Description and aim: Again similar as in the preceding cases – the aim of Scenario 4 is to investigate the (maximal) overall potential that lies within the area of the most popular ICT device in a household, the television device.
According to a recent study by Hoxha and Jusselme (Hoxha and Jusselme, 2017) about the environmental impacts of furniture and appliances in highly energy efficient buildings, television devices are the third most energy consuming element, just behind refrigerators and kitchen ovens. In the baseline scenario, the television device shows an impact that is about similar to the one of the dishwasher and the refrigerator; but clearly a lower impact than the washing machine. Similar to all these devices, its impact is due to the electricity consumption in the use phase – however, as shown in Figure 22, this energy consumption is steadily decreasing for new devices since 2008, with about 50% reduction between 2010 and 2013.
Figure 22. Average power requirements (in W) of new television devices in the active mode.
Source: Michel et al. (2014) (data for DE,PL,DK are without cathode-ray tube (CRT)).
One reason for this continuing decrease lies in the technological developments; resulting e.g. in changes of the dominant television technology on the market (e.g. LCD television devices with an LED backlight made only about 9% of the sales in 2009 – in 2014 they dominated the market by 92%). The average screen size of the sold television devices increased in the past years – showing an average of 35’’ for 2013, compared to less than 30’’ in 2007 (Michel et al., 2014). Overall, new devices are much more efficient than the older generation. In the same time, sales figures since 2010 show a net decrease of the annually sold number of television devices – i.e. in 2013 41 million units have been sold in the EU, compared to 56 million units 3 years earlier (i.e. in 2010).
The work on an updated version of the preparatory study for television devices from 2007 (e.g. Stobbe, 2007) is currently still on-going; most recent publication is the third revision of a technical report with criteria proposals (Vidal-Abarca Garrido et al., 2014). Opposite than in the preceding two scenarios (for dishwasher, washing machine, and refrigerator), this draft of the technical report does not deal with future options for an optimization of the impacts of television devices. The following deduction of an energy efficiency scenario for this study is therefore based on a literature search in view of “the most (energy) efficient television” (i.e. the BAT technology, identifiable by such a literature search).
A review paper of LCA-related publications dealing with ICT devices (among them also television) has been published recently by Subramanian and Yung (2016). The authors summarized the outcomes of more than 10 different LCA studies about television devices that have been published since 2002. According to this analysis, most of the LCA studies highlight that apart the use phase, also the production of such a device is significantly contributing to the overall impacts. However, all the LCA studies listed there are considering current devices; none of these studies is dealing with the (saving/optimisation) potentials in such a device. Actually, this result is in accordance with the criteria proposed in the on-going preparatory study (Vidal-Abarca Garrido et al., 2014); then this draft is not only containing a part about energy savings, but also a part about hazardous substances and lifetime extension. However, neither the review study nor its “reviewed”
documents allow any quantitative statements about how such a BAT television device would look like (i.e. technical composition) and behave (i.e. energy consumption in the use phase).
Park and co-workers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in the United States and the “bigEE” initiative of the Wuppertal Institute in Germany published in the past couple of years several documents dealing with the saving potentials related to TVs (Park et al., 2011; Götz, 2015a; Götz, 2015b; Park et al., 2017). According to the most recent analysis of Park and colleagues, an energy-efficient LED-LCD television results in its active mode in an energy consumption of 0.06-0.14 W/in2 (Park et al., 2017) and of 0.5 W in the stand-by mode. Götz (2015b) reported that the BAT is equal to an average energy consumption of 26.6 kWh/a (for television screens < 32’’), 51.8 kWh/a (screens of 32-46’’), and 84 kWh/a (screens > 46’’) respectively – values based on 4h of active and 20h of standby mode per day. However, when translating the latter data into the consumption per square-inch and vice-versa, an important divergence between the two data sources could be observed, as summarized in the Table 50.
