bit-tech.net

LCDs cause greenhouse gas worries

LCDs cause greenhouse gas worries

Your HDTV might give you a stunning picture, but scientists say it's not doing the environment any favours.

Just when you thought you were getting to grips with your carbon footprint, along comes another greenhouse gas that'll roast the world to death – and this time it's your monitor that's at fault.

According to CNet, quoting a study in the Geophysical Research Letters journal published on the 26th of June this year, nitrogen trifluoride – a gas used in the production of LCD displays and various semiconductors – may well be proving more damaging to the environment than the current villain de jour, carbon dioxide.

The gas, which is used for the chemical vapour deposition process during the production of liquid-crystal displays and related products, is thought to be some 17,000 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – which isn't terribly good news vis-à-vis global warming. Worse still, the worldwide production of the gas this year alone will result in emissions equal to the entire greenhouse gas emissions of Austria – from a single chemical.

Atmospheric chemist Michael Prather, one of the brains behind the report, told New Scientist that production of nitrogen trifluoride is likely to reach 8,000 metric tonnes in 2009.

Unlike other greenhouse gases nitrogen trifluoride isn't regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, which was drawn up back in 1997 – before LCD displays had reached the mass-market status they enjoy now. As a result, it was considered a non-issue despite its potency as a greenhouse gas. Ironically, many companies deliberately chose to use nitrogen trifluoride in their factories in order to cut pollution.

Quite what the solution is, no-one knows. I can't see people voluntarily giving up their lovely flat-screen displays, and production is going to continue apace. The best answer would be for an alternative to nitrogen trifluoride to be found that doesn't result in massive increases in production costs – but that's going to take time and money. In the mean time, your low-energy TFT might be reducing your carbon footprint, but what about the rest of the impact on the environment?

Do you see the massive increase in nitrogen trifluouride production as a problem, or should the tree-huggers take their plastic shoes and leave you and your big screen alone? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

45 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
liratheal 4th July 2008, 09:30 Quote
Sorry, but I really don't see where these greenies are going here.

The world's climate changing? Well, I never would have seen THAT coming. The worlds climate changing and drowning London? I could live with that. I could also live with the warmer summers. Not that we've had any yet.
Arkanrais 4th July 2008, 09:41 Quote
eh? what? I wasn't paying attention to the article, too busy burning plastic and polystyrene to care.
sotu1 4th July 2008, 09:43 Quote
i'm no scientist, but i think it's a case of gradually reaching two ends of the extreme and having less in the middle, ie, more freakishly hot or cold or rainy weather and less "normal" weather (or in our case in england perpetual rain)
sotu1 4th July 2008, 09:43 Quote
oh, and world food farms are taking hits, like rice paddy fields in asia
BlackMage23 4th July 2008, 10:10 Quote
The green lobby will always find something new to moan about, and I think we are getting to a point where people are starting to get fed up with them.
However if it is as bad as they say, then it should be changed, just don't expect it soon.
Orlix 4th July 2008, 10:11 Quote
Hmm... the whole emissions from Austria? How bad are they? I believe they are pretty environmentally minded and also... err... small. I am not sure then what that means. Probably the worldwise emissions of eating beans is higher than many countries yet I do not see a ban on beans. :)
-logical-Chimp 4th July 2008, 10:21 Quote
Hmmm

As I understand it, Oz has quite a high level of emissions - cos of all the sheep / cows / other farting wildlife. Farm stock put out a serious amount of gas... ;)
C0nKer 4th July 2008, 10:25 Quote
Should we sing "Final Countdown" in December 2012?
sotu1 4th July 2008, 10:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by -logical-Chimp
Hmmm

As I understand it, Oz has quite a high level of emissions - cos of all the sheep / cows / other farting wildlife. Farm stock put out a serious amount of gas... ;)

umm...that's Oz is Australia, Austria is Europe....but agreed. cows apparently produce 25% of the worlds CO2 emmission.
Bladestorm 4th July 2008, 10:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by -logical-Chimp
Hmmm

As I understand it, Oz has quite a high level of emissions - cos of all the sheep / cows / other farting wildlife. Farm stock put out a serious amount of gas... ;)

Austria.

Small country, near germany, fairly hilly.

