What does additive manufacturing mean for the future of energy? 3D Printing Industry investigates ahead of AMA: Energy 2026 on April 30th. Additive manufacturing has made real inroads in the energy sector, but its most complex, high-value components are still waiting their turn.
Tarun Chand, Technical Sales Specialist at Singapore-based 3D printing and precision manufacturing firm Addept3D (a sister entity of UK-based WAAM3D) has spent seven years working with OEMs, end users and everyone in between, navigating the internal politics, technical hurdles and entrenched risk aversion that separate a promising AM concept from a signed-off production project.
When Chand presented at our AMA:Energy 2025, he turned that experience into a practical argument for why the energy industry needs to stop thinking small, and what it will realistically take to get there.
The 2026 edition of our AMA: Energy online conference returns this month. Register now!
Why Large-Scale AM Still Lags
Chand noted that Norwegian energy giant Equinor leveraged over NOK 1 billion, roughly $100 million, in savings by growing its additive program. An undisclosed company he previously worked with saved over $1 million simply by printing parts instead of sourcing them through traditional channels. And yet the industry’s ambition has not kept pace with those returns.
Most of the activity in metal AM has clustered around PBF components sitting within a 250 to 300mm build volume, while the large, complex components that define so much of oil and gas infrastructure remain largely untouched. “We do see a lot of them in the POC stage,” he said, “but none of them have yet moved [into a] production environment.”
That gap between proof of concept and production is, in large part, a cost story. The machines capable of printing large components, using DED technologies such as laser DED, wire DED or WAAM, despite being cheaper than their comparatively sized PBF one are still expensive to build, buy and run.
“Budgets aren’t that easy to come by,” the Specialist said. “It wasn’t easy then and it’s even worse now. And a lot of people don’t want to drive and put their names on something that could fail.”
This reluctance is not irrational, and it is reflected by the approval process. Large, critical components carry serious consequences when they go wrong, and upper management is acutely aware of it. Sign-offs stretch well beyond the one or two a standard project might require, with questions of robustness, reliability and track record raised at every level.
Certification adds yet another layer of uncertainty. “We have come a long way in getting maybe version one or version two documents out. But there’s still quite a bit of work that needs to be done interlinking these basic 3D printing standards, whether that be API 20S or DNV B203, up with the other sections of the codified routes that exist over there. And it’s ongoing, it’ll take some time. So you really have to pick your battles when it comes to a critical application.”
Even once approvals are secured, testing at scale presents its own set of problems. X-ray, CT and ultrasonic inspection of large components is not just technically demanding but logistically fraught, with the equipment required sometimes sitting in an entirely different country from the part itself, raising the prospect of costly exports, re-imports and customs delays.
Qualification Takes Time and Trust
For the AM engineer or internal champion trying to move things forward, navigating all of that starts with part selection. “There have been multiple cases where the traditional alloy just does not make sense,” he said. Bringing certifying agencies and AM partners into the conversation before a part is chosen changes the entire dynamic of a project.
Even then, the pressure to deliver quickly can undo careful groundwork. The promise of faster lead times is genuine, but rushing critical components through qualification is where things go wrong.
“Everyone’s promising, hey, listen, you know, 50% faster lead times and cheaper costs. But when it comes to these applications, you might be able to get by. But I’ve seen more often than not, a lot of things get skipped when you’re trying to rush things through. And you’re opening yourself up to falling on your face as a service bureau, if you don’t keep things a bit more realistic.”
The more durable path, Chand argued, is staying within a defined material range and building expertise methodically. “If you’re doing impellers, focus on the impellers until you’ve sort of understood the pros, the cons, and all the little things that make 3D printing these parts a success. Then move on.” Setting the right technical benchmarks along the way matters just as much.
Chand recommended casting as the baseline for comparing AM against existing manufacturing methods, with forging-grade performance the harder but increasingly attainable target. “Within a couple of years you should see companies advertise that they’re able to reach these forging-grade properties,” said the Technical Specialist, adding that build failures along the way should be treated as a qualification challenge rather than a crisis.
“You will still have build failures. You will see lack of fusions, porosities, cracks, etc. A lot of customers are quite interested in your ability not [just] to produce the part, but also identify these defects, classify them, and correct them. No one is expecting everything to be perfect, but they are expecting you to sort of showcase that you can improve on and mitigate these sort of defects while you are qualifying these parts,” he explained.
None of that technical groundwork amounts to much, though, without the right people onside. Maintenance teams, asset owners, material experts and sourcing managers all have KPIs that shape how they respond to risk, and a smart internal champion accounts for all of them.
Small pathfinder projects that address specific concerns without requiring large commitments are how trust gets built. “Nothing beats visiting an AM facility, touching and interacting with an actual 3D printed part,” Chand said.
“A lot of these people are not so familiar and don’t refer [to] the day-to-day additive technologies or developments that’s there. But if they’re able to touch, feel, and actually witness the testing that’s being done on these components, it goes a long way in getting their buy-in and assuaging their fears that this thing isn’t going to fail.”
Having said that, none of this is “going to happen overnight. It’s not going to happen within a year. This is quite a few years in the making.” The organisations that will get there are the ones that build experience steadily, share failures as openly as successes.
“If you have management that’s supportive of this effort, you will certainly go the long road.”
The 2026 edition of our AMA: Energy online conference returns this month. Register now!
3D Printing Industry is inviting speakers for its 2026 Additive Manufacturing Applications (AMA) series, covering Energy, Healthcare, Automotive and Mobility, Aerospace, Space and Defense, and Software. Each online event focuses on real production deployments, qualification, and supply chain integration. Practitioners interested in contributing can complete the call for speakers form here.
To stay up to date with the latest 3D printing news, don’t forget to subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter or follow us on LinkedIn.
Explore the full Future of 3D Printing and Executive Survey series from 3D Printing Industry, featuring perspectives from CEOs, engineers, and industry leaders on the industrialization of additive manufacturing, 3D printing industry trends 2026, qualification, supply chains, and additive manufacturing industry analysis.
Feature image shows AMA: Energy 2026. How 3D Printing is used in the Energy Sector.