Table 50. Energy consumption of BAT television devices
(reported in Park et al., 2017)
0.06-0.14 0.5
Calculated annual energy demand [in kWh/a](1)
(with 4h active, 20h standby)
72.3 93.3 136.9 189.0 268.6
(1) Calculated by using the average active mode consumption of 0.1 W/in2, the screen size as indicated in the top line of this table, for an active use of 4h/day over 365 days, plus the remaining time per day in standby with a consumption of 0.5W (independent from the size of the screen).
(2) Calculated the other way around. Again, by using the screen sizes indicated in the top line of this table.
Area of intervention: Similarly as in the last two scenarios, first of all these assumptions for a BAT television device influence the key parameter of the use phase, i.e. the energy consumption. Another area of intervention is the screen size – a continuous increase has to be assumed here, based on the available information/statistics. Last but not least, the decreasing sales numbers can be used as a hint for an increasing lifetime of modern TV devices; an issue that is investigated in an additional calculation run – shown at the end of this section.
Policy relevance: Ecodesign Directive (EC, 2009a), Energy Efficiency Directive (EU, 2012b), and Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011b)
Rationale for building the scenario: The lowest range from the overview in Table 50 – i.e.
an amount of 0.02 W/in2 – is used for the BAT technology in this scenario. Concerning the actual size of such a BAT television, it is assumed (due to a lack of more recent information) that the increase of the average size of sold television devices will continue in a similar manner as it developed in the time from 2007 to 2013, when the average screen size increased by 20%, up to 35 inches (Michel et al., 2014). Using this basic assumption and looking on a time horizon up to 2025, an average screen size of 46 inches is the value that results. This results in an annual energy consumption of the BAT television of 65.4 kWh (assuming 4 hours per day active, and the other 20 hours in standby). Concerning the lifetime of this BAT television, no change in comparison to the baseline scenario is applied – i.e. also such a television device is assumed lasting 6 years.
In accordance with modelling principles applied e.g. in the study of Hischier and Baudin (2010), and due to a lack of more recent information on this topic, the relative composition of a television devices is assumed to be independent from its actual size. Hence, the composition of the baseline device – representing a 32 inch screen – is also applied for the BAT television device in this scenario. Concerning its weight, a short survey of 43 and 49 inch televisions sold on Amazon.DE (and labelled as “model 2017”) shows a weight in the order of 9.5 kg for 43’’, about 14.5kg for 46’’ – which then results in a weight of 12 kg for the BAT television; a value that is rather close to the 11.2 kg of the 32 inch television of the baseline scenario. In a first approach, the values from the baseline scenario are therefore used for this BAT television device without any modifications.
Parameters modified in the model: Table 51 summarizes the modifications that have been made in baseline model, for the product affected by this scenario, i.e. the LCD television.
Table 51. Summary of the new datasets necessary for the modelling of Scenario 4 “Improved efficiency television device”.
Life Cycle Stage Made modifications to Television Device
Manufacturing of components No modification Manufacturing of the product No modification
Packaging No modification
Distribution and retail No modification
Use phase Correction of energy consumption from 1161.3 to 392 kWh
(for the complete life-time of such a device)
Maintenance and repair No modification
EoL of the product No modification
Results: In Figure 23 and Figure 24 the results of this scenario are compared with the respective results from the baseline scenario. In Figure 23 they are split into the contributions from the different product groups, in Figure 24 they are split into the shares of the different life cycle stages distinguished here. Each of the two figures is going along with a table, showing the relative changes (in %) in the different product groups and the different life cycle stages, respectively (Table 52 and Table 53). The effects of an increased lifetime on these results are further investigated and results are shown in Box 8.
Figure 23. Scenario 4 in comparison with the baseline scenario (with total from the baseline set as 100%) – split into the contributions of the various product groups.
