• On TV.com: Dollhouse CANCELED, What Went Wrong?
July 3, 2008 11:02 AM PDT

LCD making worse for environment than coal?

by Elsa Wenzel
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 30 comments

A chemical used to make LCD televisions and semiconductors could cause more global warming than coal-fired power plants, a report warns.

Nitrogen trifluoride is a "missing greenhouse gas," according to a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on June 26. It's used in chemical vapor deposition, which makes liquid crystal displays, semiconductors, and synthetic diamond.

Production of the chemical could double to 8,000 metric tons in 2009, atmospheric chemist Michael Prather, who co-wrote the report, told New Scientist.

Nitrogen trifluoride's globe-warming effect reportedly could be 17,000 times stronger than that of carbon dioxide.

However, the picture is incomplete because nitrogen trifluoride isn't among the six gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol international climate change agreement.

This year alone, its production would release the equivalent of the global-warming emissions from Austria, totaling some 67 million metric tons, New Scientist noted.

And that would amount to more global-warming pollution than all the industrialized world's emissions of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and of sulfur hexafluoride, which is considered more potent.

Kyoto's terms left out nitrogen trifluoride and some dozen other gases, in part because they weren't produced at a scale large enough to cause significant harm.

Some companies had turned to the man-made chemical initially to reduce pollution.

The market for flat-screen televisions, including LCDs, is expected to boom with the United States' full transition to digital television next February.

Along with it, watchdog groups warn that additional ecological harm could come, if toxic electronics waste isn't disposed of properly. Americans are expected to discard 80 million analog TVs by the end of 2009.

However, LCD televisions are often painted as eco-friendly because they consume less power than plasma and older rear-projection sets.

Recent posts from Green Tech
Smart grid potential gated by broadband
2012 Olympics showpiece unveiled in London
Google hosts energy experts amid climate talks
Microturbine-powered hybrid supercar to debut in Los Angeles
Pedal-powered Christmas tree lights Copenhagen
Underground data center to help heat Helsinki
Science untarnished by 'Climategate,' U.N. says
U.S., China help climate talks, but tangles remain
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (30 Comments)
by rucknrun July 3, 2008 11:21 AM PDT
Interesting in the article you reference it shows rear projection uses less power then LCD.
Reply to this comment
by M C July 3, 2008 11:32 AM PDT
Journalism 101: Adding a "?" after a controversial statement makes it stand out in people's minds as a "fact."

Just saying...
Reply to this comment
by sjkx July 3, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
In my mind a '?' makes a statement appear to be questioned, not stated as fact.
by stepyourgameup July 3, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
Another reason to get a plasma.
Reply to this comment
by ReVeLaTeD July 3, 2008 12:16 PM PDT
Exactly. I hope this information will help plasma get back in the game, because LCD production has almost tripled from 5 years ago. I can only imagine how much damage to the environment has been caused by these LCDs.
by rucknrun July 3, 2008 11:39 AM PDT
I am only talking about the last line of the article.
Reply to this comment
by mmichaels July 3, 2008 11:57 AM PDT
"Nitrogen trifluoride's globe-warming effect reportedly could be 17,000 times stronger than that of carbon dioxide."

See...I KNEW CO2 wasn't really a problem! Maybe we can focus on selling Nitrogen triflouride credits to those who want a flat-screen tv? Maybe measure a Nitrogen triflouride footprint...Probably not. It's not as marketable and doesn't sound as good as "carbon credits".
Reply to this comment
by Spartan_458 July 3, 2008 12:57 PM PDT
Ooooh, I'm supposed to feel bad and be alarmed by the article on "global warming." Not.
Reply to this comment
by rucknrun July 3, 2008 1:02 PM PDT
Don't forget they call it climate change now since things have been cooling off for the last 4 years.
Reply to this comment
by William Crow July 3, 2008 1:47 PM PDT
Any good conservationist doesn't have a computer, automobile, or flat screen TV. The list could be longer. Those that call themselves conservationists and do are fakes and posers. But then...nothing new about that.
Reply to this comment
by Tsee-1968031069905097881578618 July 3, 2008 3:02 PM PDT
Right. Being a conservationist means you should kill yourself, apparently. What a great argument. At least I haven't heard this one before.
by rucknrun July 3, 2008 3:12 PM PDT
Good point!!
Reply to this comment
by Hernys July 3, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
> Those that call themselves conservationists and do are fakes and posers
Really? So if I planted a thousand hectares with trees but use a computer and a car to manage the operation then I'm not a conservationist, but someone that does nothing but buying magazines about wildlife is?
Your logic is so lame that it makes me sad.
Reply to this comment
by MaLvaDo39 July 3, 2008 3:22 PM PDT
Humans contribute 3% of greenhouse gases into the environment. Mother nature contributes 97%.

