Today's Lighter TVs Mean Much Less E-Waste 197
Posted
by
timothy
from the try-lugging-an-old-36"-crt dept.
from the try-lugging-an-old-36"-crt dept.
MojoKid writes "We all know that today's flat-screen TVs weigh far less than old-style CRTs, or they wouldn't be able to hang on the wall. New research from the Consumer Electronics Association finds that this translates into a massive savings of electronics waste. The report found that today's flat screen TVs are 82% lighter and 75% smaller than cathode ray tube (CRT) TVs. In other words, 40- to 70-inch flat-panel TVs weigh 34% less than 13- to 36-inch CRT TVs. This reduction in materials has a staggering downstream effect. The report claimed that an old 36-inch CRT TV generated about the same amount of electronics waste as 5,080 cell phones. However, today's 70-inch flat-screen TV generate the equivalent of just 953 cell phones."
Re:Tit for tat (Score:4, Interesting)
But pixel mapped displays should last longer than scanning tubes. The electron guns, valves and other components in a CRT display degraded over time.
Re:Tit for tat (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention, CRTs last a hell of a long time. My parents still have a CRT in the household that runs just fine after at least twenty-five years. Most LCDs only have a short warranty and there are a lot of parts that will simply fail over a much shorter period of time than a CRT (like the backlight). In the lifespan of that one CRT, I would expect to go through at least three LCDs based on lifespan alone (not counting the greater frequency of replacement due to technology improvements/shifts/etc). So when it comes down to it, you're probably looking at just as much waste for the same period of time.
Re:Tit for tat (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't know, but I've got a pre LED, 32" LCD TV from 2006 that is still good sitting in the living room (watch the backlight go right after I write this :) ).
The color still seems fine, and the only reason I would consider replacing it is for a larger model (prices have dropped enough to make that feasible), while I'd move that unit into another room for auxiliary use.
It replaced a 2001 21" CRT that was still good (but with HD TV around the corner I decided to trade up).
That replaced a 1981-2 19" CRT that finally died (no amount of bench-thumping would bring the picture back).
So, so far, the earliest CRT model lasted ~19-20 yrs. Replaced by a CRT that only lasted ~5-6 (before being discarded as obsolescent not due to failure), and the current LCD is approaching the same 5-6 years and shows no problems so far.
I hope it reaches 19-20, but doubt it will. I bet it dies before the 10 year mark, although the biggest weakness from what I understand is the pre-LED backlight, so I have high hopes the next model lasts longer. :)
Re:Tit for tat (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the way technology "progresses" (or, rather, regresses) I'd say that longevity becomes a more and more interesting asset in an appliance. Why? Because newer does not necessarily mean better. More and more, it means "with less features and more lockdown".
What's perverted in today's technology is that the flaws are actually desirable for the customer. Because they allow jailbreaking and unlocking, because they allow "leaking" the content to a recording device and media shifting, something the devices should disallow. What's even more backwards is that a device that has flaws will sell better than a "perfect" one. Because it allows the user what he wants. It's in the interest of device makers to include flaws in their machines that allow the leaks mentioned. Think about it: If device A has the flaw and device B does not, which one do you buy?
It's a given that later versions of the same device will have this flaw fixed. Without a chance to undo that fix. Can you imagine how people have a lot of interest in retaining their old device that allows them more than a new device with those options disabled?