The Smallest Part is the Biggest Problem: Cell Phone Chips
by Jenna Watson, Barcelona on 01. 5.07
One of my favorite scientific journals, the Int. J. of LCA reports, once again, on the life cycle impacts of a cell phone. Through a study on two mobile communication systems (UMTS and GSM), results are presented on the life cycle impacts of the mobile phone itself, since it is obviously a component of the overall system. Without getting into the technical details of the two communication systems, it is interesting to see how the cell phone itself performs. The manufacturing phase has the largest impact, which is contributed mainly to a cell phone’s short service life. The disposal phase has negligible impacts even though the study uses a scenario of 20% incineration and 80% take back. The use phase is also pretty low on the impact scale, coming in between 5 and 15%. Why the production phase?
The electronic components do it again. Those little chips turn out to be the big bad contributors to the life cycle impacts: the production of the printed wiring boards and integrated circuits are 40-50% of the environmental impacts.
As well, the transport of the electronic components contributes between 18-25% of the impacts. All of these impacts, as the study concludes, can be reduced by up to 40% through one little action: extending the useful life of the phone. By using your cell phone for up to 4 years, instead of the average (used in this study) of 12 months, you can reduce the impact of that little guy by up to 40%. Are you up for that challenge? Read more about cell phone take back programs here, here, here and here.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Using Life Cycle Analysis to Reduce Emissions and Encourage Video Conferencing
- Cell Phone Sales Slump Is Good Green News
- Yellowstone Proposes Expanding Cell Phone Coverage: Readers, Should National Parks Be Cell Phone Free Zones?
- From the Forums: Cell Phone Chargers, GRRRR!
seminal work. More of this please!
How does this factor into solar cell production, since I think it is similar to electronics production.
"How does this factor into solar cell production, since I think it is similar to electronics production."
It's probably similar in some ways, though I think solar cells don't need quite as high-quality (purity?) silicon, so the energy and processes might not be quite the same..
The main difference of course is that solar cells produce energy while computer chips don't, so solar cells "repay" for themselves energy-wise (usually in a year or two, on a life of 40-50-+ years).
That's my understanding of it, anyway...
I find that hard to believe. This is interesting though
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/505/v/3/sp/
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.
We probably won't use current processes for very long, anyway.. Nanosolar and other technologies are coming.
In the meantime, it still a lot better to produce your power via local solar panels than via a faraway coal power plant..
I've worked in the semi-conductor manufacturing for over 20 years. The production of the chips is very energy intensive, very long processing, and lots and lots of toxic gases and chemicals. I'm suprized that it is not a higher percentage of the enviomental impact.
When we used to make memory chips, which would be in all cell phones, if you ran the chips (wafers) from one machine to the next without any breaks it would take us 30 days to get them out. Some of out processes would use temperatures of 1270 deg C, lots of water, lots of electricty.
And yes, solar cells go through the same process, providing that it is silicon based, as chips in the cell phone. They just use less steps and some differnet chemicals.
I don't believe that either.
Why?
JiltedCitizen -
Why not? Or, more appropriately, which part do you disagree with. Local power is 'better' than remote power in the sense that you have less transmission losses. Solar is 'better' in that it doesn't constantly churn fossil fuels to produce more energy.
Mike
I'll use a cell phone for four years when I get one that actually works for four years.
Right now, I've got one that's 3 months short of a 2 year contract (on its second battery) and just barely functional.
If the industry was serious about reducing impact, they would make the gadgets a little bit more durable, water resistant, and upgradeable.
(Actually, my first cell phone was about half the size of a standard brick, and I did keep that one for quite a while)
Transmission loses are minimal for most plant to home distances. I agree solar is better than fossil fuel, but not in individual houses. It's just too expensive. Are there any reports comparing local power to regional? By local I mean individual houses? It gives you a nice warm and fuzzy feeling but is it really better?
I dropped my Motorola SLVR L6 a couple of months ago rushing somewhere. It still works great, but the back cover got pretty banged up. I'd seen replacement parts sold on eBay, but thought "I live in New York City! I should be able to find it somewhere."
