Scanning Life Cycle Assessment of Printed and E-paper Documents based on the irex Digital Reader

27 

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Full text

(1)

Scanning Life Cycle Assessment of Printed and E-paper

Documents based on the iRex Digital Reader

March 2009 Sebastiaan Deetman

Ingrid Odegard

Supervisors: Rene Kleijn at CML

(2)

Preface

This report was written by Sebastiaan Deetman and Ingrid Odegard, students of the master programme Industrial Ecology – a collaboration of the University of Technology in Delft and Leiden University. The Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), part of Leiden University, is experienced in performing Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), drs. Rene Kleijn at CML supervised this project. It should be kept in mind that this is a scanning LCA done by students. The project was commissioned by iRex Technologies, a newly developing Dutch Digital Reader company. We would like to thank Vincent Locht of iRex Technologies very much for giving us the opportunity to do this study and for his help throughout the project. Our thanks also go out to Rene Kleijn, Reinout Heijungs and Lauran van Oers for giving us more insight into LCA and helping us out when necessary.

March, 2009

(3)

Executive Summary

Paper use does not only create a problem of wastes and exploitation of natural resources, but also has a significant impact on global warming [Counsell, 2006]. Recently electronic reading devices based on electronic ink or e-paper technologies have been introduced as an alternative to paper use. The goal of this study is to compare the global warming potential (GWP) of the service an iRex Digital Reader provides to the same service if provided by an office printer. The comparison is based on a screening Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a form of the scientific tool which assesses the environmental impact of a product or service throughout its life cycle. The functional unit used in this study is the service of one year of office paper use. In this study it was assumed that the iRex DR will substitute all paper printouts made by the office worker.

Two alternative were used in this study; one in which printing is done on LWC (light-weight coated) paper and one in which printing is done on woodfree uncoated paper. Furthermore, two scenarios were made, to be able to calculate a break-even point. The two scenarios represent the cases in which an office worker either prints 2000 pages a year, or 12480 pages a year, which is the maximum amount possible when the printer is shared between 30 office workers. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) in CO2-equivalents of both alternatives and

both scenarios, compared to the GWP of the iRex DR are shown in the table below (Table 6 in Chapter 4).

GWP (CO2 equivalents) Scenario 1

Printing 2000 pages per year

Scenario 2

Printing 12480 pages per year

iRex 17 17

Alternative 1

Printing with LWC paper

11.7 67.8

Alternative 2

Printing with woodfree uncoated paper

7.42 42.2

The figure below (Figure 3 in Chapter 4) shows the break-even point calculation. It shows that the break-even point is reached much sooner than the consumption of an average office worker of 10,000 prints per year. The break-even points are about 5000 prints per year for woodfree uncoated paper and slightly over 3000 prints per year for LWC paper.

Break-even Point for the Office Worker

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Number of prints per year

G W P ( k g C O 2-eq .) iRex LWC woodfree uncoated

(4)

These results provide strong evidence that the iRex Digital Reader may be a sound alternative to regular office paper use, considering impacts on climate change.

This conclusion must however be seen, within the limited context of this scanning LCA study. During the evaluation (chapter 5) it was found that the most important uncertainty is created by the definition of the display module in the iRex DR. Extensive specifications where missing on this product component, and a ‘best estimate’ was used, which turned out to be responsible for ca. 33% of the climate change impacts.

Global Warming Potential was the principal interest of iRex Technologies. However, LCA does give insight in other environmental impacts as well. It was decided to compare the use of an iRex for one year to a ‘typical office worker’ scenario for other environmental impacts as well; the scenario in which woodfree uncoated paper is used and 10,000 prints per year are made.

As the table (Table 9 in Chapter 4) below shows, the iRex DR scores better on all impact categories than the ‘typical office worker’ scenario.

Label Category iRex DR

one year use

10,000 prints

woodfree paper, laser jet, b/w, print

Unit

[C1] Land use competition 0.989 239 m2a

[C3] Eutrophication potential 0.012 0.104 kg PO4-Eq [C5] Resources depletion (abiotic) 0.11 0.727 kg antimony-Eq [C14] Acidification potential (average European) 0.213 0.477 kg SO2-Eq [C17] Photochemical oxidation (summer smog) 0.01 0.0256 kg ethylene-Eq [C29] Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.132 0.965 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C30] Ionising radiation 1.18E-7 6.8E-7 DALYs

[C34] Marine aquatic ecotoxicity 3.15E4 4.82E4 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq [C38] Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity 10.6 12.9 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C46] Stratospheric ozone depletion 7.78E-6 8.66E-6 kg CFC-11-Eq

[C50] Human toxicity 20.9 47.4 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C56] Climate change GWP 100a (biogene corrected)

(5)

Table of Contents

Preface ... 1

Preface ... 2

Executive Summary ... 3

1. Introduction ... 7

2. Goal

and

Scope Definition ... 8

2.1 Goal

of

this Study ... 8

2.2

Scope of this Study ... 8

2.2.1 Function ... 8

2.2.2 Functional Unit ... 9

2.2.3 Impact

Categories ... 9

2.2.4 Interpretation... 10

2.2.5 Data ... 10

3. Inventory

Analysis... 11

3.1 Inventory for the iRex Digital Reader ... 11

3.1.1 Production of Components... 11

3.1.2 Use ... 13

3.1.3 Transportation and Packaging ... 14

3.1.4 Disposal ... 15

3.2 Print Alternative... 15

3.2.1 The Use of a Printer... 15

3.2.2. LWC ... 16

3.2.3. Uncoated Woodfree Paper... 16

3.2.4 Paper disposal... 17

3.3 Allocation... 18

4. Impact

Assessment ... 19

4.1 Break-even Point: GWP... 19

4.2 Other Impacts... 20

5. Evaluation & Interpretation... 23

5.1 Packaging

Materials ... 23

5.2 E-paper

Screen ... 23

5.3 Summary

of

Assumptions... 23

5.4 Concluding remarks ... 24

Literature ... 25

(6)

List of Abbrevations

CH Switzerland

CML Centre of Environmental Sciences, Leiden

CMLCA Life Cycle Assessment software

DR Digital Reader

g gram

h hour

GLO Global

GWP Global Warming Potentila

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LDPE Low Density Polyethylene

LWC light-weight coated

Pb Lead

PWB Printed Wiring Board

RER Europe

SMD Surface-mounted device

t tonne

tkm tonnekilometer

UCTE Union for the coordination of the transmission of electricity WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WB Wiring Board

List of Figures

Figure 1: Methodology for defining component weights... 11

Figure 2: Process diagram, specification of paper disposal process including recycling ... 17

Figure 3: Break-even point for the office worker. ... 20

List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of base case and alternatives ... 9

