1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,713 (11.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,669
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    A lot of us switched over to LCD displays over CRT for reasons such as reduced electricity bills, thereby reducing our carbon-footprint. It is true, LCD displays have done a great job reducing power consumptions and effectively reducing CO2, but to what extant is this ‘carbon-footprint reduction’ helping reduce green-house gases?

    New studies find that a material used in the manufacture of LCD displays called Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is the ‘missing gas’ which adds up to the equation of exactly which substances contribute to global-warming. A study conducted by Michael Prather (read here) reveals that this gas has a stunning 17,000 times greater contribution to global-warming. This compound is still used in the manufacturing of LCD and synthetic diamonds. According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time and its nature wasn't established.

    The Kyoto Protocol missed several such compounds because they felt they were used in very insignificant quantities, although at that time the harmful effects of NF3 might not have been established since Parther’s letter is dated 26th June. The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth. The rise of digital and high-definition television resulting in increased production of LCD and related technologies in the consumer electronics industry, contributes to the rise of emission of this substance.

    Environmentalists will have a tough time convincing governments to enforce regulations. The demand for LCD products is so huge, industrialists will find it too big an expense to halt production and make core redesigns to a 'hot'-selling technology.

    Source: DailyTech
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
    p_o_s_pc, Skitzo and 1c3d0g say thanks.
  2. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,461 (4.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,264
    what about OLED monitors? the market seems to be pushing them as the successor to LCD. are they more or less harmful.
     
  3. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,713 (11.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,669
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Yeah I'm googling for that...plasma, etc.

    Yes, OLED has a future, though its current cost-of-production is like what LCD's was about a decade ago. The industry will feed us LCD first, then come up with a "LCD is obselete, scrap it, buy OLED" drama. They need our patronage to stay alive.
     
  4. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,461 (4.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,264
    well if OLED turns out to be the better technology then it will make LCD obsolete. and hopefully not harm the environment as much.
     
  5. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,797 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    546
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    The whole ordeal of global warming is more political than anything. I cant get into specifics right now, being as it is that Im at work. However, the difference in temperature from the prehistoric days until now, is only a few degrees celsius off. The hole in the ozone, ok I buy that and it has closed significantly since we quit using CFCs. However, Im a bit hesitant on the whole global warming deal. Yay for us wanting to go green, I mean Im all over that. I just dont think its as huge as the politicians want us to believe.
     
    Viscarious and ITman say thanks.
  6. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,461 (4.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,264
    yea, i dont buy into the whole man-made global warming theory either. however, i do think it is important for us to sustain our environment. if we know that a certain chemical/gas is harmful to us then we obviously shouldnt use it.
     
    ITman, AsRock, robodude666 and 2 others say thanks.
  7. pentastar111

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    994 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Los Angeles...U.S.A
    Well one thing is for sure...Warm the globe up enough and the ocean gets flooded with fresh water. This will upset the gulfstream. The disturbance in the flow of warm water to the north will probably trigger another IceAge, thereby ending the "Gobal Warming" scare.:slap::twitch: I like my LCD's...I quit driving my car and switched to a motorcycle to help conserve fuel...Now my monitor is harmful as well? Whatever.
     
  8. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    I know what you mean -- there's been countless studies, funded by oil companies, which prove global warming to be the sham that it is.
     
    ghost101, ITman and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  9. Batou1986

    Batou1986

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,474 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Location:
    Baltimore MD

    didn't this happen before when humans where not even around ?
    im sure that some things we do may be speeding this up but who's to say this isn't just a natural cycle that the earth gos through that couldn't be prevented anyway:confused:

    back on topic this seems to be the trend with all green electronics no matter what we do its a trade off. just take those cfl light bulbs yea they use less power but the all contain a small amount of mercury where as old light bulbs a pretty much glass gas and ferrous metal which are pretty environmentally friendly
    seriously how many ppl do you think are gonna collect up those cfl light bulbs and dispose of them properly most ppl don't use them let alone know that your not supposed to throw them in the trash
     
  10. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,461 (4.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,264
    just wait, in a couple of months there will be another study showing this study to be false. and then another study disproving that one. and so on and so forth
     
  11. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    Humans have such a small effect on the environmental CO2 production that this really should not make that much of a difference.
     
  12. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,797 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    546
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    Theres been other funded not by oil companies that say the same thing. Al Gores dumb ass (dont get me started) really is stirring this stuff up. I also believe we should recycle, reduce, reuse (and know the rules, haha, remember that song from the 80s/90s). Anyways, I dont know all the facts about freshwater and the ocean. I do know either around the US or some other country, a couple rivers empty out into the Ocean, and also there are streams of fresh water, no salt water, in the ocean. So I dont know if that will throw it out of whack. I kind of believe sort of what the Day After Tomorrow shows,but then again thats just a movie.

    Im going green to reduce energy bills, dust, polution, etc and also to help the environment. I just dont think the think tanks need to scare us like this.
     
    spacejunky and pentastar111 say thanks.
  13. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,797 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    546
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    On the Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. I love them things and I use a few of them, my utilities company sent me a packet. One of the best things ever. However, the fact that they have a very trace amount of mercury in them is disheartening to me. I dont know why they went that route. Hell, light bulbs, normal ones, have a xeon gas in them.
     