Original place of birth of one mustachioed megalomaniac who caused a bit of a tiz in the 30's and 40's.
ParaHelix.org 4th July 2008, 10:37 Quote
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Scientists say a lot of things, but I don't think this is a the top of out races 'worry list'. I care about the environment, but why cant the government put **** into place, since they want to control everything else about our existence, why not this.
mclean007 4th July 2008, 10:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by -logical-Chimp
Hmmm

As I understand it, Oz has quite a high level of emissions - cos of all the sheep / cows / other farting wildlife. Farm stock put out a serious amount of gas... ;)

Er...article refers to Austria, not Australia!

Whole emissions from Austria probably isn't that much - their population is only 8.3m, so it's hardly like we're talking about the carbon emissions of China or something.

Also, I don't really understand what its use is in making LCD panels, but if it is consumed in their manufacture, then surely it is turned into something else, not released into the atmosphere? It's not like CO2, which is a waste gas. If it isn't consumed (i.e. if it is a catalyst or something) then it should be able to be recaptured and recycled.

Anyway, the solution to global warming is staring us in the face but no politician will touch it with a barge pole - nuclear power. It creates zero emissions at the point of generation. That would vastly reduce the output of CO2, which would have a far greater effect on total greenhouse emissions than forcing LCD manufacturers to find an expensive alternative to NF3.
mclean007 4th July 2008, 10:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
cows apparently produce 25% of the worlds CO2 emmission.
I thought that was methane?
mmorgue 4th July 2008, 10:41 Quote
Christ, what *doesn't* contribute to global warming these days? I'm sure my dirty thoughts have opened up a new hole in the ozone layer above the head of some child in Peru who will now get skin cancer.

All because I can't stop thinking about amputee dwarf pr0n..
Flibblebot 4th July 2008, 10:47 Quote
As far as nitrogen trifluoride goes, I'd imagine that it's a sealed process and that the gas gets recycled? I can't imagine that they just release the gas into the atmosphere?
[USRF]Obiwan 4th July 2008, 11:12 Quote
My grandpa told me that in the 50t's (corrected: must be 60t's) the north sea was frozen, waves standing up as ice figures. Extreme colds etc. He also told me that from 1930 till 1965+ every household uses charcoal for warming and stuff and that in winter time the sky would turn black and everything else in the street was black from the charcoal dust and cars where putting out walls of exhaust smoke into the streets. All Factory's where running on charcoal and putting out all kind of chemicals into the air. Toilet waste and other water waste where dropped into the rivers. Noise was everywhere and household waste, chemicals etc was dumped on land or sea and nobody compliant about it, because they did not know better either.

In 2008, we use heating on gas that is filtered out, we have very very clean cars compared to the 50's cars. Factory's filtering exhausts. All water waste is filtered and then returns or goes into the river. Waste is recycled and reused. Now I can eat from the street and swim in the rivers and lakes. The air is 500% cleaner then it ever was before.

So what was the problem again?
Gareth Halfacree 4th July 2008, 11:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
My grandpa told me that in the 50t's the north sea was frozen, waves standing up as ice figures.
Was he drunk at the time, by any chance?
[USRF]Obiwan 4th July 2008, 11:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
My grandpa told me that in the 50t's the north sea was frozen, waves standing up as ice figures.
Was he drunk at the time, by any chance?

No he was not:
http://www.meteolink.nl/nieuw/weerhistorie/winter1963.htm

It was the coldest time of the 19't century: Just google on: winter 63
Gareth Halfacree 4th July 2008, 11:42 Quote
It was more the "waves standing up as ice figures" that I was curious about. Unless I'm being special again - I just can't work out how the sea would freeze fast enough to maintain the waves as ice sculptures. The photos on the site you linked are rather vague, and unfortunately I'm unable to read the text. Nor can I find anything in English that refers to frozen waves on a sea, apart from a retrospective BBC article written by someone who was three months old at the time which states that "Just over the border in Lyme Regis the sea had started to freeze, and further east in Eastbourne the sea actually froze over for several days" and also talks about "pack ice on large estuaries such as the Severn, and the Exe."

