How Green is a Green Computer?
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO on 11. 9.06
Consumers around the globe are demanding greener computers, and a number of companies are rushing to supply them. While the the EU has established regulations for less toxic, more efficient, and ultimately recyclable machines, and the US has a voluntary standard, computer maker Thomas Schramm (a frequent commenter here) claims that these frameworks, and the home computers that meet them, don't go nearly far enough in reducing hazardous chemicals. Schramm's company, GreenMachineShop.com of Ann Arbor, Michigan, issued a press release claiming that "green computers" are largely a myth, and that "The components are usually not manufactured with the environment in mind”:
Electronics, including computer electronics, contain considerable amounts of brominated flame retardants (BFRs), up to 1 ounce per computer motherboard. The used BFR, with the name TBBPA (Tetrabromobisphenol-A), is immunotoxic, hepatotoxic, neurotoxic, an endocrine disruptor, and can block the thyroid hormone receptor (see http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6559/6559.html#tetr and http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/bfr_report_pages1-43.pdf, page 19). Bisphenol-A, which can mimic estrogen, has recently been linked to prostate cancer and received national press this summer.Green Machine Shop offers its own product, of course, as an alternative, and claims they "exceed EPEAT and ROHS requirements, come with a take-back program, including the replacement computer, and with a power consumption up to 10% below the industry average." We won't defend or deny Schramm's claims about his company's computers, but rather want to offer these criteria as grist for discussion. What standards should we set to insure that consumers are protected from health hazards, and that old machines aren't clogging landfills? What must designers do to create the "perfect green computer?" ::GreenMachineShop.comThe typical PC component manufacturing process uses and releases toxins, carcinogens, paint and oil-based substances into the environment and residue of them remain in the computer while sitting next to you and gas-out, evaporating over time in the computer users office or home.
People with multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCS) go to great lengths to shield themselves from those toxins. Some get physically ill within 15 minutes of sitting next to regular computer and they are not able to continue their work routine. Some MCS sufferers put computers in another room or build special enclosure of aluminum and glass just to stay away from these harmful substances.
What can those chemicals do to “normal” people?
This issue often comes up on ecoIron, so I'll chime in. My opinion is the biggest gains in sustainabilty are going to come from (a) reducing the numbers of desktop in use and (b) prolonging the life of the ones that we have. The enduring myth that every employees needs to have a space heater under their desk to run applications, and that it must be replaced every three years is patently absurd. This emperor hath no clothes.
Ok, so if you have to buy a personal machine, I would buy recycled. There are many companies such as Retrobox that have thousands of good models available. I personally have never bought a new computer and have never had any issues. If you need to buy new, I would look to the EPEAT and (new) Energy Star standards for advice. I know Tom and know his products, these are fine and worth looking into. But only after exhausting the 'Reduce' and 'Reuse' options.
But ipods are green right?
Since electronics are mainly silicon and solar panels are mainly silicon, does this apply to them as well?
Hazards in solar cell production
Look up the word "safety" in the dictionary and you'll likely find a definition that infers 'absence of danger'. Well, there is no such thing in life. Nor are there computers that last forever or use trivial amounts of energy and contain only benign "safe" components. RoHS does a great job of phasing out the worst elements of chemical toxicity. Utopian visions of design perfection offer their own hazards.
Thanks for posting my press release.
RoHS is a start. But, it does not regulate the manufacturing process at all, only the substances that end up in the final product. Excluding TBBPA and corrosive, toxic, carcinogenic substances used in the electronics manufacturing process. Spray painted computer cases, with paint ending up in the air/environment are not regulated either.
I heard William McDonough (Cradle to Cradle) speak last week here in Ann Arbor. He said something that I found very interesting: "something is wrong if government has to regulate it". Interestingly, almost all of his projects come up with product that is "safer" and "better" than what was there before.
The quality of the cleaner manufactured electronics is also better. The "no-clean" (doesn't need cleaning up afterwards) manufacturing process doesn't use corrosive, toxic and carcinogenic substances, the final result lasts longer and "ages more gracefully", i.e. it runs more stable until it reaches end of life. In fact the electronics is so clean, it can be smelted and the left-overs are ashes and precious metals, no toxins.
There is always "danger", but we should leave the danger where it belongs, with things we humans don't have a lot lot of control over. Like a meteor or so :-)
If we don't have dreams and visions, we'll not get anywhere, and removing as many known toxic substances from the manufacturing process is hardly "utopian", merely good engineering practice.
But that's just my humble opinion. I'd appreciate more feedback and I'm open to answer all questions (at least the ones I actually can answer).
Best regards
Thomas Schramm
GreenMachineShop.com
The tradeoffs raised by Thomas are well explained in a recent TH post by C. Lepisto on Green Chemistry.
The need for fireproofing of desk top model cases is fast slipping by. THe lower the energy consumption, the closer we get to an all bamboo encased CPU. Any of you old enough to remember how the first televisions were designed may recall the all wooden case, and the bare, glowing electronics all clustered in the middle of the enclosed space, with plenty of air betweent he wooden case walls and the tubes. Somehow we survived without brominated fire retardants, using air space to lower risk of fire. So it is true that re-design can accomplish much, if many factors are in synch and costs permitting.
Once we take full advantage of solar energy, energy isn't the problem anymore. A steel case provides better shielding for electromagnetic radiation than for sure bamboo does.
I'm pretty sure in the early days more homes burnt down because of a TV than now. I remember reading or hearing that a house was on fire because of the TV.
If we would live in a fair and real capitalist society, without subsidization, and the total life-time cost of any product is charged to the manufacturer, all other computers would be a lot more expensive than mine. And we are barely more expensive right now. Because we plan for 5 year replacement cycle instead of 3-4 as others do, we can't just use the same components.
Calculate opportunity cost on the user side for the 1 year extended replacement, that comes to about $800 in savings, plus total energy balance of the product, 80% of the lifetime energy consumption of a computer is already used before the computer is sold, i.e. extending the replacement cycle by only one year saves about 20%. Which is about the amount of energy the computer consumes while sitting on your desk.
No disagreement with your calcs; but I would hasten to point that metal is no longer needed to shield electromagnetic energy from people. Designers can choose from screen, metallic paints, and even tiny silvered glass beads impregnated in a thin coating on the inside of the device casing. The latter approach is common in cell phones!
But ipods are green right?
No, but cars are. Right?
If you have metal paint or beads, you still have metal. Which is harder to recycle when it becomes part of something else.
Thorough engineering of the electronics actually also helps with the shielding quite a bit. The motherboards we use are actually quite well shielded, even without a case. For example unused connectors are electrically without power, so they don't act as antennas.
Declining the upgrade will save your department money and reduce the number of PCs getting junked. I did it and I'm very happily typing away on my older and slower but less energy-consuming PC built in 2001. I just wish TH would reduce the load time on their pages!
_________
Writer's note: We're working on it, Jared!
*cough* *cough* it's the ads.
An older PC is great, until you want to play recent games.
Sadly, it's true that gaming was one of the things that prompted me to finally upgrade my home PC which was entirely reclaimed from the curb. Luckily I won't need to upgrade again for some time since most of the games I want to play are older and outdated by today's standards. Fortunately my own technological standards are set rather lower.
I have just upgraded after quite a few years, i work from home and while i did reuse a case from the rubbish bin rather than opting for a new one. There is really no excuse to get anything new, any case from the last 10 years will take a modern set of parts.
http://alumunum.250free.com/images/DSC00069.JPG
Use 120 mm fan for cooling rather than 80 mm ones that move faster and push less air around. My choice of motherboard and cpu may astound some greenies but i chose the most feature rich motherboard around my logic being that it has the highest upgrade path. By getting a really shnazzy motherboard i am doubling the lifespan of my pc. Long after the "greener" motherboards are obscolete i will be plugging new cpus into my current one. I think the upgrade path is the most important issue.
Also living with a group of friends, we have setup an old laptop with remote acess as an always on server for the entire flat. A 400 mhz laptop worthless to any real user can sit in the background doing anything that otherwise may require a full size machine to be left on overnight. It also acts as a media center providing music to the whole apartment.
I have also opted for the nicest most high tech monitor i could find. Rather than getting a 19 inch that will give way later to temptation and eventually find its way to the landfill as 24 inch models become standard this bahemoth while draining slightly more power will never make its way to the landfill unless in case of severe malfunction.