Abstract
Purpose
Technology has fundamentally shifted communication and interaction over time, and has effectively increased the interconnectedness of the world. Enabling this have been multiple evolutions in technology itself, with a more recent shift towards multifunctionality. Smartphones, with their multifunctional design, are characteristic of this, and have the ability to replace a suite of single-function products. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the energy implications of multifunctional products utilizing the service of consuming video programming as a case study.
Methods
A review of relevant literature is presented for each product considered in the analysis (televisions, laptops, cellular phones, smartphones, and cameras). The environmental implications, in the form of primary energy consumption, are evaluated with respect to the degree of multifunctionality in product communities found in an typical household and providing the service of television programming viewing. The raw materials and manufacturing phases are evaluated using economic input-output life cycle assessment. The use phase energy consumption of the devices is generated from literature, as is the energy consumed in the production and distribution of the television programming. The functional unit utilized in this work is annual household television consumption. As a midpoint, the impact of the raw materials and manufacturing of the devices themselves are also presented. The analysis is informed heavily through the review of relevant life cycle literature.
Results and discussion
Although the quantity of energy consumed in device production was found to be similar among the products considered (television, laptop computer, smartphone, and camera), they have different service lives, ranging from 2 to 8 years. This influences the annual energy consumption when the raw materials and manufacturing impacts are normalized per year of device lifetime. It was found that due to the relatively short lifetime of smartphones, televisions and laptop computers for programming viewing would have a lesser environmental impact than utilizing smartphones for this purpose. A limitation of this work is the difference in number of viewers who may watch a single device at one time. At the same time, this work suggests that there is significant potential to save energy both during the raw materials, manufacturing, and use phases of the life cycle of these products through the use of multifunctional devices instead of single-purpose devices, if the lifetime of the multifunctional devices is long enough.
Conclusions
These findings have broad implications for consumer electronics, not only from an energy consumption perspective, but also from the viewpoint of resource acquisition and product disposal. Critical questions arise if multifunctional consumer device communities have a greater environmental impact than their single-function counterparts, including what the sustainable devices of the future should look like, whether these devices should be single or multifunctional. This work suggests that multifunctional devices may reduce environmental impact, if their lifetime is longer than the customary 2 years of a smartphone. However, if it is not, then conventional products may have an advantage with respect to primary energy consumption.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aoe T (2003) Case study for calculation of factor X (eco-efficiency)—comparing CRT TV, PDP TV, and LCD TV. Proceedings of EcoDesign 2003: Third International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo
Arthur, Charles; Camera-makers focus on adapting to smartphones’ market surge, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/13/cameras-slrs-dslr-overtaken-by-smartphones-charles-arthur Accessed 17 January 2017,
Babbitt CW, Kahhat R, Williams E, Babbitt GA (2009) Evolution of product lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and management: a case study of personal computers in higher education. Environ Sci Technol 43:5106–5112
Barnouw E (1982) Historical survey of communication breakthroughs. Proc Acad Polit Sci 34(4):13–23
Bergelin F (2008) Life cycle assessment of a mobile phone—a model on manufacturing, using, and recycling. Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala
Bernstein WZ, Ramanujan D, Zhao F, Ramani K (2013) Profiling energy consumption of smartphone users for environmentally efficient business decisions. Proceedings of the ASME 2013 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Portland, Oregon
Best Buy (2015a) Retrieved November 18, 2015, from Best Buy televisions. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=UTF-8&_dynSessConf=&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=2&nrp=15&sp=&qp=tvscreensizerange_facet%3DTV%20Screen%20Size∼40%22%20-%2045%22&list=n&iht=y&usc=All%20Categories&ks=960&fs=saas&saas=saas&keys=keys&st=led%20tv&seeAll=