Table 2: Component inventory and categorization ... 12

Table 3: Transportation stages ... 14

Table 4: Characteristics for use of printer ... 16

Table 5: Market values used in economic allocation, for scenario of 2000 prints per year and for scenario of 12480 prints per year per office worker... 18

Table 6: Impact in Climate Change of office paper use for different alternative, in CO2-eq. . 19

Table 7: Allocation values for break-even points and the 'typical office worker scenario’... 20

Table 8: Impacts of iRex DR compared to impacts at the two break-even points ... 21

Table 9: Impacts of iRex DR compared to impacts at 10,000 prints per year. ... 22

Table 10: Process inflows of ‘production of iRex DR 1000’ [P3950]... 26

Table 11: Process inflows of ‘iRex stylus’ [P3955]... 26

Table 12: Proces inflows of ‘LCD module iRex, at plant’ [P3951]... 26

Table 13: Process inflows of ‘use of iRex DR 1000 for one year’ [P3952] ... 27

Table 14: Process inflows of ‘use, printer with woodfree paper, laser jet, b/w, per h’... 27

Table 15: Process inflows of ‘use, printer, with LWC paper, laser jet, b/w, per h’ ... 27

Table 16: Process inflows of ‘iRex packaging at regional plant’ [P3954]... 27

(7)

1. Introduction

Even though the world is currently shifting from a paper-society to an electronic society, paper is still used in abundance. Paper use does not only create a problem of wastes and exploitation of natural resources, but also has a significant impact on global warming [Counsell, 2006]. Recently electronic reading devices based on electronic ink or e-paper technologies have been introduced as an alternative to regular paper use.

The functioning of such e-paper devices is based on electrophoretic display technology, using laminated plastic micro-capsules with carbon and titanium dioxide based pigment particles that get attracted or repelled to applied charges, thus creating a static image. Since the image is maintained without applying a current, this displaying technology has notably lower power consumption than other diplays such as LCD, but provides the image to the eye with the ease and comfort of reading real paper. Thus e-paper devices may possibly represent a sustainable solution to our current paper-society. This claim has been supported by the work of [Moberg et al., 2007] for the comparison between the use of a regular and an electronic newspaper through an e-paper device.

Besides newspapers however, other important contributors to the total environmental impacts of paper use, replaceable by the use of e-paper devices such as office paper use or plain books, have not been considered in prior assessments. In this study the life cycle impact of regular office paper use to the use of an e-paper device specifically designed for an office public, the iRex Digital Reader 1000 is compared. This e-paper device was developed by iRex technologies, located in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, who commissioned and approved the execution of this study [iRex, 2009].

The comparison is based on a screening Life Cycle Assessment, a form of the scientific tool which assesses the environmental impact of a product or service throughout its life cycle. A number of complementing environmental impact categories reflect the impact of a product on the natural environment, all through its life cycle. iRex Technologies is mainly interested in the global warming potential of its digital reader, compared to printing documents on paper. Accordingly, in this study the main interest lies with climate change as an environmental impact category.

Based on this single indicator, the implicit question is raised whether the Digital Reader as a representative of e-paper is an environmentally sound alternative to regular office paper use. As a rough reference the average paper use of an office worker is generally perceived to be in the order of 10.000 prints, or 50 kgs of paper per year [MPCA, 2009] and [University of California, 2009].

Two scenarios were assessed for the impact calculation on office paper use; one with a low annual paper use of 2000 prints, and one with a high annual paper use of over 12,000 printouts. Secondly, two alternatives where defined with respect to the type of paper used; Light Weight Coated paper representing a high quality type of paper, and uncoated woodfree paper representing a more regular grade.

In the following chapter, the goal and scope of this study are defined, together with the full basis of comparison. Chapter 3 discusses the process of collecting and converting data on the component, transport, energy, and disposal requirements of the regular and digital office paper use. Readers interested in the results of this study are referred to Chapter 4, and to Chapter 5 for their interpretation. Chapter 6 holds the concluding remarks and recommendations for this study.

(8)

2.

Goal and Scope Definition

This LCA study was carried out at the Centre of Environmental Science in Leiden, by two master students of Industrial Ecology. The study was commissioned by iRex Technologies, a newly developing Dutch digital reader company. In order to be able to claim environmental friendliness of their product, an LCA was proposed. Moberg et al. [Moberg, 2007] has already studied the environmental impact of a prior iRex e-paper product – the Iliad – comparing the function of downloading newspapers to read on e-paper to reading newspapers in paper form, which showed a better result for e-paper than for newspaper. The new product line of digital readers by iRex Technologies targets the office worker as potential consumer, and therefore aims at substituting reading documents on e-paper for printing office documents.

2.1 Goal of this Study

The goal of this study is to compare the global warming potential (GWP) of the service an iRex Digital Reader provides to the same service if provided by an office printer. As stated in the introduction, an average office worker prints out a number of 10,000 pages a year. This study will compare the environmental impact of printing out those pages to reading them on an iRex Digital Reader.

This study is a scanning LCA, done by students in a limited time period and therefore the results of the study should be used carefully and may be interpreted as a result of a limited ‘scanning’ LCA only. Supervision was done by drs. R. Kleijn at CML. In this study the environmental impact of the iRex Digital Reader (DR) 1000 will be compared to the reference flow printed paper.

The main environmental interest of iRex is climate change. Therefore, this will be main focus in this study. However, because other impact categories are also important for electronic products, some attention will be paid to the other baseline LCA impact categories.

2.2 Scope of this Study

Several key LCA components as they were used in this study will be elaborated on below: the function of the product which is analysed, the functional unit which was used to compare services, a description of the life cycle of an iRex DR as it was used here, the sensitivity analyses which were performed and the data which was used.

2.2.1 Function

The iRex DR can be used to read documents, uploaded from a computer, and to make notes, even in a document. These are the functions which were analysed in this study. It can, however, also be used to read newspapers and books. These functions were not included in this study, but it is reasonable to assume that adding these functions in a more elaborate LCA study would decrease the DR’s supposed environmental impact. The notepad function does make the comparison of e-paper with printed documents viable, because of the possibility to add and save one’s own notes to the document.

The time required to send a document from a personal computer to a printer was assumed equal to the time required to download that document from a PC to the Digital Reader, so that the environmental impacts resulting from the intermediate use of a desktop computer could be

(9)

excluded from the scope this study. The additional function of a wireless internet connection, and thereto related the function of downloading documents directly to the DR was not included in this study. The related services, e.g. server space and preparation of document to fit the DR format, were therefore neglected.

