RE: [asa] Ban on computers reportedly wanted.

What a bogus statement! 'On a per unit basis' - we are talking
nanotechnology here. Sure there is going to be more waste on a per unit
basis - dang, the per unit is infintesimal. Somebody has their tongue
planted firmly in their cheek.

Debbie Mann
AKA Joan Saunders, author of 'Doors of the Megdalines'

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Janice Matchett
  Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:12 PM
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: Re: [asa] Ban on computers reportedly wanted.

  At 07:33 PM 4/8/2007, Randy Isaac wrote:

    " .. the data are way out of date. .." ~ Randy

  @ Here's some that isn't. 11/7/06 "...Furthermore, new technologies such
as those used to produce and process nanoscale materials and other advanced
manufacturing processes exceed the energy use of older technologies by six
to eight orders of magnitude on a per-unit-of-material-processed basis,.."

  Note that the "what will they try to do next" clue - (roll-back/limit
large-scale production and consumption) - is found near the bottom of the
MIT article below.

  It follows these sorts of sentiments: "At the core of Tertullian's
teachings lay his bitter admonition that life in the 2nd century had become
too extravagant, too wasteful, and that population growth had run out of
control. Mankind was raping the Earth of its resources, he warned grimly
"...we men have actually become a burden to the Earth ... the Earth can no
longer support us ..." And, to escape total planetary destruction, mankind
had to withdraw to the past and practice severe asceticism, living in a
simpler more natural state. ~ Tertullian of Carthage. Fast-forward 1800
years... [Algore of Carthage (TN)
http://www.opinionet.com/staff/gw4-switalski.shtml

  ~ Janice :)

  Source: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
  Date: November 7, 2006

   Engineer Launches Review Of Energy Use In Manufacturing
  Science Daily ­ Timothy G. Gutowski's mission is to help the manufacturing
industry lighten up, energy-wise.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061106145912.htm

  With a grant from the National Science Foundation, the MIT professor of
mechanical engineering is reviewing energy use in manufacturing processes
such as machining, grinding, injection molding, advanced machining methods
and microelectronics fabrication methods. The goal is to compare the
environmental performance of traditional methods to alternative processes,
alternative product designs and proposed new processes.

  The work is important because manufacturing plays a big role in U.S.
energy use. Industry accounts for around 30 percent of the total, and
manufacturing is responsible for around 80 percent of industrial use. In
addition, the manufacturing industry designs and builds all of the equipment
used in the other major energy use sectors.

  "Manufacturing processes can be thought of as products with a huge energy
appetite," he said. This contributes to global warming but is not as visible
to the public as gas-guzzling SUVs or images of melting polar ice caps.
"Many people are not aware of the energy requirements for many manufacturing
processes," said Gutowski, who, after extensive work in aerospace materials
and composites, switched fields seven years ago _to satisfy a need_ "to
contribute to society in a bigger way." [Mother Gaia or Mr. Deep Pockets
calling??]

  The problem isn't that industry isn't interested in being environmentally
friendly. In fact, in an MIT Laboratory for Manufacturing and Productivity
working paper from earlier this year, Gutowski wrote that the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development includes 180 international corporations,
and the Global Environmental Management Initiative has members in 22
business sectors totaling $915 billion in annual sales. And, he added, many
leading corporations have adopted sustainable development as a major
corporate strategy.

  But there are paradoxes.

  For one, because of increased efficiency, energy use per kilogram of
product produced by major industrial sectors has been declining. But,
Gutowski pointed out, efficiency and increased production go hand in hand.
And usually, increased production more than offsets any gains in efficiency.
"Hence, energy efficiency alone has not resulted in an absolute reduction in
energy use," he said.

  Further, in the United States, the barriers to "environmentally benign
manufacturing" differ from industry to industry and can be frustratingly
complex.

  For instance, Gutowski said, automobiles, compared with other products,
are already recycled very effectively, with only around 15 percent of the
average car ending up in a landfill at the end of its life. So a suggested
manufacturing alternative--using lightweight composites instead of
steel--would solve one problem (making cars lighter and more fuel-efficient)
while creating several others: Composite materials would increase waste
because they are currently not recyclable, have no feasible recycling
technologies on the horizon and increase manufacturing costs.

  Meanwhile, microelectronics has different issues. Computers are used for
approximately two to three years, compared with around 10 years for a car,
and the recycling rate for all electronics is quite low. In addition, the
manufacture of integrated circuits--the devices at the heart of all
electronics products--requires the use of ultrapure materials and
energy-intensive manufacturing processes.

  Furthermore, new technologies such as those used to produce and process
nanoscale materials and other advanced manufacturing processes exceed the
energy use of older technologies by six to eight orders of magnitude on a
per-unit-of-material-processed basis, Gutowski said.

  Gutowski hopes these challenges can be overcome through the development of
new technologies, the creation of new policies and, maybe most important,
the public's willingness to foster change and absorb some of the costs.
"People will pay more in the short run for environmentally friendly
products," he said. "There will be a cost to this, but I don't think it will
be something we can't manage."

  Gutowski added that one of the most important things we can do is "educate
our students and citizens about the high cost of our ____ large-scale
production and consumption on the ecosystems that presently support life___
as we know it."

  *
  2004:
http://www.it-environment.org/publications/hybrid%20PC%20LCA%20abstract.pdf
.
  Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining
process and economic input-output methods
  Eric Williams United Nations University 53-70 Jingumae 5-chome, Shibuya-ku
Tokyo, Japan Phone: 81-3-5467-1352, Fax: 81-3-3406-7346, Email:
Williams@hq.unu.edu

  Abstract

  The total energy and fossil fuels used in producing a desktop computer
with 17-inch CRT monitor are estimated at 6,400 megajoules (MJ) or 260 kg
respectively. This indicates that computer manufacturing is energy
intensive: the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is 11, an order of
magnitude larger than the factor of 1-2 for many other manufactured goods.
This high energy intensity of manufacturing, combined with rapid turnover in
computers, results in an annual life cycle energy burden that is
surprisingly high: about 2,600 MJ per year, 1.3 times that of a
refrigerator. In contrast with many home appliances, life cycle energy use
of a computer is dominated by production (81%) as opposed to operation
(19%). Extension of usable lifespan (e.g. by reselling or upgrading) is thus
a promising approach to mitigating energy impacts, as well as other
environmental burdens associated with manufacturing and disposal. Publishing
information: Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid analysis
combining process and economic input-output methods”, E. Williams,
Environmental Science & Technology 38(22), 6166 - 6174 (2004).
http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/

    "..the very act of manufacturing a computer degrades the environment by
using massive amounts of resources-clean water, intensive labor in clean
rooms-and producing toxic waste in quantities that far outweigh any
potential positive effects that one computer could have on the world.

    In fact, these are the resources used to make one 8-inch wafer:

    4,267 cubic feet of bulk gases
    3,787 gallons of waste water
    27 pounds of chemicals
    29 cubic feet of hazardous gases
    9 pounds of hazardous waste
    3,023 gallons of de-ionized water

    Not only is semiconductor manufacturing the worst air polluting
industry, it also uses several million gallons of water a day."

    Excerpted from "Chips Ahoy: The hidden toll of computer manufacture and
use," by John C. Ryan and Alan Thein Durning:

    *

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 9 09:22:56 2007