Best Buy (2015b) Retrieved November 18, 2015, from Point and shoot cameras. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?browsedCategory=abcat0401001&cp=2&id=pcat17071&nrp=25&qp=condition_facet%3DCondition∼New%5Eeffectivemegapixels_facet%3DMegapixels%20(Effective)∼12&sc=Global&sp=-bestsellingsort%20skuidsaas&st=abcat0401001_categoryid%24pcmcat324200050004&type=page&usc=All%20Categories&seeAll=
Boks C, Huisman J, Stevels A (2000) Combining economical and environmental considerations in cellular phone design. Proceedings of the IEEE, IEEE
Brickman L, Coulon R, Nehring R, Matthews R, McMullen C, Noble D, Young S, Brady K, Leah T, Whittle L (1998) Life cycle assessment of a business telephone. Proceedings of the 1998 I.E. International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, IEEE: pp 255–259
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) Retrieved November 19, 2015, from American Time Use Survey Summary. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (2015) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA), US 2002 Purchaser Price Model. Retrieved November 18, 2015, from http://www.eiolca.net
Carrol A, Heiser G (2010) An analysis of power consumption in a smartphone. USENIX annual technical conference, 14
Chandaria J, Hunter J, Williams A (2011) The carbon footprint of watching television, comparing digital terrestrial television with video-on-demand. 2011 I.E. International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), IEEE, Chicago
Computer History Museum (2015) Retrieved November 12, 2015, from Timeline of computer history. http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/computers/
Conniff R (2010) The greenhouse gas that nobody knew. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from Yale 360
Demers C (2015) RTINGS. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from LED TV power consumption and electricity costs. http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/power-consumption-and-electricity-cost
Deng L, Babbitt CW, Williams ED (2011) Economic-balance hybrid LCA extended with uncertainty analysis: case study of a laptop computer. J Clean Prod 19:1198–1206
Desroches LN, Ganeshalingam M (2015) The dynamics of incremental costs of efficient television display technologies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90:562–574
Entner R (2011) International comparisons: the handset replacement cycle, recon analytics. Published: June 23, 2011. http://mobilefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mobile-future.publications.handset-replacementcycle.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2017
Ercan M, Malmodin J, Bergmark P, Kimfalk E, Nilsson E (2016) Life cycle assessment of a smartphone. 4th International conference on ICT for sustainability
Feng C, Ma XQ (2009) The energy consumption and environmental impacts of a color TV set in China. J Clean Prod 17:13–25
Frey SD, Harrison DJ, Billett EH (2006) Ecological footprint analysis applied to mobile phones. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):199–216
Harvard Business Review (2013) Vision statement: how people really use mobile. Harv Bus Rev Mag 91(1):30–31
Hertwich EG, Roux C (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions from the consumption of electric and electronic equipment by Norwegian households. Environ Sci Technol 45:8190–8196
Hischier R (2015) Life cycle assessment study of a field emission display television device. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:61–73
Hischier R, Baudin I (2010) LCA study of a plasma television device. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:428–438
Huisman J (2004). QWERTY and eco-efficiency analysis on cellular phone treatment in Sweden. TU Delft, The Netherlands. Stockholm, Sweden: commissioned by EL-Kretsen
International Standards Organization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principle and framework. ISO 14001
Judl J, Mattila T, Seppala J, Koskela S, Kautto P (2012) Challenges in LCA comparisons of multifunctional electronic devices. Electronics Goes Greens 2012+ (EGG), 2012. IEEE, Berlin, pp 1–5
Lindholm M (2003) Toward environmentally conscious product design 1—a comprehensive DfE implementation in new generation cellular phones. Proceedings of the ISEE 2003, Boston, MA
Lobos A, Babbitt CW (2013) Integrating emotional attachment and sustainability in electronic product design. Challenges 4:19–33
Martens JW (2014) Does the multi-functionality of smartphones justify their environmental impacts? Thesis (M.S.), University of Colorado
Masahiro O, Murakami S, Kida A, Kameya T (2011) A preliminary categorization of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment as secondary metal resources. Waste Manag 31:2150–2160
Murakami S, Oguchi M, Tasaki T, Daigo I, Hashimoto S (2010) Lifespan of commodities, part I: the creation of a database and its review. J Ind Ecol 14(4):598
Negahban A, Chung CH (2014) Discovering determinants of user’s perception of mobile device functionality fit. Comp Hum Beh 35:75–84
Nokia (2005) Integrated product policy pilot project—stage I final report: life cycle environmental issues of mobile phones