2.2.2 Functional Unit

The functional unit used in this study is the service of one year of office paper use. In this study it was assumed that the iRex DR will substitute all paper printouts made by the office worker. Several assumptions needed to be made, implicitly included in the functional unit:

• The life span of an iRex DR is equal to the warranty period of two years • The DR is recharged once a day

• Recharging once a day will be sufficient for one day’s use

The reference flow is one year of office paper use. Several assumptions were made with regard to printing of paper. Furthermore, two different alternatives were chosen, shown in Table 1. Use of LWC paper is automatically assumed in the Ecoinvent database, however, the database also states that wood-free un-coated paper is the standard paper used in offices. In Paragraph 3.2 the specifics of the alternatives will be elaborated on. Based on the Ecoinvent database and its accompanying reports, it remains unclear whether the defined process takes the possibility of double sided printing into account. We assume the toner use is based on an average value for single and double sided printing.

Table 1: Characteristics of base case and alternatives

Base Case Alternative 1 Alternative 2

iRex DR 1000 Laser printer (standard Ecoinvent), capacity of 374400 prints per year

Laser printer (standard Ecoinvent), capacity of 374400 prints per year One DR per office worker Printer shared with 30 office

workers

Printer shared with 30 office workers

Image is black and white (with greyscale

Prints are black and white Prints are black and white

LWC paper woodfree un-coated paper

Lifetime of iRex: 2 years Lifetime of printer: 4 years Lifetime of printer: 4 years

Outcomes for two printing scenario’s were calculated, which resulted in the definition of two break-even points. The scenarios define the impact for the range between 2000 prints per office worker per year and 12480 prints per office worker per year. The allocation method and values used can be found in Paragraph 3.3, specifically Table 5. Because allocation is based on market values, the allocation factors change when a different number of prints is made. The allocation-factors at the break-even point are calculated in Paragraph 4.2, Table 7.

In either alternative the lifetime of the printer is 4 years. Because CMLCA assigns part of a printer to an hour of printing, and thus to a number of prints made, this value is different in the two scenarios.

2.2.3 Impact Categories

As stated above, iRex Technologies is mainly interested in the impact category ‘Global Warming’. The specific impact category used in CMLCA is ‘Climate Change_GWP 100a(CO2 biogene and resource GWP=1, NMVOC average) [GLO]. This impact category gives the score for Global Warming Potential for a 100-year time horizon in kg CO

2-equivalents. The Climate Change impact category for which a biogene correction is included was chosen because wood used to produce paper absorbs CO2 from the environment. If the

(10)

biogenic correction is not included, this absorption would be neglected and would subsequently yield an unrealistic result for the paper alternatives.

Even though iRex Technologies is primarily interested in their impact on Global Warming, it remains interesting to see how the iRex DR impact compares to the impact of a typical office worker, printing 10,000 pages a year. This is shown in Table 9, in Paragraph 4.2.

2.2.4 Interpretation

Two analyses will be carried out. The first determines the impact of the amount of packaging on the final score on the impact category Climate Change. This can be seen as a contribution analysis coupled to a perturbation analysis. The second analysis will determine how the choices made to include the e-paper screen, the Wacom board affect the result of the study. This is a new technology and therefore it is not included in the Ecoinvent database yet, and hence assumptions had to be made. Chapter 4 elaborates on these analyses.

2.2.5 Data

Data on the technology used in the iRex DR was supplied by iRex, and in case of missing data supplemented with data from the Ecoinvent database and internet search. Data was supplied by iRex as a data table in Microsoft Excel and additional documentation on component specifications in .pdf format (both not included in this report due to confidentiality). These pdf files were composed by manufacturers. Ecoinvent processes were chosen as representing Europe [RER], where possible. Otherwise, respectively either a global [GLO] or a Swiss [CH] representative was chosen.

(11)

3. Inventory

Analysis

Information used to determine the inventory inputs for the production of components as well as of the use phase of the iRex Digital Reader was mainly based on data tables supplied by iRex, together with additional assumptions as described in Paragraph 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 below. For the inclusion of inventory inputs for the disposal phase as well as transportation and packaging inputs, assumptions where made, which are discussed in Paragraph 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. The inventory analysis for the compared alternative of office printouts is discussed in Paragraph 3.2.

The derived inventory inputs where translated to pre-defined sub-processes of the available Ecoinvent 2.0 database. For most of the components and processes this was very well possible due to the extensive number of detailed electronics processes included in the quite recent version of the Ecoinvent database.

3.1 Inventory for the iRex Digital Reader

The data inputted in CMLCA for the production of components, use, disposal, transportation and packaging related to an iRex digital reader will be described in the paragraphs below.

3.1.1 Production of Components

An extensive analysis of the list of plastic and electronic components, supplied by iRex as a data table in Microsoft Excel and additional documentation on component specifications in .pdf format (both not included in this report due to confidentiality) was performed. The number of components was given in all cases. The weight, however, was not always retrievable, especially in the case of the smaller electronic components such as capacitors and integrated circuits (IC’s). In that case, an estimation of the weight was if possible based on the dimensions given in the specification, multiplied by a conversion factor derived from Ecoinvent background reports. If even that information was unavailable, the total weight was based on the average of a part according to the Ecoinvent database. An example of this method as hypothetically elaborated for memory IC’s is shown in Error! Reference source not found..

Figure 1: Methodology for defining component weights

Source

Knowledge

Outcome

iRex data table

The Digital Reader contains 5 memory type IC’s, 2 of company A, 2 of company B and 1 of company C.

Component

specifications

IC’s from company A weigh 2 gram, those from company B have a surface of 2 by 1 cm, any specifications from company C are missing.

Ecoinvent

reports

The weight of an average memory IC is 1,5 gram, this is based on a average weight of 7 kg/m2 of IC chip.

? ? ? ? ?

?

2 g 2 g 2 cm2 2 cm2

(12)

Structurally applying this method, the weights of almost all product components were determined and categorized into pre-existing datasets of the Ecoinvent database. The result of this component inventory and categorization is shown in Table 2. In the case of the printed wiring board a conversion factor of 1.63 kg per m2 of PWB was used. The square weight of a general computer wiring board defined in Ecoinvent is 3.26 kg/m2. Since fine electronics use more sophisticated boards, half the square weight was assumed.

