Environmental, Technical and Market Analysis concerning the Eco-design of Television Devices

Transcription

1 Environmental, Technical and Market Analysis concerning the Eco-design of Television Devices Technical Report EUR EN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Directive 2005/32/EC on the eco-design of energy using products has been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in the summer of The Directive establishes a framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for such products. In this context, it is important to build a consolidated reference for assessing the environmental performance of specific types of energy using products, and to evaluate the technical and economic potential of improvements without unacceptable loss of performance of utilities to consumers. This report provides such a reference for the potential of eco-design in the consumer electronics sector through a case study dedicated to television devices, taking into consideration both current and future designs. The definition of television devices covers current and future screen designs, including the trends towards deconstruction and convergence. Technology trends The report starts by describing the technical trends in detail. It is stated that broadcast services are the most important mode of information delivery in the world today and there is a strong belief that the TV industry is in the early stages of the next wave of growth owing to the emergence of new services and new technologies. Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT), Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD), Plasma Displays (PDP) and Micro- Electro- Mechanical (MEM) are the current dominant technologies, however, the CRT's long period of dominance appears finally to be coming to an end. Instead, by sheer investment in volume production lines committed to date, LCD will be the dominant display technology of the decade. Meanwhile, the currently growing technology with plasma displays is generally regarded as an interim large screen technology partly due to high costs. However, a significant part of the plasma display assembly line technology lends itself directly to Field Emissive Display (FED) assembly technology but with a threefold reduction in precision assembly stages. Beyond 2010, the dominant television display technologies will be those based on low cost but high precision manufacture capable of providing very high resolution, bright images with low energy and low overheads in material re-cycling. Printable emitter FEDs and most MEM technologies will meet these criteria as will a coming technology named Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED). Apart from the choice of screen technology, modular deconstruction and product convergence are two major principal design attributes. Furthermore, among these, maybe the most important trend is the convergence of TVs and PCs into one unit.

2 Environmental impact The next step is a review of existing data on environmental impacts on a life cycle basis. This exercise revealed that very few complete LCAs are available in the public domain. Moreover, any available information covers mostly the CRT technology while it is particularly scarce for plasma screen technology. However, in general, energy consumption in use is stated to be the key product characteristics and life-cycle phase driving environmental impacts of TVs. Nevertheless, it is also worth noting that ecolabel studies and ecolabel criteria seem to put more emphasis on hazardous substances than other information sources. More specifically, the points below should be noted. Energy Issues Life-cycle impacts are dominated by energy in the in-use phase (in-use accounts for up to 80% of energy consumption). Market demands for more sophisticated products incorporating larger screens, digital processing, hi-fi sounds etc mean that on-mode energy consumption typically raises when new technology is introduced. However, improved design, material use and miniaturisation generally lead to reduction of energy consumption in the medium term. The trend with product convergence and product networking to achieve sophisticated levels of interconnectivity will drive a demand for easy to use intelligent master control interfaces. The energy impact implications are potentially of concern if designers do not prioritise power management protocols and control systems to ensure that the TV and all its peripherals are working at the lowest power state for the function required. Further, the method of ensuring this condition must be transparent to the user. Resource issues Normalised and weighted resource use results show that a TV s consumption of copper and lead are significant. Efforts to reduce and or recycle these metals at end of life are warranted. Waste and Recycling Issues Various types of flame retardants (FRs) are being used in plastic components of electrical products; an important type being the environmentally problematic halogenated FRs (chlorine or bromine based). These substances or mixes of them can be incorporated along with other additives such as flow-agents and catalysts. This leads to at least two problems, the first one being the environmental problem with the flame retardants and the second one being the difficulty of recycling mixed plastics containing different additives. If recycling different plastics mixed together, the accuracy in properties is lost. Hence, TV manufacturers are generally unwilling to use plastic recyclates. It is considered that the TV waste stream will alter markedly in the future with the advent of new technologies. Growing and coming TV technologies including LCD, plasma, field emissive displays and organic light emitting displays will be plastic-rich (with flame retardants) whereas the present, dominant CRT technology is glass rich. In the short- to medium-term, the sale of LCDs is expected to grow markedly from their present low base. Given that LCDs require the use of back-lighting to illuminate the screen and that fluorescent lamps containing mercury are the light source of choice, the quantity of mercury arising in the waste stream from TVs is set to rise.