  14. OzzmanFloyd120

    OzzmanFloyd120

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,047 (1.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    297
    Location:
    Pontaic Michigan
    I see this thread eventually spawning conspiracy theory arguments. :(
     
  15. flashstar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    743 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    56
    I didn't buy my LCD to save power or to reduce my "carbon footprint". :rolleyes:

    I bought it because it provides a sharper, more accurate picture and it takes up less space than a CRT. Get me a screen that looks even better and I'll upgrade to that, but I'm not going to make the change just because the consensus is that I'm harming the environment with LCD's.

    Currently, cows produce more green house gas than we do.
     
  16. Black Hades

    Black Hades

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    300 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Ambugaton
    You mean to say that my 21" / 38Kg /~100W Dell behemoth (that has a color gamut greater than 90% of the world's LCD's) is greener than all those fancy LCD's? :p

    I promised myself that I would buy a LCD only when one will offer as much fidelity as the "obsolete" CRT... without costing a fortune of course.
     
  17. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,260 (2.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    967
    My carbon footprint is TINY compared to my moral/ethical footprint. :roll:

    However, even if some individuals are not convinced by our contribution to global warming, environmental protection IS important. Personally, I dont care too much if the world get 20 degress hotter. Better summers. Never mind about 3rd world countries near the equator. They are more trouble than they are worth anyway. BUT

    1./ We made a mess of the ozone layer
    2./ We made a mess of nuclear radiation
    3./ We made a mess with toxic rivers
    4./ We made a mess with the health of thousands and millions of people and children through mismanaged/tested chemicals/pharmaceuticals

    Dont be "too liberal" in your thinking. We need to take collective responsibility for more than just our own personal consumption.
     
  18. OzzmanFloyd120

    OzzmanFloyd120

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,047 (1.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    297
    Location:
    Pontaic Michigan
    Are you trying to say that I'm partially responsible for Black Hades' CRT eating up too much energy? (Joking)

    Seriously though, I agree with you. Global warming isn't a new thing. I remember back in first grade learning about it, and that was 1991. Too many people are quick to jump on Al Gore for pushing it like it's a new idea or something. Personally I commend the man for trying to bring environmental awareness to the masses.
     
  19. Rash-Un-Al New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    32 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Green

    Interestingly, there is no absolute proof of man-made carbon emissions having an overall long-term effect on our temperatures and/or well-being.

    Many of the carbon footprint related actions are performed on a "what if" basis.

    While I am in agreement that we should all do what we can to be increasingly enviro-friendly, we should also be very careful not to commit to potentially fallacious movements which may have long-standing and/or irreversible economic and/or law-changing implications.

    Example:
    We now have overwhelming scientific evidence which details how the sun contributes to ozone creation and its levels across the globe. Currently, the area with the most "depleted" ozone layer sits above Antarctica. However, by the time the truth is learned, countless economically restrictive regulations are set in place, at the expense of the health of various industries and economies.
     
    mlupple, spacejunky and flashstar say thanks.
  20. Error 404

    Error 404

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,777 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    169
    Location:
    South Australia
    Oh, yeah, thanks for forgetting Australia.:p
    I do believe that global warming is being accelerated by humans, and it really sucks; raise another few degrees and soon I'll be having 50C summers!:mad:

    As for OLEDS, the O in the name stands for Organic; they're made out of hydrocarbons and the like, so they can't be too bad...
     
  21. flashstar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    743 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    56
    I'll start thinking collectively once China and all of the developing nations reduce their Footprints!

    Even if we reduce our carbon emissions by 20% that still won't change anything. Scientists estimate that we need to reduce our emissions by 50% over the next few decades! Even then, I'm sure that China and India will be speeding up their factories more than enough to cancel out any gains that we make.

    It might seem stupid, but I firmly believe that we need to focus on furthering our technological progress before we devote all of our energy to reducing emissions. Emissions will continue to decrease as we adopt newer technologies because for the most part newer tech is cleaner anyway.

    All that Al Gore did was to encite mass hysteria. Now people are spending so much time worrying about the next mega hurricane and environmental disaster to think straight. :shadedshu
     
    Rash-Un-Al says thanks.
  22. FatForester New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    971 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    151
    I completely agree. If people thought more about getting something done rather than "getting the word out" and worshiping Al Gore it'd be amazing what could have been accomplished by now.
     
  23. mlupple

    mlupple New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    209 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    USA
    LoL, carbon footprint. 17,000 times greater... i don't even care :)
     
  24. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Location:
    AZ
    lets see I've got a 32" lcd/tv, a 20.1" lcd, a 17' lcd, and a 15'' lcd all running in the same room :eek: omg I'M gonna die. lol

    yeah I knew there had to be some kind of catch to the lcd, (well other than the massive heat all 4 create in one room) but I agree that it's better to implement the change in the future tech than in this tech. that way it's an easier transition and it will grant consumers a better option. I seriously doubt joe shmoe is goign to buy a green version of the same monitor for a higher price because theirs a premium for the new manufacturing process. no he'll buy the cheaper non green verison because he see's no gains in buying the green one. If you implement it into the new tech, he'll have a reason to buy the green one, as it'll ahve better picture etc.
     
  25. magibeg

    magibeg

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,000 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    203
    Guys no fighting about 'man made' global warming here. Theres a thread about it in general non-sense and I'll be happy to argue with you all there. On a side note i assume that gas is 17,000 times more potent right? Not a 17,000 time overall greater effect due to the small amounts of it being used (comparatively speaking anyway).
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page