Table 2: Component inventory and categorization

Component category Ecoinvent type Quantity Total weight (g)

Chips & IC's

IC memory-type 5 4.08 IC logic-type 60 9.97 Capacitors Capacitor SMD-type 324 27.86 Tantalum Capacitor 1 0.25 Resistors Resistor SMD-type 534 0.37 Diodes

Diode, glass, SMD-type 18 0.41

LED 4 1.40 Inductors Miniature RF chip-type 9 0.15 Transistors Transistor SMD-type 19 9.50 Connectors

(mod.) Ribbon cable parts 23 25.95

Batteries

(mod.) Battery, Li-Ion 1 24.00

Plastics

ABS/PC 63 347.20

Printed WB

PWB, surface mount, Pb-free 2 34.58

Other

Wacom sensor board PET, bottle grade 1 53.38

Printed WB 1 4.62

Optical components: TFT+E-ink Module LCD, iRex 1 66.00

Stylus Transistor 1 0.82

Capacitor 1 0.09 Polystyrene (general purp.) 1 24.10

Antennas Unknown 3 0.60

Crystals and resonators Unknown

Electromechanical components Unknown

Filters Unknown

(13)

As can be seen from the table above, only a few components in the categories ‘crystals and resonators’, ‘electromechanical components’ and ‘filters’ where not accounted for due to lack of information. Since these are generally minuscule components, it was decided to ignore this incompleteness in the impact analysis. A total weight of up to 635 grams has been specified and declared to product parts. This deviates from the 570 grams, given as the total weight of the digital reader according to commercial information of iRex [iRex, 2008]. The difference is explained by the fact that in the commercial weight indication, the stylus (responsible for ca. 25 grams) as well as some advanced components for future versions of the reader where not included. Since they are included in the data-sheet and thus in the analysis, the total accounted weight was found to be in accordance with the expected value, and thus acceptable for further analysis.

One of the very typical components of the digital reader is the e-paper screen, consisting of a 10.2” TFT display, an E-ink module and a Wacom sensor board. As can be seen from Table 2, the components of the Wacom sensor board were specified separately based on its technical documentation. However, a standard E-ink display module does not exist in the Ecoinvent database, so further assumptions had to be made to credibly include this component in the inventory analysis. Since it is such an essential characteristic of the considered product, representing the display by an average unspecified electronic component did not seem as a satisfying solution (e.g. as is done by [Lehmann, 2007] in Ecoinvent report 18, page 179). It was decided to define a iRex display module, based on an Ecoinvent LCD display module (LCD module, at plant[GLO]) in which the backlighting was taken out. The average composition was corrected for the loss of the weight of the backlighting, and 66 grams of this ‘iRex specific’ display module where added to the inventory.

Aside from the digital reader components listed above, a power adapter, needed to charge the digital reader, was included as a necessary product part. The only power adapter available in Ecoinvent is specified for a laptop computer. Since the Ecoinvent adapter is not expressed in weight, but as a single unit, and since laptop adaptors are generally bigger than those for smaller appliances, the ratio of the iRex adaptor weight (26 grams) to a typical laptop adapter weight (450 grams) was used to correct for the difference. Accordingly, 28% of a laptop adaptor was assumed to represent the actual iRex adaptor.

3.1.2 Use

Impacts during the use phase are fully based on the electricity use for charging, so no additional use of accessories or for instance display cleaning chemicals during the use phase where included. The electricity use calculation is based on the assumption that for every office day the digital reader is fully charged during a charging period of two hours, during which it uses 5 Watt hours (Wh). The average working period of 46.2 weeks per year and 6 days per week – because one may want to be able to read office documents for at least one day during the weekend – was used to complete the calculation. This comes down to a total energy use of 1.39 kWh per year. This energy demand is assumed to be supplied by the Dutch grid, and represented by using the ‘Electricity mix[NL]’ from the Ecoinvent process database.

(14)

3.1.3 Transportation and Packaging

The components directly included from Ecoinvent are mostly defined up to the point of their storage at their final assembly or production plant. Since the digital reader is currently assembled in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, and distributed to local retailers, assumptions for several transport distances as well as means of transport had to be made. These assumptions include the transportation of assembly components and packaging as well as the distribution to retailers. The necessary transportation stages included in this study are summarized together with their specific assumption in Table 3.

Table 3: Transportation stages

Transportation stage

Assumptions (for each finished reader)

Inventory per year of iRex use Ecoinvent transport type used Components production plant to assembly site in Eindhoven 313.5 g. of packaged electronic components come from eastern Asia (10000 km). 385 g. of packaged ABS polymers from Germany (500 km). 3.135 tkm by tanker 0.1925 tkm by rail freight, rail[RER] barge tanker[RER] Packaging production plant to assembly site

30 g. of packaging film as well as 30 g. of cardboard are transported over a distance of 500 km twice (component packaging and iRex packaging)

0.03 tkm by lorry lorry 16t, fleet average[RER]

iRex

distribution to retailers

The finished iRex digital reader of 635 g. is transported 100 km to a retailer.

0.0635 tkm by van van <3.5t[RER]

The packaging, as referred to in the table above consists of 2 types of packaging included in the inventory. First of all, the packaging of the components to be delivered to the assembly station in Eindhoven was assumed to consist of 10% of the transported component weight – based on a rough estimation during a visit at the iRex assembly site. Since all components together weigh the same as the total of the finished digital reader, this adds up to 63.5 grams of packaging material, assumed to be composed of plastics and cardboard, both 50% of the total weight of the packaging material. The Ecoinvent processes used accordingly are ‘packaging film, LDPE, at plant [RER]’ for the plastic packaging and ‘packaging, corrugated board, mixed fibre, single wall, at plant [RER]’ for the cardboard proportion.

Secondly, the commercial packaging of the iRex digital reader, in which the product is supplied to the retailer, is calculated similarly. Because of this, another 30 grams of both LDPE packaging film and corrugated board is added to the inventory for the digital reader.

(15)

3.1.4 Disposal

Since no standard electronics disposal handling process is defined in Ecoinvent, it was assumed that the disposal of the iRex digital reader is comparable to that of an LCD flat screen, since it contains many of the components typical to the digital reader, like an TFT module, a variety of electronic components and a polymer frame. A correction was made for the average weight for the 17 inch LCD flat screen defined by the Ecoinvent database, being 5,1 kg [Lehmann, 2007, page 105], by including only the fraction (0,635/5,1) of the full LCD flat screen disposal process (WEEE treatment), which represents the weight of the digital reader.

Disposal of the power adapter is included according to the corresponding process of dismantling and connected treatment for a regular power adaptor by including the standard Ecoinvent process ‘dismantling, power adapter, external, for laptop, to WEEE treatment’. Again, only 28% of a standard module is accounted for, according to the calculation in Paragraph 3.1.1.

Disposal of the packaging material is accounted for by assuming the packaging is delivered to municipal incineration. Since this pathway is only available in Ecoinvent based on data for Switzerland, this was included as a best estimate. The cardboard fraction is treated according to ‘disposal, packaging cardboard, 19.6% water, to municipal incineration [CH]’ and the plastic fraction according to ‘disposal, polyethylene, 0.4% water, to municipal incineration [CH]’. This is based on the assumptions made in the previous paragraph.