I'd love to see a picture of frozen waves. I can imagine that'd look awesome.
shigllgetcha 4th July 2008, 11:43 Quote
cows release mathane gas which cases the same effects as co2
anyway lcd is so much more efficient than old cathode tube monitors that im sure they cause alot less greenhouse gases (production of LCD screens cuases greenhouse gases but the saving in energy offsets this)
shigllgetcha 4th July 2008, 11:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]So what was the problem again?

the problem is this wastefull way of living has been accumalating and were are only starting to see the effects now(climate change takes decades). dirty air etc is reversable as you pointed out urself- cleaner fuels filters etc, climate clange is way way harder to reverse
steveo_mcg 4th July 2008, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
snip.

I suppose it could be formed by waves lapping upon frozen bits then part of them becomes frozen as it pulls back, rinse repeat you'd have an effect that looks like it has been frozen on the spot.
Mister_Tad 4th July 2008, 12:01 Quote
I saved the planet by buying a plasma telly
[USRF]Obiwan 4th July 2008, 12:02 Quote
Its called frozen waves, lots of examples to find on google/youtube etc. The waves goes to shore and freezes, next wave goes over that and freezes, in time you get a frozen wave. In the Netherlands it was way different from the UK side. Same cold but other weather circumstances.

This is the best example how it would have looked in 63:
http://static.flickr.com/70/216788748_1fa2f01a59_b.jpg


Here you can find lots of pictures of frozen waves

Back on topic....
freedom810 4th July 2008, 12:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by C0nKer
Should we sing "Final Countdown" in December 2012?
Im with you!:D
mikeuk2004 4th July 2008, 12:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_Tad
I saved the planet by buying a plasma telly

Im killing the planet with my LCD telly :) Do I care? No, because I got HDTV and loving it :)
Timmy_the_tortoise 4th July 2008, 12:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
My grandpa told me that in the 50t's the north sea was frozen, waves standing up as ice figures.
Was he drunk at the time, by any chance?

No he was not:
http://www.meteolink.nl/nieuw/weerhistorie/winter1963.htm

It was the coldest time of the 19't century: Just google on: winter 63

Winter, 1863?

You speak as if you're granpa was alive to witness it... Is he the OLDEST MAN ALIVE?!?!?!

I'm sick of this "Green" crap.. It's hyped up by marketing arseholes saying "look at us, aren't we great? Saving YOUR planet for you."... It's an overblown situation. We have quite a few more pressing issues to worry about, such as why it's 2008 and there are still 3-4 Billion people without sufficient means to live.

I REALLY hate greenpeace...
chicorasia 4th July 2008, 13:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]

In 2008, we use heating on gas that is filtered out, we have very very clean cars compared to the 50's cars. Factory's filtering exhausts. All water waste is filtered and then returns or goes into the river. Waste is recycled and reused. Now I can eat from the street and swim in the rivers and lakes. The air is 500% cleaner then it ever was before.

So what was the problem again?

According to some theories (Global Dimming), all our filtering, cleaning, catalysts and exhaust particulates (is that even a word?) control is actually accelerating global warming. It seems that all that soot being flung into the atmosphere was reflecting a significant amount of sunlight back into space, slowing down global warming. Anyway, it seems to be a lose-lose scenario.

So, should I replace my dying CRT and poison the soil and water with all sorts of evil heavy metals and chemicals, since we don't have proper hazardous waste disposal in Brazil? Or buy an LCD and poison the skies?

Better yet, let's have it the green way. Let's all go back to nature, live in houses made of bamboo and thatched hatch, cook using only sun-powered stoves (I'm sorry all you English and Scottish folk, you'll have to find a way of living without your hot tea!). We must turn back from decadent things such as running water and sewers. Who wouldn't love to go out on a chilly winter morning to take a pee under a lemon tree?
Timmy_the_tortoise 4th July 2008, 13:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicorasia
Who wouldn't love to go out on a chilly winter morning to take a pee under a lemon tree?

ME.
Gareth Halfacree 4th July 2008, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
This is the best example how it would have looked in 63:
http://static.flickr.com/70/216788748_1fa2f01a59_b.jpg
That is awesome. Cheers for that - I was searching for various combinations of "frozen wave" and not finding anything.
Orlix 4th July 2008, 15:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]So what was the problem again?

the problem is this wastefull way of living has been accumalating and were are only starting to see the effects now(climate change takes decades). dirty air etc is reversable as you pointed out urself- cleaner fuels filters etc, climate clange is way way harder to reverse

The only problem is that there have been climate swings for millenia as seen in fossils. Are we in one of those or are we forcing one? Nobody knows.

