Consumer Electronics

The design goal dilemma of reducing electronic waste

08 April 2019

The volume of electronic waste (e-waste) accumulating worldwide continues to increase as smartphones, tablets and other devices are discarded due to breakdowns, the availability of new models or planned obsolescence. The shorten lifespans of electronic devices are sometimes intentional by manufacturers, an issue that prompted Georgia Institute of Technology researchers to examine product design implications of extended producer responsibility (EPR)-based take-back legislation on durable goods.

These laws are intended for manufacturers to create products that are easier to recycle or have improved durability for increased device lifespan. Photovoltaic panels are shown atop a building on the Georgia Institute of Technology campus. Source: John ToonPhotovoltaic panels are shown atop a building on the Georgia Institute of Technology campus. Source: John Toon A lack of synergy between these goals can result in counterintuitive design implications of EPR programs.

Stringent collection targets or recycling targets may imply reduced recyclability or durability. An analysis of photovoltaic panel design and production shows that more stringent EPR requirements can lead to a solar panel technology choice with lower recyclability and higher durability and consequently results in higher greenhouse gas emissions. Relative to other panels, thin-film solar panels are cost-effective to recycle due to their precious metal content. Crystalline silicon panels have a longer service life because of component durability, but are not as cost-effective to recycle.

A modeling program was developed to identify the likely effect of government policies on products based on their materials and design characteristics. The computation considers the base production cost of the product, the degree of difficulty in increasing recyclability and durability, the extent of interaction between recyclability and durability in the product design and the recycling properties of the product.

To stimulate recyclable product design, the EPR should impose a low recycling target and a high collection target. To induce durable product design, a low collection target and a high recycling goal are advocated.

To contact the author of this article, email shimmelstein@globalspec.com


Powered by CR4, the Engineering Community

Discussion – 4 comments

By posting a comment you confirm that you have read and accept our Posting Rules and Terms of Use.
Re: The design goal dilemma of reducing electronic waste
#1
Anonymous Poster #1
2019-Apr-26 11:18 AM

I'm all in favor of extended producer responsibility (EPR)-based take-back legislation, but I hever hear anything about it. It is irrating to see many of the recent designs coming to market. I recently reviewed the design of a trivial medical device designed by an extension of an local engineering school. The design had a small printed circuit board that was outside of the bio-contamination area. It was designed for a one-time use, (2 coincells) and the whole think is classified as bio-harzard medical waste. Ridiculous. I doubt ANY consideration was given to disposal or recovery. It should be mandated!

Re: The design goal dilemma of reducing electronic waste
#3
In reply to #1
2019-Apr-26 1:45 PM

Maybe the medical regulations precluded any other type of solution? Do we need more regulations? Careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Re: The design goal dilemma of reducing electronic waste
#2
2019-Apr-26 12:02 PM

Do any of these university types know anything about the laws of unintended consequences?

Re: The design goal dilemma of reducing electronic waste
#4
2019-May-08 10:02 AM

If manufacturers are made responsible for the disposal of the products than they make, then hopefully they make appropriate decissions in the design process or pay for it in the wastestream. The current standard is to ignore disposal as it's not their problem, even with medical waste products. Out of site, out of mind. Sure it'll increase purchasing costs, but mandating recycling lowers the ENTIRE lifespan costs. I recently started to received a prescription from and online pharmacy. I set it up for 90-days, the maximum possible, but I still end up with polypropelene bottles that no local recycler is handling. This is a one-time-use application. I don't know why the PP could not be recycled or even why the bottle themselves could not be reused after appropriate cleaning. Dumb...just ends up in the trash with the vendors name on the label.

Engineering Newsletter Signup
Get the GlobalSpec
Stay up to date on:
Features the top stories, latest news, charts, insights and more on the end-to-end electronics value chain.
Advertisement
Weekly Newsletter
Get news, research, and analysis
on the Electronics industry in your
inbox every week - for FREE
Sign up for our FREE eNewsletter
Advertisement