3.2 Print Alternative

The functional unit used in this study is the service of the use of office paper for a year, as described in Chapter 2. The paper-based alternative to be compared to the results of the abovementioned inventory for the digital reader will thus have to fulfil the same service. To define the inventory for this service based on the use of a typical office printer, the use of the laser printer, black toner, as well as the printing paper, necessary transportation, operating electricity and disposal processes where accounted for. Since the use of paper is responsible for a significant part of the total impacts, the choice of the type of paper used may significantly influence the balance of the comparison. Two alternatives were therefore defined based on the use of different paper types; one using LWC paper and one using woodfree un-coated paper. The basis of the contribution for the use of the printer, toner, transport and electricity consumption remain the same over these two alternatives and are discussed in Paragraph 3.2.1. The basis for the comparison of the use of two different paper sources is elaborated on in the two succeeding paragraphs. In Paragraph 3.2.4 the assumptions for the waste disposal processes are explained.

3.2.1 The Use of a Printer

The Ecoinvent database contains a pre-defined process description for an office laser printer as well as a process description for the use of it. This process description includes all the necessary information like the life-time of the printer, its energy use during 3 different operational modes (active, stand-by and off), the print speed and average paper consumption.

(16)

These numbers were all converted to an average inventory for an hour of printer use, as summarized in Table 4Error! Reference source not found. below [Lehmann, 2007].

Table 4: Characteristics for use of printer

Process/part description

Amount

(per hour of printer use)

Unit Ecoinvent name

Electricity use 0.0402 kWh Electricity, low voltage, production UCTE, at grid [UCTE]

Printing paper Alternative 1: 0.214 Alternative 2: 0.214

kg kg

Paper, woodcontaining, LWC, at regional storage [RER]

Paper, woodfree, uncoated, at regional storage [RER]

Laser printer Scenario 1: 1.78E-4 Scenario 2: 2.85E-5

piece piece

Printer laserjet, b/w, at plant [GLO] Printer laserjet, b/w, at plant [GLO]

Toner 0.0644 kg Toner, black, used for printing [RER]

Transport 0.0215

0.0429 tkm tkm

Transport lorry 16t, fleet average [RER] Transport, freight, rail [RER]

As can be seen in Table 4 the amount of printer used per hour depends on the scenario. Because Ecoinvent states that the lifetime of a printer is four years, the fraction of the printer used, in a situation in which not the maximum amount of pages is printed, becomes higher.

3.2.2. LWC

LWC paper – ‘light-weight coated paper’ – is the paper used in printing work with higher quality demands, like journals and magazines [Hischier, 2007]. Since this is the pre-specified paper type used in the Ecoinvent database, it was decided that one of the alternatives should at least be based on this paper type, to guarantee the consistency within the comparison with the iRex, which was also mainly based on pre-specified Ecoinvent processes. This type of paper was used in the first alternative. The module includes ‘the European production of LWC paper – including transports to paper mill, wood handling, mechanical pulping and bleaching, deinking of waste paper, paper productions, energy production on-site and internal waste water treatment’ [Hischier, 2007, page 124].

3.2.3. Uncoated Woodfree Paper

The Ecoinvent database contains a dataset on the production and distribution of an uncoated type called ‘woodfree’ paper, meaning that it contains at least 90% of fibres in the form of chemical pulp [Hischier, 2007]. Since this paper type is described as the grade used for most of the office papers, it is of specific interest in this study. The module includes: ‘the European production of uncoated woodfree paper in an integrated mill – including transports to paper mill, wood handling, chemical pulping and bleaching, paper productions, energy production on-site recovery cycles of chemicals and internal waste treatment’ [Hischier, 2007, page 124]. This type of paper was used in the second alternative.

(17)

3.2.4 Paper disposal

A new flow was defined in CMLCA defining the process of paper disposal. Three paper disposal flows are defined in Ecoinvent:

• [G139] disposal, paper, 11.2% water, to municipal incineration [CH] • [G449] disposal, paper, 11.2% water, to sanitary landfill [CH] • [G1984] paper, recycling, with deinking, at plant [RER]

These were aggregated into one paper disposal process. The first two processes, however, differ from the third. The disposal processes have as economic outflow the ‘service’ of the disposal of 1 kg of paper, which is exactly what is desired. The recycling flow has, however as output a physical kilogram of recycled paper. There is no ‘service’ for recycling paper defined in Ecoinvent, only the process of recycling itself which gives an output of recycled paper. Adding this flow to the printer alternatives means adding a second economic outflow. This means the printer alternatives not only provide the service of one year of printer use in an office, but also ‘produce’ recycled paper. Therefore, it is necessary to allocate part of the total process to the recycled paper, and part of the total process to the use of the printer. This means that in using a printer you take into account part of the environmental impacts of recycling the paper you produce as waste. How this allocation is handled is described in Paragraph 3.3.

The better part of all paper waste is recycled [AF&PA, 2009]. Since paper-waste generation in an office is much more concentrated than in other places, and not a lot of other types of waste are created, it was assumed the majority of office paper is recycled. It was assumed 8% of office paper waste is incinerated, 2% is land-filled and 90% is recycled. The amount of recycled paper had to be adjusted due to the fact that the inflow (in kg) of waste paper is larger than the outflow (in kg) of recycled paper in the recycling process. The process diagram, Figure 2, clarifies the actions taken to include recycling of paper to the use of an office printer.

(18)

3.3 Allocation

Allocation is described by Guinée [Guinée, 2001] as the procedure required to partition the inputs and outputs of all relevant processes to the appropriate product systems. The allocation method recommended by ISO [Guinée, 2001] is economic allocation, which is based on the market value of the economic outflows of the multifunctional process. The two economic outflows under consideration in this study are:

• Use of an office printer (hour) • Recycled paper (kg)

Table 5 shows the market values of the relevant products, on which the economic allocation was subsequently based. The data in Table 5 is based on data from Hewlett Packard, Vikingdirect and Nuon [HP, 2009, Vikingdirect, 2009 and Nuon, 2009]

Table 5: Market values used in economic allocation, for scenario of 2000 prints per year and for scenario of 12480 prints per year per office worker.

Cost Use of printer (€) Price Recycled paper (€/kg) 12480 print/yr 292 h/yr pp 2000 prints/yr 46.7 h/yr pp Printer 10 10 - Toner 160.89 25.78 - Paper 103.58 16.6 - Electricity 2.60 0.41 - Total 277.07 52.8 2.61

Cost per hour 0.95 1.13 0.37

Sources: [Vikingdirect, 2009, Hewlett Packard, 2009, Nuon, 2009]

The cost for the use of a printer partially depends on the amount of prints made; toner, paper and electricity are linearly dependent on the number of prints made. The cost of recycled paper is inputted in €/kg and therefore remains constant with every scenario.