(For the abbreviations see table note of Table 42)
Figure 24. Scenario 4 in comparison with the baseline scenario (with the total impacts of the baseline set as 100%) – split into the contributions of the various life stages. (For the
abbreviations see table note of Table 42)
Table 52. Relative changes of the various product groups when comparing Scenario 4 with the baseline scenario (relative to the result in the baseline scenario)
Impact
Category(1) Total
Dish-washer Washing
Machine Tumble
Dryer
Refrige-rator Room Air
Cond. Electric
Oven Lighting Laptops LCD TV Screen
GWP -6.7% - - - -38.8%
ODP -2.4% - - - -43.6%
HTP nc -3.3% - - - -17.1%
HTP c -2.9% - - - -35.2%
PMFP -4.8% - - - -22.8%
IRP -8.1% - - - -54.3%
POFP -5.4% - - - -29.2%
AP -6.2% - - - -34.1%
TEP -5.6% - - - -28.8%
FEP -3.1% - - - -8.3%
MEP -4.1% - - - -29.4%
FETP -2.5% - - - -10.7%
LUC -5.6% - - - -34.9%
WRD -7.6% - - - -48.3%
RD -2.6% - - - -11.5%
FRD -7.3% - - - -44.7%
MRD -0.4% - - - -0.7%
(1) Abbreviations, see table note at Table 42
Table 53. Relative changes of the various life stages when comparing Scenario 4 with the baseline scenario (relative to the result in the baseline scenario)
Impact
Category(1) Total Materials Packaging Production
Distribu-tion Use
Main-tenance End-of-Life
GWP -6.7% - - - - -8.4% - -
ODP -2.4% - - - - -8.3% - -
HTP nc -3.3% - - - - -5.8% - -
HTP c -2.9% - - - - -6.5% - -
PMFP -4.8% - - - - -7.9% - -
IRP -8.1% - - - - -8.8% - -
POFP -5.4% - - - - -8.0% - -
AP -6.2% - - - - -8.3% - -
TEP -5.6% - - - - -7.9% - -
FEP -3.1% - - - - -7.6% - -
MEP -4.1% - - - - -5.2% - -
FETP -2.5% - - - - -5.8% - -
LUC -5.6% - - - - -7.6% - -
WRD -7.6% - - - - -8.6% - -
RD -2.6% - - - - -6.0% - -
FRD -7.3% - - - - -8.7% - -
MRD -0.4% - - - - -6.3% - -
(1) Abbreviations, see table note at Table 42
As it could be seen in Table 53, all the changes result from the use phase; as in this scenario, no other changes than electricity consumption in the use are assumed. As in the overall scenario, the television device is not the most dominating of the devices – the reduction potential is in the order of 8% to 9% for the use phase of all the devices; while when focussing on the LCD TV screen devices (see Table 52) the reduction potential is clearly higher (i.e. in the order of 25 to 35% for most impact categories). Box 8 shows the additional reduction potential that could be achieved by an increase of the lifetime of a television device on 8 years (instead of the initially used 6 years); value that is based on the fact that this is the mean value of the range (from 6 to 10 years) that can be found in the literature (see e.g. Park et al., 2013).
Box 8. Influence of the Lifetime of the Television on the reduction potential (in combination with an increasing energy efficiency of the device)
The following figure highlights – using above Figure 23 as basis – the additional reduction potential that could be realized by an increase of the lifetime of the television device from 6 to 8 years (indicated in this figure here as “lifetime potential”), shown with the light part at the very right end of the figures from scenario 4 :
With the support of this figure, a clear distinction between those impact categories dominated by the use phase (and its energy consumption) and those dominated from the production can be made;
then all the factors dominated by the latter one (i.e. the production of the device) show a relatively high “lifetime potential” when moving the duration of use from 6 to 8 years. While for MRD this is clearly visible, FETP and FEP show still a rather high influence (i.e. more than 50% of the reduction is due to the lifetime change) from the production step while all the remaining factors are clearly dominated by the electricity consumption in the use phase – resulting in a relatively small further reduction potential when the lifetime is increased.