I agree with you on the wastefull ways. I remember when I lived in USA that i took out more trash bags after food shopping than what I brought in. It still hppens in Germany where I live now, but is not as bad. We need to be concious of our use the problem is with so many sudies pointing that everything is bad, I guess the only solution is that 60% of the population dies... hmm.. no the bodies would decompose and affect the ozone again... (/off sarcastic and morbid comment)
Thacrudd 4th July 2008, 15:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy_the_tortoise
We have quite a few more pressing issues to worry about, such as why it's 2008 and there are still 3-4 Billion people without sufficient means to live.

If we keep it up there will be close to 7 billion people without sufficient means to live. I'm sure some of it is overhyped but with this many people on this planet we are making an impact on it, there's just no question about it. Whether it's sooner or later, we prolly will be the end of this planet unless people take responsibility for their actions, though I'm sure no one will.
Htr-Labs 4th July 2008, 16:52 Quote
Ok guys, the main reason nitrogen trifluoride is so harmful and potent as a greenhouse gas is because of its dipole moment that happens as it is vaporized to create the crystals needed for display panels. In other words, the compound itself is bonded at a molecular level (duh) which means that because of the energy released to vaporize this certain compound there is currently no way to capture and recycle it without using some form of carbon-based filtering. If you would like you can figure out the Lewis structure for this compound (NF3) as follows. Nitrogen's Electron Config is as follows : 1s2 2s2 2p3, which means there are 5 valence electrons in the outer most shells of the molecule. Fluorine (trifluoride means three (3)) is as follows: 1s2 2s2 2p6 x3, which means there are 7 valence electrons in each molecule of Fluorine. So now we have how many total electrons, 5+7x(3) = 26. The Lewis structure looks like this:

http://faculty.uscupstate.edu/cbender/Web%20page%20folder%20enmass/chm111/Chm%20111%20worksheets/Lewis%20and%20VSEPR%20structures%20for%20111/NF3Lewis.gif

Now we can see that this is polar molecule, but only slightly so. Given the low dipole moment of the compound and the released compounds as it is vaporized, it is converted to tetrafluorohydrazine. During this reaction and several others I don't have time to explain is where we get the harmful release of gases that contribute to global warming. Here is the Wikipedia page for more info on the subject of this compound. Just remember, if you ever need to use this stuff for anything, be extremely careful not to heat without significant body and breathing coverage.

Hope this helps some of you non-beleivers and skeptics out there see how your decisions to smart off to us so-called tree-huggers actually do harm. We are trying to stop things like this so you can continue living. If you'd like to help then stop being so stubborn and turn off the lights and computer INCLUDING THE GIANT LCD IN YOUR TELEVISION ROOM!! It's really not hard just do it.

Htr-Labs
Furymouse 4th July 2008, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Htr-Labs

If you'd like to help then stop being so stubborn and turn off the lights and computer INCLUDING THE GIANT LCD IN YOUR TELEVISION ROOM!! It's really not hard just do it.

But my LCD is done being manufactured so it is no longer using said chemical with hard to pronounce name..... How would turning it off help this situation? I turned it down to 50% brightness as my eyes couldn't handle it and I wanted to be environmentally conscious. So I figure Im doing my part to save the penguins ;)
DXR_13KE 4th July 2008, 20:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furymouse
But my LCD is done being manufactured so it is no longer using said chemical with hard to pronounce name..... How would turning it off help this situation? I turned it down to 50% brightness as my eyes couldn't handle it and I wanted to be environmentally conscious. So I figure Im doing my part to save the penguins ;)

turn it off as in turning it off on the button, not on the remote, and also not leaving it on when there is no one using it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
He also told me that from 1930 till 1965+ every household uses charcoal for warming and stuff and that in winter time the sky would turn black and everything else in the street was black from the charcoal dust and cars where putting out walls of exhaust smoke into the streets. All Factory's where running on charcoal and putting out all kind of chemicals into the air. Toilet waste and other water waste where dropped into the rivers. Noise was everywhere and household waste, chemicals etc was dumped on land or sea and nobody compliant about it, because they did not know better either.