3 General Issues There are several Eco-indicator systems that expand the LCA method or screen full LCAs through a weighting method that rates the lifecycle environmental impact of resources or processes so that a total impact can be assessed in the context of product lifecycle or services. Manufacturers are addressing issues of lifecycle impacts associated with TV products using in-house design tools to improve environmental performance. Currently the most applied Eco-indicator system in Europe is that produced by PRe consultants in the Netherlands as Eco-Indicator 95, now updated to Eco-Indicator 99. Environmental indicators and factors After having gone through the documented material on environmental impacts, the work on the identification of appropriate indictors commenced. In this search for indicators which allow description of the relevant product characteristics and environmental aspects in a measurable and comparable way, it has also been the aim to define indicators which have a broad application to other consumer electronic products as well. Although energy consumption in the use-phase of a TV has by far the largest environmental impact with the current dominant TV technology (CRT display TV), there is a danger in isolating this impact. Lifecycle energy (i.e. that associated with production, use and recycling) but also virgin resource depletion and the use of hazardous substances have to be included if these indicators are to influence and meaningfully compare the eco-design of developing and new TV display technologies. Likewise, a system of indicators for the TVs as well as for other consumer electronic products must consider or reflect a product s entire life cycle. To this end, a range of indicators were studied and analysed. The list below shows the ones considered to be key for energy use, resource efficiency and the use of hazardous substances respectively. Energy use In use energy Electronic parts production Display parts production Material production (this may, in some LCAs, include electronic parts production) Resource efficiency Recovered resources (materials and components reprocessed for use in TV production) Recoverable resources (recycled materials used for other purposes), in particular; o Glass o Copper o Flame-retarded plastics Disposed resources Newly supplied resources

4 Use of hazardous substances Phosphors Lead solder Lead Mercury Tetra-bromo bis-phenyl A (TBBPA) Poly-vinyl Chloride In this context, it is important to mention that, in general, the availability of product environmental information varies greatly between product type and indicator. For more established technologies such as CRT, LCD and plasma, information on energy consumption is quite extensive as there is both data provided by manufacturers and independent testing bodies on this issue. However, data is much scarcer for other energy indicators, the ones for resource use and, in particular, for those on hazardous substances. After having identified these key indicators which shows the performance for a single material or energy consumption for one phase of the life cycle, it was considered that it would be valuable to use one or several compound values as well. They should allow for the meaningful comparison of eco design efficiency between products of comparable function but with radically different technological solutions. In the past two years, an Eco indicator tool that incorporates not only environmental aspects but also attempts to add the products value to the community in terms of its lifetime and functions has been adopted by some major global industries. The factor system was developed by considering three issues separately: prevention of global warming, effective utilization of resources and use of non-toxic materials. Factors are calculated for each of the three areas and, thus, a transparent system is created where different impacts and causes for impacts are kept separately. This factor system has been chosen as an appropriate tool to use for the present study. As shown below, an environmental factor is calculated by comparing the product being evaluated with a reference product. Environmental Factor = Eco-Efficiency of the (new) Evaluated Product Eco-efficiency of the Base (reference) Product The comparison is being made through efficiency values, which are individual for the three separate areas. The efficiency values combine the products functionality with its environmental impact (by summing up the indicators presented previously) in each area. Eco - Efficiency = Product or Service Value Environmental Impact

5 Forecasted environmental performance This so called factor system can furthermore be used to illustrate forecasted environmental performance. As it is considered important that such illustration is adequate for benchmarking as well as for the prioritisation of environmental indicators for those products that will have the greatest overall environmental impact, the study has opted to include a sales weighting element. In this approach, individual technology trends are multiplied with each technology s proportion of the (sales) market at a given point in time and, thus, the method shows the contribution of each technology to the overall performance of the sector. This allows the technologies that will have the greatest current and future impact to be identified and priorities set accordingly. As an example, the figure below shows the sales weighted trend of the greenhouse gas factor for each technology as well as a trend for the total factor. The trends are derived by multiplying the calculated GHG factor for each screen technology with forecasted sales Greenhouse Gas Factor by TV Technology Sales Weighted Factor Total Factor CRT LCD Plasma Projection (MEM) FED OLED Year Sales weighted trend of the greenhouse gas factor per screen technology

6 Potential product innovation/design improvements on product level Another important part of the project was to identify possible environmentally beneficial design improvements on product level. From discussions with manufacturers as well as using market intelligence, a range of such potential innovations in design of televisions have been pointed out, together with their primary area of effect, time for introduction and quantified improvement. A number of these are highlighted in the report. They are briefly outlined, environmental impact is commented upon, potential barriers as well as drivers are presented and, finally, where possible, measures to facilitate their uptake are discussed in general terms. Summaries for a few of those are presented here in order to give a flavour of the analyses conducted. CFL/Discharge backlighting in LCD screens replaced by LEDs Significant beneficial impact on the GHG factor performance of the EU fleet Significant beneficial impact in terms of the reduction of the volume of mercury in the EU TV fleet Potential benefit in terms of resource efficiency No major production, commercial of economic barriers to introduction Only soft policy measures required maybe combined with Best Practice standard Development of improved OLED screens Massive potential penetration and, thus, beneficial environmental impact Possibility that the technology will not fulfil its environmental potential due to commercial pressure to exploit the technology quickly Major commercial barriers to technology development Pre-entry benchmarks could provide a solution but would require the cooperation of OLED patent holders to supply required information Using alternative materials (magnesium alloy of metal sintered plastics) in casings Significant improvement potential of resource efficiency Need to encourage greater use of these materials to facilitate their uptake Promote collaboration forum for design innovation Benchmarking methods The final outcome of the report is to recommend a benchmarking method. There are several possible alternatives to benchmarking processes/ policy measures which encourage the development, marketing and sale of energy-efficient TV products. This report focuses on two options which are considered to have a highly positive impact on innovation and, thus, stand a good chance of having a significant influence on the environmental impact.