Oguchi M, Murakami S, Tasaki T, Daigo I, Hashimoto S (2010) Lifespan of commodities, part II methodologies for estimating lifespan distribution of commodities. J Ind Ecol 14(4):613
Ovia L, Oppermann W, Middendorf A, Zuber K (2000) Case study on the environmental impacts of a mobile phone. Proceedings of EGG 2000, Berlin, Germany
Park PJ, Tahara K (2008) Quantifying producer and consumer-based eco-efficiencies for the identification of key ecodesign issues. J Clean Prod 16:95–104
Park PJ, Tahara K, Inaba A (2007) Product quality-based eco-efficiency applied to digital cameras. J Environ Manag 83:158–170
Park WY, Phadke A, Shah N, Letschert V (2013) Efficiency improvement opportunities in TVs: implications for market transformation programs. Energ Policy 59:361–372
Pegoraro R (2016) The best wireless carriers. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from The Wirecutter. http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wireless-carrier/
Pew Research Center (2014) Retrieved November 20, 2015, from Mobile Technology Fact Sheet. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/
Phone Rated (2016) Top 10 Best Flip Phones 2016. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from http://www.phonerated.com/top-rated-best-overall-flip-phones-global
Ryen EG, Babbitt CW, Williams E (2015) Consumption-weighted life cycle assessment of a consumer electronic product community. Environ Sci Technol 49:2549–2559
Scharnhorst W, Althaus JJ, Classe M, Jolliet O, Hilty LM (2005) The end of life treatment of second generation mobile phone networks: strategies to reduce the environmental impact. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:540–566
Scharnhorst W, Hilty LM, Jolliet O (2006) Life cycle assessment of second generation (2G) and third generation (3G) mobile phone networks. Environ Int 32:656–675
Seager T, Theis T (2002) A uniform definition and quantitative basis for industrial ecology. J Clean Prod 10:225–235
Singhal P (2005) Integrated product policy pilot project—stage I final report: life cycle environmental issues of mobile phones, Espoo, Finland
Skerlos SJ, Morrow WR, Chan K, Zhao F, Hula A, Seliger G, Basdere B, Prasitnarit A (2003) Economic and environmental characteristics of global cellular telephone remanufacturing, IEEE 2003, IEEE
Socolof ML, Overly JG, Kincaid LE, Singh D, Hart KM (2000) Preliminary life-cycle assessment results for the design for the environment computer display project. Proceedings of the IEEE 2000, IEEE
Socolof ML, Overly JG, Geibig JR (2005) Environmental life-cycle impacts of CRT and LCD desktop computer displays. J Clean Prod 13:1281–1294
Sparshott J (2013). About 1 in 3 households has no landline phone. Wall Street Journal, Published Sept. 5 , 2013, https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/05/about-1-in-3-households-has-no-landline-phone/
Takahashi KI, Nakamura J, Kunioka T (2003) What we can do for a sustainable society: a telephone directory case study. Proceedings of EcoDesign 2003, Tokyo
Taylor B (2015) Why you should never sign a cell phone contract again. Time
Thomas NJ, Chang N-B, Qi C (2012) Preliminary assessment for global warming potential of leading contributory gases from a 40-in LCD flat-screen television. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:96–104
TV History (2015) Retrieved November 20, 2015, from Television history—the first 75 years. http://www.tvhistory.tv/1935-1941.htm
US Department of Labor (2015) Retrieved November 18, 2015, from CPI Inflation Calculator. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Williams E (2004) Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input-output methods. Environ Sci Technol 38:6166–6174
Williams E, Ayres R, Heller M (2002) The 1.7 kg microchip: energy and chemical use in the production of semiconductors. Environmental Science and Technology. 36:5504–5510.
Yamaguchi H, Tahara K, Itubo N, Inaba A (2003) A life cycle inventory analysis of cellular phones. Proceedings of EcoDesign 2003: Third International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, Japan
Zink T, Maker F, Geyer R, Amirtharajah R, Akella V (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment of smartphone reuse: repurposing vs. refurbishment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1099–1109
Acknowledgements
The author declares no conflict of interest in this work and would like to acknowledge the use of startup funding in producing this work from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Although some products are mentioned by brand name in this work, it is not an endorsement of a product, but simply a reference used to emphasize example points.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Zbigniew Stanislaw Klos
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 26 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hicks, A.L. Saving energy through multifunctional consumer products: an analysis utilizing current literature and life cycle assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 267–278 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1321-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1321-z