environmental awareness (i.e. environmental technologies) to assess the practicality of going down each road of materials research. If the impact of our research is a global technology that everyone will want—can everyone get access to the materials to produce it, or will it be a short term solution that will be isolated to the very rich? Will the use of that material require an energy intensive processing? What will the emissions be from refining, and how easily is the product recycled? Finally, what is the fate of the material when it is reintroduced into the environment in a waste repository, and what is the toxicity of the altered chemicals in the environment. This is termed a cradle-to-grave perspective, and while I don’t really enjoy the anthropomorphic connotation, it is a fairly recent concept to be applied to advanced materials research.

Summary
Consider a material used for technology. The following factors are valid in a global economy of technological development:

1. Raw resources (local or imported)
2. Energy use from refining
3. Gas and particulate emissions from refining
4. Recyclable?
5. Energy use from recycling
6. Toxicity
7. Fate of the material as it is exposed to the environment

• Note: Figure designed by JRSB (2007)