7 Using performance factors to set overall fleet-based benchmarks This approach uses the method described in this report with sales weighted environmental factors for the TV sales fleet in the EU. The factor is the ratio between the environmental efficiency for product/model to be evaluated and the corresponding environmental efficiency of a reference product. The factors will inevitably vary across screen technologies and other technology developments. If the factors for each model is multiplied with its share of sales (or forecasted share of sales), one gets a good view of where the most important environmental impacts are and where they will be. The fleet could be the entire TV product output of all manufacturers and would cover the blend of different technologies. It is however possible to granulate the EU-wide scope down to consider sales from a particular manufacturer, group of manufacturers or design technology. In this way, benchmarks can be established for the whole fleet or individual ones for certain manufacturers or products. This allows the consideration and negotiation of benchmarks agreements and policy with both individual manufacturers or as a collective through a representative body. Establishing an EU fleet benchmark for the average TV, gives, in principle, manufacturers the flexibility to allocate varying benchmarks among themselves, which would not hamper innovation. However, ensuring compliance might be difficult. If the fleet instead is considered on a company level, and the benchmarks thus are set for each company, the flexibility is slightly lower but the possibility to ensure compliance is higher. The latter argument is most important and, thus, the company level approach is what this report suggests. The fleet approach has the flexibility to accommodate new technologies entering the market. As long as the overall benchmarks are not exceeded, manufacturers are free to bring new products onto the market. However, projecting a benchmark for future years presents a rolling target for manufacturers that ensures that the market constantly moves forward. Although the fleet factor method offers significant advantages, there are complexities involved in its introduction. E.g., the adoption of a common LCA tool, or tools, must be resolved with manufacturers. Furthermore, the fleet-based benchmark method considering the full mix of technologies together may be combined with technology specific benchmarks. Whilst this would impinge on the flexibility in determining product mix, it may be useful when setting performance guidelines for any discrete technology-specific products. Pros: Allows manufacturers flexibility across their range of TV products/technologies and as such is positive for innovation Delivers environmental improvements at a macro level, i.e. allows policy makers to set meaningful targets for improvements and to monitor them Takes into account functionality of product Can accommodate new technologies

8 Cons: Does not remove worst performers May be difficult to agree baseline or common product assessment/lca methodologies Concept is radical may take time for manufacturers to assimilate Will require manufacturers to collate and submit comprehensive product and fleet data (assurance needed about confidentiality) May need an auditing process to verify manufacturers data Using comparison labels which can be combined with minimum standards The second option presented is to combine comparison labels and minimum standards for the targeted products. Comparison labels indicate, through the use of a number of ranges, the performance (e.g. energy efficiency) of a particular model relative to similar models on the market and based on a common measure. Mandatory systems have proven to be more effective than voluntary ones and, so, the former is suggested here. The intention is to increase consumers awareness and to make consumers take this new knowledge into account in their purchase decision. Labels also provide an information foundation for other efficiency measures, such as utility efficiency incentive programmes and procurement initiatives. In parallel, labels signal to manufacturers the need to develop, produce and market more efficient products. Minimum standards are mandatory programmes stipulating the minimum efficiency levels acceptable for products sold in a particular country or region. They thus prevent manufacturers from placing products on the market that fail to meet certain minimum efficiency levels. Labels and standards can be used individually with some effect but, since they play different roles in encouraging market transformation, they are usually more effective when used together and even in conjunction with other efficiency-promoting measures such as information, education, financial incentives, targeted procurement and research and development. While labels can be expected to support innovation and development of better performing models, they are less likely to eliminate the poorest performing products from the market. Standards, on the contrary, work the opposite way, they remove the poorest performers from the market (and this is normally facilitated on markets where labels have already reduced the market share of these products) but do little to encourage the development of still more efficient models. The two approaches thus complement each other favourably. Just as the first proposed option with performance factors takes into account the actual functionality of the product, so must the alternative with labels do somehow. For each general product type, the models on the market offer different functions or services (in terms of nonenvironmental performance). Since labels should not diminish product service, the programmes need to be tailored in order to accommodate different combinations of functions on the market and this can be done by using various product categories. The number of product categories used should represent a balance of the needs for simplicity and having each category represent reasonably uniform functionality. It is important not to penalise products for using additional energy or resources for providing additional performance and features.

9 Pros: Removes worst performers (if combined with minimum standards) Clarity of legal requirements for manufacturers Easier surveillance of compliance, in particular by Member State authorities Experience from other products has shown clear market transformation Well known approach (for energy efficiency), which could be easier to agree on and adopt Can accommodate new technologies (depending on type of label) Raise awareness of customers regarding environmental performance of products Synergies of labels and standards Facilitate competition Easy measurement and quantification of efficiency improvements Cons: Allows lower degree of flexibility for manufacturers (if combined with minimum standards) Rely partly on customers will to take environmental impact into account in their purchase decision which has shown to vary greatly across the EU member states for other products using comparison labels Risk of low level of compliance at sales points May be difficult to agree baseline or common product assessment/lca methodologies for resource use and hazardous substances May need an auditing process to verify manufacturers data