(19)

4. Impact

Assessment

In the preceding chapter it was elaborated how the available product and processing information was successfully transformed into a complete inventory dataset. In this chapter the results of the impact assessment will be discussed. This will be done for impacts on climate change in the form of a break-even point calculation in Paragraph 4.1. In Paragraph 4.2 results for other impact categories will be discussed.

This study is meant as a comparative assessment only; the comparison between the use of an iRex and the use of an office printer for reading documents. Therefore, the results will be limited to the LCA stage of characterisation and no subsequent normalization or weighting calculations are performed.

4.1 Break-even Point: GWP

To be able to tell from which total number of prints per person per year an iRex Digital Reader becomes an environmentally preferred alternative to printing a break-even point was calculated. This also allows for checking whether this lies below the indicative average office paper use of 10000 prints per person per year. Five reference values where calculated for impacts on climate change using Global Warming Potential (corrected for biogene CO2

uptake) as an indicator. The first of these reference values is the impact of one year’s use of an iRex Digital Reader. The four remaining ones are calculated according to the two alternatives and the two scenarios defined in Chapter 2. This means that the impacts for the use of a printer by an office worker at a rate of 2000 and a rate of 12840 prints per year are calculated for the alternatives of printing on both Light Weight Coated paper as well as on (uncoated) woodfree paper. These values are given in Table 6.

Table 6: Impact in Climate Change of office paper use for different alternative, in CO2-eq. GWP (CO2 equivalents) Scenario 1

Printing 2000 pages per year

Scenario 2

Printing 12480 pages per year

iRex 17 17

Alternative 1

Printing with LWC paper

11.7 67.8

Alternative 2

Printing with woodfree uncoated paper

7.42 42.2

A linear relation between the two scenario outcomes (different relation for the two alternatives) was assumed. This allows for the calculation of a break-even point, as can be seen in Table 6Figure 3 below.

The impact assigned to the iRex digital reader remains constant under the different scenarios, since it was assumed that the digital reader has a virtually endless capacity. This means impacts do not change when more performance is expected (i.e. more documents are read), not even through the marginal electricity use since it was assumed that it has to be charged every office day.

(20)

Break-even Point for the Office Worker 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Number of prints per year

G W P ( k g C O 2-eq. ) iRex LWC woodfree uncoated

Figure 3: Break-even point for the office worker.

Figure 2 shows the break-even points for the use of LWC and woodfree paper. LWC paper has a higher quality than woodfree paper, thus the break-even point is reached sooner, because the impacts per page printed are higher. The break-even points are: slightly above 5000 prints per year for woodfree uncoated paper and slightly above 3000 prints per year for LWC paper.

4.2 Other Impacts

Besides the impacts on climate change through emissions of greenhouse gasses as expressed in CO2-equivalents in the paragraph above, the CMLCA software, in combination with the

Ecoinvent database facilitates insight in other environmental impacts as well. Although these are not the main focus of this study, the results for various other impact categories as described by [Guinée, 2001] are given here as an incentive for contemplation.

Allocation factors changes with number of prints made, the values are given in Table 7.

Table 7: Allocation values for break-even points and the 'typical office worker scenario’.

Cost per office worker Use of printer (€) Woodfree uncoated 5122 prints/ year 119.84 h Break-even point LWC 3176 prints/year 74.3 h Break-even point Woodfree uncoated 10000 prints/ year 234 h

Typical office worker

Printer 10.00 10.00 10.00

Toner 64.77 40.94 126.45

Paper 42.51 26.36 83.00

Electricity 1.06 0.65 2.07

Total 118.34 77.95 221.52

(21)

Table 8 shows that at the break-even points for the two printing alternatives.

The results for impact categories like land use competition, eutrophication and terrestrial ecotoxicity plead in favor of the use of a Digital Reader. For other categories like photochemical oxidation and aquatic ecotoxicity, the use of a Digital Reader still shows a higher environmental impact.

Table 8: Impacts of iRex DR compared to impacts at the two break-even points

The fact that the iRex DR scores higher on some of the categories at the break-even points makes it interesting to compute the impacts at 10,000 prints per office worker per year. This is considered the average amount of paper printed by a typical office worker. Table 9 shows the comparison; using an iRex scores better on all impact categories than printing 10,000 pages per year. CMLCA Label Category iRex DR one year use Break-even point 1

use of printer with LWC paper, laser jet, b/w, 3154 prints

Break-even point 2

use of printer with woodfree paper, laser jet, b/w, 5070 prints

Unit

[C1] Land use competition 0.989 56,38 120,46 m2a

[C3] Eutrophication potential 0.012 0,0224 0,0523 kg PO4-Eq [C5] Resources depletion (abiotic) 0.11 0,259 0,366 kg antimony-Eq [C14] Acidification potential (average European) 0.213 0,158 0,240 kg SO2-Eq [C17] Photochemical oxidation (summer smog) 0.01 0,00724 0,0128 kg ethylene-Eq [C29] Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.132 0,300 0,486 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq [C30] Ionising radiation 1.18E-07 2,96E-07 3,42E-07 DALYs

[C34] Marine aquatic ecotoxicity 3.15E+04 1.74E+04 2.42E+04 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq [C38] Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity 10.6 3,775 6,479 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C46] Stratospheric ozone depletion 7.78E-06 2,64E-06 4,35E-06 kg CFC-11-Eq

[C50] Human toxicity 20.9 14,407 23,703 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C56] Climate change GWP 100a (biogene corrected)

17 17 17 kg CO2-Eq

Note: the values in this table are normalized to the break even point for the climate change impact category. Results for the printing alternatives may thus only be compared to the results for the use of the iRex in the first column and not amongst each other.

CMLCA Label Category iRex DR one year use Break-even point 1

use of printer with LWC paper, laser jet, b/w, 3154 prints

Break-even point 2

use of printer with woodfree paper, laser jet, b/w, 5070 prints

Unit

[C1] Land use competition 0.989 56,38 120,46 m2a

[C3] Eutrophication potential 0.012 0,0224 0,0523 kg PO4-Eq [C5] Resources depletion (abiotic) 0.11 0,259 0,366 kg antimony-Eq [C14] Acidification potential (average European) 0.213 0,158 0,240 kg SO2-Eq [C17] Photochemical oxidation (summer smog) 0.01 0,00724 0,0128 kg ethylene-Eq [C29] Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.132 0,300 0,486 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq [C30] Ionising radiation 1.18E-07 2,96E-07 3,42E-07 DALYs

[C34] Marine aquatic ecotoxicity 3.15E+04 1.74E+04 2.42E+04 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq [C38] Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity 10.6 3,775 6,479 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C46] Stratospheric ozone depletion 7.78E-06 2,64E-06 4,35E-06 kg CFC-11-Eq

[C50] Human toxicity 20.9 14,407 23,703 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C56] Climate change GWP 100a (biogene corrected)

17 17 17 kg CO2-Eq

Note: the values in this table are normalized to the break even point for the climate change impact category. Results for the printing alternatives may thus only be compared to the results for the use of the iRex in the first column and not amongst each other.