Do not believe these shock talking "scientists"...or at least get some proof on why temperatures are rising. Exactly why? ... and they won't be able to tell you.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis July 4, 2008 1:41 AM PDT
They know 'exactly why' temperatures are rising: the Sun is in a period where it is putting out more energy than usual, just like it has done MANY times over the billion year life of the Earth.
by WJeansonne July 3, 2008 5:26 PM PDT
Oh, great. Something else to give the tree-hugging looney leftists to cry about.
Reply to this comment
by bobcalder July 3, 2008 5:55 PM PDT
Read this:
http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/nitrogen-trifluoride-as-an-anthropogenic-greenhouse-forcing-gas/

No NF3 in Plasma manufacturing. No fact checking. rofls
Reply to this comment
by bobcalder July 3, 2008 6:12 PM PDT
MaLvaDo39, it is no longer under discussion. You evidently missed the research community explaining it for the last three years. It would be a good idea to listen to researchers and not reporters or think tank cretins who were paid to sow doubt. Your argument is cut and paste kiddo.

The NF3 article may very well be silly. It doesn't negate solid science done by over fifteen hundred climate scientists from nearly every country on the planet.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis July 4, 2008 1:43 AM PDT
Global warming isn't solid science. In fact, the Army Corp of Engineers just came out and said that most global warming, in fact almost all, is coming from the Sun being in a period of higher energy output.
So, there is jack **** we can do about that, but get used to not having a polar ice cap until the energy output of the sun slacks a little and build in accordance with the new 'high tides'.
by MaLvaDo39 July 4, 2008 7:04 PM PDT
I like that you called me kiddo.
It makes me feel like you're older and have more experience.
This alone makes what you say absolutely true.

And a scientific consensus is not scientific proof.
by guytaur1 July 3, 2008 6:30 PM PDT
In Australia our reports have been about Plasma not Lcd on this topic. So is it both just Plasma or just Lcd?
Reply to this comment
by UrbanBard July 3, 2008 8:08 PM PDT
This is stupid stuff. The most powerful Global warming gas on the planet is water vapor. We would be freezing to death, right now, without it. The only place where CO2 has a noticeable effect is in dry areas--deserts and the upper latitudes of Asia and Alaska.

Now, the Environmentalists want to decry a chemical which will never have the volume released to have a noticeable effect.

Then, you add in that Global Warming is passe'. This year was the coldest on record in many places for the last 60 to a hundred years. It snowed in Baghdad this winter, for Christ's sake.

The Weather Satellites say that the Earth lost 0.6 decrees Centigrade this winter. That wipes out the 0.7 decree Centigrade rise in Earth's temperature that got the Environmentalists so excited.

We are in for colder weather. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation will be in its cold phase for the next thirty years.

Worse, Sun Spot Cycle 24 should have started a year and a half ago and did not. A low number of sun spots means cold weather because the Sun is not putting out as much heat.

All this is questionable, because we don't know if the trends will continue. Getting excited about some minor chemical shows how off base the Environmentalists are. They are propagandists, pure and simple. Nothing they say makes sense.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis July 4, 2008 1:44 AM PDT
Finally, someone who GETS IT. Someone who finally realizes that global warming is bunk, and that the SUN controls most of the temperature on this planet, if not almost all.
Enough said here.
by July 4, 2008 5:08 AM PDT
Anyone who tells you anything like 'the science is done' or 'you can't talk about that because it's already decided' is NOT a scientist. He is a religionist with a belief system. The 'science' of anything is never done. The 'science' of something as simple as water is not done. If you choose to believe something with as many variables as global climate is 'done', you, sir, are one of the enraptured. The most overwhelming influence on our climate is the sun with tectonics next. 'Man' is way down the list. Believe what you want, but do not insist upon anyone else believing with you. There's an old saying about urinating on my back and telling me it's raining. It isn't; and telling me so doesn't prove anything...except your gullibility.
Reply to this comment
by zoo22ooz July 4, 2008 4:20 PM PDT
NF3 is also used to make solar photovoltaic panels.

What is the environmentalist position regarding this?

Cant drill, cant build nukes, now - cant manufacture solar panels.
Reply to this comment
by spothannah July 4, 2008 6:00 PM PDT
As I understand it the CO2 problem not only comes from its production but also the fact that it is produced everywhere. I'm guessing that this "everywhere" production is not a problem in the production/use of NitrogenTrifluoride. If this is true, it would probably be easier to recapture at the sites where it is produced/utilized. Or, is it that it is somehow stored in the panels and then when they are discarded the gas is released into the environment? Just wondering.
Reply to this comment
by BenFlavoredCandy July 4, 2008 8:06 PM PDT
spothannah, thank you for saying something relevant to this article. NF3 is emitted in a few manufacturing processes, but only in manufacturing processes. I don't know of specific capture technologies, but any point-source emissions are much more easily combated than mobile sources.

For the record, H2O is considered an air pollutant while CO2 is not UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT. That does not mean CO2 does not, has not, and will not have adverse ecological effects.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (30 Comments)

S.F. hacker space: Heaven for the DIY set?

The Noisebridge hacker space offers sewing and Mandarin classes, soldering workshops, Internet-controlled front door access, and a server room with no door.
• Photos: Circuits, code, community

The browser battles go on and on

roundup From Firefox to IE and from Chrome to Opera and Safari, there's no sitting still for browser makers looking to keep their products fresh and competitive.

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech guru Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right