all that stuff reflects radiation back into space, like it would happen in a nuclear winter or in a big ass volcano eruption, these days we don't emit stuff that reflects radiation (the last thing they banned caused acid rain) and emit stuff that captures the heat.


if there is effective sequestration and/or isolation technology then there is no problem with this gas.

one last thought: if the worse of global climate change (AKA global warming) happens then the fact that 3-4 Billion people are without sufficient means to live will be moot.

to give those 3-4 Billion people a means to live would involve forcing "people" (or in this case, parasites) to not steal from the community pie, from the mid classes and the low classes, it would be also necessary a joint push from everyone to avoid war and use that money to help people get on their feet and make humanity live in peace.

i am not pro Greenpeace, i hate them for what they are now, they have become radical and useless, i do believe in scientists and in panels of scientists when they say something is wrong.
Mord 5th July 2008, 14:27 Quote
So the worlds going to hell, at least we'll all be watching it in HD.
talladega 5th July 2008, 18:12 Quote
i think its all a bunch of garbage and i really dont care, but I dont want warmer summers at all. it gets wayyyy too hot hear. there are days were its 40+ C. too hot.
ironjohn 5th July 2008, 19:32 Quote
Oh my GOD!
I just opened a beer!
What are all those bubbles?!

I'm killing the Earth! Ah, ah....ah....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mister_Tad 5th July 2008, 19:36 Quote
Save the planet - drink hard liquor o/
ZERO <ibis> 6th July 2008, 07:43 Quote
Unfortunately no matter what we do here on earth we will NEVER be able to prevent any form of "climate change". Why!? Well look at that big ball in the sky, unless you can control that your never going to be able to do very much to prevent the climate from doing what it has for billions of years -change

We all know that green house gasses trap heat from the sun but lets all remember where that heat comes from -the sun! The sun is not a big light bulb that glows the same way every time every day. It changes, relativity sightly, and outputs different amounts of energy based on how "active" it is. FYI, the activity of the sun is indicated by the number of sunspots present. If you like to base your beliefs about things on cool looking graphs with low error ratios then check out a graph of global temp vs sun spot numbers, you'll find that the ratio is much much closer then even the relation between co2 and temp. We all love the planet but it is important for us to acknowledge all the facts and not only the ones that Hollywood gives us :D

Also with reference to post above about nuclear power: I love how the issue has truly come full circle, to allow some to under stand what I am talking about a quick history: The idea of Global Warming came after the whole Global Cooling scare (thank good we did nothing to try to heat the planet to save earth or we would be in trouble now lol) it was used by Margret Thatcher to promote the construction of nuclear power plants. Gov scientists were tasked to "prove" that such a thing existed so that a "clean" nuclear power plant could be promoted as the only option. The idea did not really work and the story was soon forgotten until another time...
nuclear power is a great solution to energy problems especially in the US #1 price per KW is very low making it great for customers. #2 the cooling towers can actually be used to make oil! #3 They are safe and new ones are even safer! #4 New developments in entrainment now allows for higher grade fuel rods and consume 70+% less power than old designs.
NiHiLiST 6th July 2008, 11:33 Quote
And let me guess, they're still going to tax the motorists for destroying the world.
Mr T 6th July 2008, 14:32 Quote
Dahm looks like i'm going to have to buy a few more TFT's. Gotta keep up my quota after all. ;)
Kysi 6th July 2008, 19:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkanrais
eh? what? I wasn't paying attention to the article, too busy burning plastic and polystyrene to care.
ZERO <ibis> 7th July 2008, 22:22 Quote
Last time I checked the earth has been "cooling" and not "heating up" over the last 8 years, also surface temp was increasing at a faster rate than atmospheric temp meaning that the "previous" warming tread could not be the result of additional green house gasses...
ZERO <ibis> 7th July 2008, 22:26 Quote
"if the worse of global climate change (AKA global warming)" - I just wanted to point out that the earth warming is not the worst climate change we could have. In fact it would be much much worse for the earth to substantially cool.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums