In this final part of the Design for Environment unit, we are looking at a range of issues that are more holistic than our previous consideration of the materials used in electronic assemblies. Specifically we are looking at energy and similar costs to the environment, and the problem of ‘end-of-life’ disposal. This last is not a question of a simple choice between burial or cremation: there are a range of better alternatives for an electronic product!
One environmental issue that has not been directly addressed so far, that of the economic use of energy, attracts increasing attention for both environmental and economic reasons. When designing a process, or procuring equipment, the power consumption of equipment, and its ability to revert to a low energy state when not in use, have to be taken into consideration. This is a parallel to the moves which have occurred in recent years for the adoption of energy efficient monitors, which progressively switch automatically to lower-energy states as the period of non-use extends.
As with many of the environmental improvements, the drives for lower energy use combine marketing and fiscal perspectives. On the marketing front, labels such as “Energy Star” are used to promote the environmental friendliness of the product. The fiscal incentive has been mostly at the company level, with the Climate Change Levy coming into effect in April 2001. Increasing electricity bills by 8–10% is part of the UK Government’s strategy to reduce the business use of energy, and hence help meet the commitment to a 12.5% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2008–2010 that was agreed at the Kyoto Summit in 1997. There is also a more challenging goal by 2010 of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% on 1990 emission levels. A combination of stick and carrot, CCL has been structured to reward energy-efficient companies and penalise those that waste energy.
RMIT suggests a number of approaches for design for minimal energy consumption that cover a wide range of industries. Whilst some ideas on their list are more relevant to the assembler’s factory and equipment, we have selected those items that are relevant to most electronic products:
All these design strategies are about using a minimum of resources, but in thinking more widely, there are also considerations of reusing and recovering resources. Can we remove heat from our computer that will keep our coffee warm?! More seriously, when it comes to resources other than energy (thinking particularly of water), can we reuse or recycle?
The use of energy, and the use of water are two examples of environmental considerations where we need to consider the whole of a product’s life. As with waste, and issues about replacement solders, such concerns can be analysed particularly effectively using two inter-related techniques:
We need to think of the whole of the life-cycle of a product, because products may have totally different environmental impacts during different stages of their cycle. For example, some materials may have an adverse environmental consequence when extracted or processed, but be relatively benign in use and easy to recycle. Aluminium is such a material. On the other hand, a printer or battery-powered product will create the bulk of its environmental impact during use, because of the consumption of consumables.
The product life cycle in Figure 1 is shown in five distinct phases, all of which interact with the environment. For most products, the period of use is far longer than the other periods, and there may also be periods of storage and non-use between the stages shown. Usually, but not always, these stages will be environmentally benign.
Figure 1 also shows, as feedback loops, the potential for recycling, remanufacturing, and reuse. We will be saying more about these later, but it is worth making the obvious point that reuse is the strategy that potentially has the lowest environmental impact, merely based on the fact that this involves fewer processes, and each stage absorbs energy and has an environmental impact.
Figure 2 shows a life-cycle assessment of a washing machine, in terms of the energy and water used, of the contribution to pollution of air and water, and of solid waste. As you might expect, most of the environmental impact is during use. However, you might have predicted that most of the solid waste impact would be the two stages of delivery (when the packaging is removed and disposed of) and eventual end-of-life disposal. Whilst the solid waste levels are indeed significantly higher than other contributors at these stages, in fact they total less than 15% of the solid waste produced by the washing machine. Strange? Just think of the many packets of washing powder and other consumables that are thrown out during the machine’s life. This illustrates how careful we must be to consider every aspect of use, and to draw the ‘system boundary’ broadly enough to cover this.
Life-cycle assessment provides use with information on environmental impact. An extension of the analysis also allows us:
Unfortunately, environmental design guidelines can often be conflicting; remember that the increased reflow temperatures involved in using lead-free materials will substantially increase the energy requirements of the process. In order to determine the best environmental option, we need a formal process.
In stating that the system considered needs to be sufficiently broad to take in all the elements of interest, we have already implied that Life Cycle Analysis takes a system view of the world. Let’s start by looking at the formal process of Life Cycle Analysis, which you will find described in the two codes of practice that follow.
Two definitions of Life Cycle Assessment
“Life Cycle Assessment is a process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment; to assess the impact of those energy and materials used and releases to the environment; and to identify and evaluate opportunities to affect environmental improvements. The assessment includes the entire life cycle of the product, process or activity, encompassing, extracting and processing raw materials; manufacturing, transportation and distribution; use, re-use, maintenance; recycling, and final disposal.”
Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice (1993)
SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry)
“LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product by:
- compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a product system;
- evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs;
- interpreting the results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment phases in relation to the objectives of the study.
“LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout the product’s life (i.e. cradle to grave) from raw materials acquisition through production, use and disposal. The general categories of environmental impacts needing consideration include resource use, human health, and ecological consequences.”
You will see that Life Cycle Analysis is both holistic and seeks to quantify the impact. A system view, it looks at all inputs to the system, and all outputs, at all stages during the entire life cycle. It also categorises environmental impacts in terms of the use of resources, the impact on human health, and the consequences for the wider world – the so called ‘ecological consequences’.
The framework within which life cycle assessment is carried out is shown in Figure 3. Two main activities are preceded by a vitally important planning phase and followed by extended interpretation, which will normally involve checking the results both against the initial goals and for self-consistency.
There are two main activities in an LCA:
The first stage in inventory analysis is to define the product assembly. Typically this will be broken down into a number of different levels, first into subassemblies, and then into the materials and processes. At the end, we have a set of life-cycle inventory (LCI) results, known as an ‘inventory table’. This is a list of all the raw material extractions and emissions that occur in the production of the assembly and the materials and processes that link to it.
The next stage is the conversion of these inventory items into impact categories. This simplifies the information, converting many separate entries into a smaller number of environmental impacts. This step is referred to as ‘characterisation’, and the output is an analysis by subassembly of how the impact is generated.
After characterisation, all impact category indicators have been scaled to 100%, so it is not easy to see which parts of the product have the highest overall environmental impact. For a more representative picture, we need to scale the measurements so that they can be related to each other, a procedure called ‘normalisation’. This reveals which effects are large, and which are small in relative terms, though says nothing about the relative importance of these effects.
Even at this early stage, we have made a number of assumptions about the environmental impact of the items on the life-cycle inventory. With so many environmental factors to consider, and different views on their relative importance, it is not surprising that a number of different models are used to translate information from inventory to impact category indicator and through to normalised indicator result.
Eco-indicator 1999 is a commonly-used model, but just one of a number that will yield somewhat different results. However, using one model consistently to compare different potential products, coupled with some sensitivity analysis and a liberal use of common sense, will indicate with reasonable certainly which of the alternative designs being considered is the most environmentally friendly.
In Figure 4, we have a general overview of the structure of an impact assessment method. The life-cycle inventory results are related to the so-called ‘endpoints’, which are issues of environmental concern, by ‘midpoints’, which reflect the mechanism by which the environmental effect takes place. Note that ISO 14040 does not stipulate which endpoints should be selected, but obviously these must be chosen carefully to fit the product under review, and then related to the impact categories.
As shown in Figure 5, this model can be simplified by choosing a consistent set of endpoints, and relating indicators to these, so that the effects of indicators that relate to the same endpoint can simply be added together. By weighting the different endpoints, it then becomes possible to calculate a single environmental score, which is a shorthand way of indicating the environmental impact of a product over its life.
The Eco-indicator 99 methodology takes as its three standard endpoints damage to human health, to ecosystems and to natural resources. The key problem of course is what relative rating to place on the three! LCA has a formal way for viewing this, as demonstrated by the ‘mixing triangle’ in Figure 6. You will be familiar from other uses of this technique that the coordinates at any point in the triangle add up to 100%.
As an extension of this idea, as shown in Figure 7, one can draw a boundary on the triangle where the area on one side of the line is environmentally less damaging that the other side.
So far we have looked at the process by which a total impact score for each subassembly, material and process in the assembly can be calculated. There are, however, many uncertainties about this score:
This last can at least be tackled by standardisation. In the Eco-indicator 99 model, the weightings between these three categories default to 40:40:20, a division based on the opinion of an extensive panel of experts from many sectors.
LCA became popular in the early 1990s, initially because it was thought to be a good tool to support environmental claims that could be directly used in marketing. However, although the communication of LCA results is important, a survey by Rubik and Frankel showed that LCA is most often used for internal purposes such as product improvement, support for strategic choices, and benchmarking. One of the reasons that LCA is less used than it might be in marketing is that it is necessary to apply weighting factors in order to generate the kinds of single score that are easiest to use for marketing. However, because weighting is inherently subjective, ISO 14043 specifically disallows its use for public comparisons.
Rubik and Frankel’s study also showed that the most important pitfall is the lack of a clear definition of the purpose and application of LCA. This is very much in line with the importance placed in SETAC’s Code of Practice on the first stage of planning. The five stages into which this splits the LCA are:
|Planning:|| Statement of objectives
Definition of the product and its alternatives
Choice of system boundaries
Choice of environmental parameters
Choice of aggregation and evaluation method
Strategy for data collection
|Screening:|| Preliminary execution of the LCA
Adjustment of plan
Data collection and data treatment:
Measurements; interviews; literature search; theoretical calculations; database search; qualified guessing
Computation of the inventory table
Classification of the inventory table into impact categories
Aggregation within the category (characterization)
Weighting of different categories (valuation)
|Improvement assessment:|| Sensitivity analysis
Improvement priority and feasibility assessment
Note that SETAC have introduced a screening stage after planning, in order to check the goal definition. At first sight, this Code of Practice differs from ISO 14043, but is in practice just a different formulation of the advice that one should review the initial results of Life Cycle Assessment against the objectives, in order to be able to plan the rest of the project.
Here we would like you to look at the demonstration SimaPro software provided by PRé Consultants. This makes it very clear the extent to which the outcome depends on the analysis and on the assumptions made. Start by exploring the main features of the program using the “Guided Tour”, which takes the life cycle of a coffee machine as an example.
The process allows you to analyse the production phase and then the entire life cycle, to compare one product to another, and to perform a simple sensitivity analysis. The demonstration uses Eco-indicator 99 as its default, but you can try alternatives.
Note that manuals on both software and methodology are included within the download (within the program under Help, View PDF Manuals).
Be aware that the demonstration software is a 35M download. If you do not have access to a fast Internet connection, please contact your tutor.
In the SimaPro software, the first demonstration considers two designs of a coffee machine, one in plastic and the other in aluminium. Conclusions reached by the analysis are that:
From an environmental design perspective, the hypothesis that a coffee machine with plastic housing and a thermos jug would have an even lower environmental load seems valid. However this simulation would need to be rerun to test for this and for other assumptions on which the hypothesis has been based:
Particularly with uncertainties, such as the level of usage of a product, we also need to carry out a sensitivity analysis – will the figures look significantly different if we change one of the parameters?
Looking in detail at LCA tools is beyond the scope of this module, but you should be aware that, as with any modelling technique, the outcomes are highly dependent on the quality of the inputs. Fortunately, there are a number of recognised sources of information that can be used to make these analyses more meaningful, and at least easier to compare with each other. It is the availability of such standard information, and its integration within the simulation, that makes this type of software particularly helpful.
As we have seen Life Cycle Analysis is far from being a trivial exercise. Conceptually simple, projects of this nature frequently run away with resource, yet yield results that are difficult to interpret. It is partly for this reason that use of the formal technique is generally restricted to larger companies and left to specialists, and its use confined principally to comparing alternative product strategies. However, some awareness of the technique will help you to ask the right questions, and to carry out a preliminary comparison of significant design alternatives. Think of the ‘cradle to grave’ costs whenever you are researching new materials or methods, and be particularly aware of the way in which the environmental cost of ownership of products can be influenced by the running costs in energy and consumables.
Another holistic approach that concentrates more on the effect on the company than on the environment is life-cycle cost assessment (LCCA). This is one of the techniques promoted by the EU’s EEE Directive, which aims to improve the overall impact of electrical and electronic equipment on the environment “thus providing an efficient use of resources and a high level environmental protection compatible with sustainable development”.
Make as full a list as you can of the environmental costs that a company might face.
Compare your answer with Table 1 on p12 of the report Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Electronic Products that you will find at http://www.greenpack.org/results/lcca_html.
Having better information about the actual or potential environmental cost to companies will help them to make appropriate decisions on product mix, product design and process choice, as well as to assess priorities for environmental improvement.
So far we have been looking at products over the whole of their life. But
all products come to the end of life, and we have to decide what to do with
them. Figure 1 showed the main opportunities as reuse, remanufacture and recycle,
and promoted the first of these. The second you will be familiar with through
the work carried out to recycle toner cartridges which is actually a remanufacturing
operation. Recycling in its traditional sense, whether scrap yard or bottle
bank, is generally favoured but is not necessarily the right option.
In order to explore this in more detail, we first need to consider how recycling might be carried out. Faced with a monitor, how would you proceed to disassemble it effectively into its constituent materials?
Before reading further, we recommend that you look at the DEER2 website. The Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and Recycling (DEER2) project was initiated by the US Department of Defense to investigate, test and deploy technology upgrades in the public and private sectors.
Review the techniques used there, and try and list the important issues when it comes to planning the recycling of electronic waste.
The first issue is that of practicality, not only the sheer logistics of organising the activity, but also the challenge of dealing with many and diverse materials – we have already seen this in relation to printed circuit boards.
The diversity of materials is a real issue when dealing with post-consumer scrap. Over 300 types of plastic have been used in monitor production, and it simply is not economical to separate them all into high-value scrap. A typical board contains 15–20% copper, 7–10% solder, and about 1 kg/tonne of precious metals, such as gold, palladium and silver.
Most of the balance is thermoset epoxy and glass, with less than 10% ceramic and other materials. If the value of the components does not merit their removal, ceramics, thermoset epoxies, and glass are not recyclable into any valuable form, which means that the only valuable materials are the metals, at about 20–30% by weight. The epoxy has calorific value, but if incinerated at low temperatures, bromine analogues of dioxins form and these long-lasting substances are in some cases suspected carcinogens.
Alan Rae, The costs of going green, PC Fab, March 2003
We then have the consideration that recycling will cost money, not least to collect waste material and concentrate it for cost-effective delivery to a specialist processing plant. There seems little doubt that, despite the EU’s attempts to make the producer pay, the costs of managing used electronic products will eventually be factored into the overall purchase price of new equipment.
At their meeting in March 2002, participants in the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative identified several challenging issues remaining to be resolved, including the timeframe for starting the front-end financed system, how to make the system convenient for consumers, whether it can provide incentives for product design, and how the costs and responsibilities for collection, reuse, and recycling will be shared among producers, retailers, consumers, and governments. The group also discussed the serious issue of the export of used electronics.
So far we have promoted recycling, but have to ask ourselves whether recycling is really what we want to do if our aim is environmental sustainability. Unfortunately, ‘recycling’ is a much-abused term of which three sub-types have been identified:
It has been commented that down-cycling merely slows the progression from resource to waste rather than replacing it, and sustainable systems need down-cycling to be balanced by up-cycling. However, creating sustainable systems is not something that is necessarily easy to do, as this next quotation illustrates.
Barriers to sustainability are largely in the mind. For example, most economic barriers to sustainable development can be overcome by thinking big, as taking the widest and highest possible viewpoint often brings economies of scale, a phenomena which has been described as ‘tunnelling through the cost barriers’. Incremental improvements do not tend to be cost-effective. As someone once said ‘man didn’t get to the moon by aiming half-way’.
There are three dimensions to the mental sustainability revolution:
- Innovation (height): radical changes are required to change to a sustainable system.
- Systems thinking (breadth): consider the product-system as a whole not as a series of elements to be optimised individually.
- Long-termism (length): considering the whole lifespan of your product and operations, from material extraction through to end of life and beyond.
Rather than produce a simple check-list of aspects one should consider under the heading of Design for Environment, we would like you to create your own!
Compare your answer with this one. Note that our answer also includes substantial comment on some of these issues.
The European Union Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy(IPP) focuses on the three stages in the decision making process that strongly influence the life cycle environmental impacts of products:
The Green Paper advances the idea of differentiating taxation according to the environmental performance of products, for example applying lower VAT rates to eco-labelled products, or introducing other environmental taxes. The principle of producer responsibility has been integrated into the Directives on End-of-Life Vehicles and WEEE, but is likely to be extended in scope to cover other sectors.
The Green Paper saw the process of educating customers and companies as important in promoting the demand for more environmentally friendly products, and improved labelling and better information seems an inevitable consequence.
Before you leave this topic, and apply what you have learned about design for environment to the appropriate section of Assignment 3, we would like you to take a sideways look at eco-design by following this link to http://www.pre.nl/ecodesign/ecodesign.htm. Hopefully this will reinforce the need for life cycle thinking, and at the same time stimulate you to use some methods, however, simple, to assess environmental affects. We particularly like the idea of the materials, energy, toxicity (MET) matrix as a simple tool.