A Cingular store? I walked in and asked and the sales rep said "Motorola.com" and little else. I did check and my suspicions were confirmed; the website's focus is definitely sales of new phones and a few accessories - and no replacement parts.
Canal Street/The Bowery? There weren't as many celphone vendors as I thought there would be. Every one that I did find that sold SLVR L7s (with one plan or another) spent less than 30 seconds to tell me that no, they did not sell replacement parts and no, they did not know where to find them. I imagined all the busted but working celphones in New York City that could benefit from a store that sold cheap parts and headed back home. I bought one on eBay for less than $9, including shipping.
Are we talking about obsolescence? The SLVR L6 is a GSM cameraphone with Bluetooth; I think only the camera was updated to make the L7. I understand people trying to make money by selling new phones (and contracts), but why not encourage people to also keep and upgrade phones they currently have that work? And the phones that don't work, where do they go? It's important to encourage celphone vendors to take back the phones they sell, working or not.
Interesting article. Where is your Swedish or Norwegian correspondent? There is a trail going on in Oslo (Norway) right now about the life cycle of mobile phones. In this trail, Nokia and SonyEricsson argues that their mobile phones are expected to breakdown after 3-4 years. This contradicts your article. Are Nokia and SonyEricsson really environmentally friendly companies?
Swedish article about the trail:
http://www.corren.se/archive/2006/12/6/iz7px9z2ow70ual.xml?category1=1100270897-0&
Well, I left this comment earlier today, but looks like it got censored. Let's try this again:
"The disposal phase has negligible impacts even though the study uses a scenario of 20% incineration and 80% take back."
That's quite an assumption! Where in the world can we find 80% take-back rates? Maybe Europe, but certainly not Latin America and the Caribbean, where cell phone use has grown tremendously. This makes me wonder about the rest of the LCA...
Regards,
Keith
The Other Side of the Cell Phone Revolution
Major Cell Phone Recycling Deal for Brazil
"Transmission loses are minimal for most plant to home distances. I agree solar is better than fossil fuel, but not in individual houses. It's just too expensive. Are there any reports comparing local power to regional? By local I mean individual houses? It gives you a nice warm and fuzzy feeling but is it really better?"
Make sure you are not confusing what is better money wise and what is better for the environment..
"Interesting article. Where is your Swedish or Norwegian correspondent? There is a trail going on in Oslo (Norway) right now about the life cycle of mobile phones."
Thanks Back Seat Betty - I will look for that in English! J.
As well, apologies for a couple of the comments going up late. I was out of town for the weekend and just got them up today. No worries, I didn't censor your great and interesting comments. Keep them coming!
"Interesting article. Where is your Swedish or Norwegian correspondent? There is a trail going on in Oslo (Norway) right now about the life cycle of mobile phones."
" Thanks Back Seat Betty - I will look for that in English! J."
A blog about the trail in English
http://groupster.blogspot.com/search/label/Nokia
They should be one in the same shouldn't they? Unfortunately they are not. A cell phone trade in wold be a good idea. Trade in your old cell phone and get a credit. Either minutes or so much off a new cell phone. Of course those trade ins should be properly recycled or reused.
Jilted, As I understand it (I have no inside info), that is basically what happens in the program ReCellular works with, at least in the context of Brazil and Venezuela and their cooperation agreement with Motorola in Central America (see prior mentioned link to the article on the Brazilian deal). When old phones are returned to stores, the returnees get a discount on a new model. When they are returned to other designated collection points instead, a contribution is made to certain charities in that country. The old phones are shipped to ReCellular, they refurbish them, and then re-sell them in other markets, prolonging the product life.
If I've misunderstood or mis-stated their model, I hope someone from ReCellular or their partners will clarify.
Regards,
Keith
P.S. I'm still waiting to hear which countries actually can (believeably) report a 80% or higher take-back rate as assumed in the LCA.