(22)

Table 9: Impacts of iRex DR compared to impacts at 10,000 prints per year.

Label Category iRex DR

one year use

10,000 prints

woodfree paper, laser jet, b/w, print

Unit

[C1] Land use competition 0.989 239 m2a

[C3] Eutrophication potential 0.012 0.104 kg PO4-Eq [C5] Resources depletion (abiotic) 0.11 0.727 kg antimony-Eq [C14] Acidification potential (average European) 0.213 0.477 kg SO2-Eq [C17] Photochemical oxidation (summer smog) 0.01 0.0256 kg ethylene-Eq [C29] Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.132 0.965 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C30] Ionising radiation 1.18E-7 6.8E-7 DALYs

[C34] Marine aquatic ecotoxicity 3.15E4 4.82E4 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq [C38] Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity 10.6 12.9 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

[C46] Stratospheric ozone depletion 7.78E-6 8.66E-6 kg CFC-11-Eq

[C50] Human toxicity 20.9 47.4 kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

(23)

5.

Evaluation & Interpretation

In Chapter 2, two contribution analyses where announced. These were conducted to test the assumptions made in the construction of the inventory. The effects of the assumptions on the inclusion of packaging materials will be discussed first. Secondly, the contributions of the defined e-paper screen, including the Wacom board are treated. Subsequently, other assumptions will be summarized and the overall credibility of the outcomes will be discussed.

5.1 Packaging Materials

To test what effect the estimations on the use of packaging for components and commercial delivery have on the results of this study, which were presented in the preceding chapter, contribution analyses for the production, transport and disposal of the packaging materials were conducted. This analysis indicates that under the standard assumptions these life cycle steps are responsible for 0.51 kg CO2-equivalent of the total of 17 kg CO2-equivalent, thus for

only 3% of the total impact on climate change of the Digital Reader.

When the amount of packaging used, transported and disposed is doubled, the total climate impact only changes into 17.2 kg CO2-equivalent.

These two findings indicate that packaging is only responsible for a minor part of the impacts on climate change and that adjusting assumptions on the use of packaging are not crucial to the validity of this study.

5.2 E-paper Screen

The second issue of concern is the LCD module as it was manually defined to represent the electronic ink screen; one of the most typical components of the Digital Reader. A contribution analysis shows that the module is responsible for 33% of the total climate change impact of the whole Digital Reader.

During the LCD module assembly the use of many specialty chemicals generate a variety of environmental emissions. 49% of this 5.65 kg CO2-equivalent is due to the emission of

sulphur-hexa-fluoride (a very potent greenhouse gas). Although the e-ink screen is probably the most complex as well as the largest and heaviest component used in the Digital Reader (excluding the plastics), it remains troublesome to assign such a large impact contribution to a component with a more or less estimated composition and production process. Until more research has been done on the specifics of the e-ink screen this remains the best possible assumption.

5.3 Summary of Assumptions

Various assumptions have been made throughout this study which have not been subject to extensive evaluating analyses. The most important ones are summarized and presented here once more as a marginal note, to emphasise the contextual limitations to the results of this study, as those are presented in Chapter 4.

First of all a few uncertainties originate from the unclear definition or incomplete reporting in the Ecoinvent database:

- As discussed in Paragraph 2.2.2. It remains unclear whether the database inputs for toner and energy use during printing are based on double- or single sided printing. It is assumed the values are based on an average between these.

- Due to the definition of the processes for electronics disposal by Ecoinvent, it is impossible to find out whether the transport of products to the disposal facility is

(24)

included. However, this should not significantly influence the outcomes of the comparison of impacts between regular office paper and the digital reader, since the processes are defined and selected in a consistent similar way in both cases.

- Ecoinvent contains a process description for paper recycling, but this is not connected to any preceding or subsequent life cycle steps. This means that possible upstream paper savings due to paper recycling are not accounted for. Thus a paper disposal process had to be manually defined and assumptions had to be made with respect to the recycling, incineration and land filling rates, as well as to the allocation of impacts to the recycled paper, being ‘co-produced’ with the use of the printer.

Other important assumptions and inconsistencies that have been introduced are the following: - The production of components for the digital reader has not been covered a full 100%

since the necessary specifications on a few miniscule product parts where missing. However, the fact that the weight of accounted components covers the real weight of the digital reader almost perfectly is a strong indication that no large errors should be introduced by this.

- Recycling processes as well as paper weight and transporting requirements are assumed to be the same for both types of paper, although for example the efforts of deinking during recycling may be different for coated than for uncoated papers [Mckinney, 1995].

- A structural assumption on the low and high printing scenarios is that in both cases it is assumed that the printer lasts only for its expected lifetime of 4 years. In other words, the printer lifetime does not depend on the intensity at which it is being used.

A last, important remark is that this study assumes 100% paper displacement, the moment one possesses a Digital Reader. The office worker with digital reader does not use the office printer for printing at all. This is not just an unrealistic assumption by function (since some documents will undoubtedly still just have to be printed or signed in a physical form), but also by habit. In a way, this research should therefore be considered a thought experiment. The results are, however, indicative of the number of prints one would have to replace in order to have less impact on Global Warming.

5.4 Concluding remarks

Despite the shortcomings of the assumptions listed above, it may be clear that the results presented in Chapter 4 provide strong evidence that the iRex Digital Reader may be a sound alternative to regular office paper use, when it comes to impacts on climate change. Especially inspiring are the results indicating that under the roughly estimated average annual office paper use of 10,000 pages per year, all other environmental indicators – such as resource depletion and toxicity indicators – are lower for the digital reader.

Even though this may be interpreted as a convincing argument for the use of electronic paper instead of real paper in general, it must be stated that the results presented here, only go for the comparison between the two services of office paper use, and are based only on climate change impacts.

Together with the work done by [Moberg, 2009], this study lays a basis for a full environmental analysis of a paperless economy, using e-paper devices. But only once the full functionality of such devices has been assessed, for example by expanding existing research by including impacts of digital versus paper books or note blocks, a final conclusion on the environmental blessings of e-paper technology may be drawn.

(25)

Literature

Counsell, Thomas A.M., Allwood, Julian M. ‘Reducing climate change gas emissions by cutting out stages in the life cycle of office paper’, 2006

Guinée et al, LCA - An operational guide to the ISO-standards, 2001

Hischier, R., Life Cycle inventories of Packagings and Graphical Papers, eco-invent report nr. 11, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007

iRex data sheet and supplier information, confidential, supplied by Rolf Bisschoff, November 2008

Lehmann, M., et al., Life Cycle inventories of Electric and Electronic Equipment: Production, Use and Disposal, eco-invent report No. 18. Empa, Technology and Society Lab, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007

Mckinney, R.W.J. ‘Technology of Paper Recycling’ - Springer, 1995 ISBN 0751400173

Moberg, Johansson, Finnveden and Jonsson ‘Screening environmental life cycle assessment of printed, web based and tablet e-paper newspaper’ Reports from the KTH Centre for Sustainable Communications, 2007

Web Literature

AF&PA, the American Forest and Paper Association, ‘Paper and paperboard recovery statistics 2008’, website, 2009, last accessed: 29-03-09

http://paperrecycles.org/stat_pages/stat_intro.html

iRex, 2009. ‘about iRex’, website, last accessed: 03-04-09 http://www.irextechnologies.nl/about

Viking Direct office products. 2009, website, last accessed: 03-04-09 www.vikingdirect.com

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, 2009, website, last accessed: 03-04-09 www.hp.com

NUON energy company, 2009, website, last accessed: 03-04-09 (Dutch) http://www.nuon.nl/producten-en-diensten/stroom-en-gas/vasteprijsstroom-en-vasteprijsgas/tarieven.jsp

MPCA, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, ‘reduce waste’, website, 2009, last accessed: 28-03-09

www.reduce.org

University of California, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, ‘cutting paper’, website, 2009, last accessed: 28-03-09

(26)

Appendix 1

Definition of CMLCA Processes

Table 10: Process inflows of ‘production of iRex DR 1000’ [P3950]

Name Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

transport, freight, rail 0.192 tkm RER [G133]

transport, barge tanker 3.13 tkm RER [G694]

cable, ribbon cable, 20-pin, with plugs, at plant 0.026 kg GLO [G830]

integrated circuit, IC, logic type, at plant 0.00997 kg GLO [G2059]

capacitor, Tantalum-, through-hole mounting, at plant 0.000254 kg GLO [G2064] acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, ABS, at plant 0.347 kg RER [G2101] polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, bottle grade, at plant 0.0534 kg RER [G2107]

battery, LiIo, rechargeable, prismatic, at plant 0.024 kg GLO [G3142]

integrated circuit, IC, memory type, at plant 0.00408 kg GLO [G3146]

power adapter, for laptop, at plant 0.28 unit GLO [G3164]

printed wiring board, surface mount, lead-free surface, at plant 0.012 m2 GLO [G3201]

capacitor, SMD type, surface-mounting, at plant 0.0279 kg GLO [G3204]

disposal, LCD flat screen, 17 inches, to WEEE treatment 0.124 unit CH [G3231]

resistor, SMD type, surface mounting, at plant 0.000368 kg GLO [G3246]

diode, glass-, SMD type, surface mounting, at plant 0.000413 kg GLO [G3254]

light emitting diode, LED, at plant 0.0014 kg GLO [G3256]

transistor, SMD type, surface mounting, at plant 0.0095 kg GLO [G3258]

inductor, miniature RF chip type, MRFI, at plant 0.000151 kg GLO [G3642]

LCD module I-rex, at plant 0.066 kg GLO [G3953]

iRex packaging at regional storage 0.12 kg - [G3958]

iRex stylus 1 unit - [G3959]

Table 11: Process inflows of ‘iRex stylus’ [P3955]

Name Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

polystyrene, general purpose, GPPS, at plant 0.0241 kg RER [G630]

transistor, wired, small size, through-hole mounting, at plant 0.000818 kg GLO [G2060]

capacitor, SMD type, surface-mounting, at plant 8.6E-5 kg GLO [G3204]

Table 12: Proces inflows of ‘LCD module iRex, at plant’ [P3951]

Name Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

copper, at regional storage 0.00769 kg RER [G5]

synthetic rubber, at plant 0.01 kg RER [G79]

injection moulding 0.233 kg RER [G829]

nylon 6, at plant 0.0156 kg RER [G1217]

sheet rolling, copper 0.00769 kg RER [G1540]

polycarbonate, at plant 0.233 kg RER [G2048]

LCD glass, at plant 0.735 kg GLO [G3186]

assembly, LCD module 1 kg GLO [G3187]

(27)

Table 13: Process inflows of ‘use of iRex DR 1000 for one year’ [P3952]

Name Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

electricity mix 1.39 kWh NL [G1111]

transport, van <3.5t 0.0318 tkm RER [G1260]

iRex DR 1000 0.5 piece(s) - [G3954]

Table 14: Process inflows of ‘use, printer with woodfree paper, laser jet, b/w, per h’

Name [P3953] Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

transport, lorry 16t, fleet average 0.0215 tkm RER [G101]

transport, freight, rail 0.0429 tkm RER [G133]

electricity, low voltage, production UCTE, at grid 0.0402 kWh UCTE [G187]

paper, woodfree, uncoated, at regional storage 0.214 kg RER [G1214]

printer, laser jet, b/w, at plant 2.85E-5 unit GLO [G3121]

toner, black, used for printing 0.000855 kg RER [G3122]

diposal paper, general 0.214 kg - [G3962]

Table 15: Process inflows of ‘use, printer, with LWC paper, laser jet, b/w, per h’

Name [P3957] Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

transport, lorry 16t, fleet average 0.0215 tkm RER [G101]

transport, freight, rail 0.0429 tkm RER [G133]

electricity, low voltage, production UCTE, at grid 0.0402 kWh UCTE [G187]

paper, wood-containing, LWC, at regional storage 0.214 kg RER [G1985]

printer, laser jet, b/w, at plant 2.85E-5 unit GLO [G3121]

toner, black, used for printing 0.000855 kg RER [G3122]

diposal paper, general 0.214 kg - [G3962]

Table 16: Process inflows of ‘iRex packaging at regional plant’ [P3954]

Name Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

transport, lorry 16t, fleet average 0.0318 tkm RER [G101]

disposal, packaging cardboard, 19.6% water, to municipal incineration 0.0635 kg CH [G465]

packaging film, LDPE, at plant 0.0635 kg RER [G728]

disposal, polyethylene, 0.4% water, to municipal incineration 0.0635 kg CH [G806] packaging, corrugated board, mixed fibre, single wall, at plant 0.0635 kg RER [G1532]

Table 17: Process inflows of ‘paper disposal process, general’ [P3956]

Name Value Unit Region CMLCA Label

disposal, paper, 11.2% water, to municipal incineration 0.08 kg CH [G139]

disposal, paper, 11.2% water, to sanitary landfill 0.02 kg CH [G449]

Figure

Updating...

References

Updating...

Related subjects :