Article table of contents
This article is a stub, you can help Playgreen by editing it.
The situation of current PCs?
Energy consumption is one of the serious factors that have an impact on the environment. Inside a computer, the most power-draining component is the CPU. Intel's new Core 2 Duo Extreme will still use 75 watts. VIA is preparing low-voltage components, but unfortunately, they are less powerful.
Two other components are tree killers. Graphic cards such as ATI's or nVidia's cards are likely to boost the PC energy consumption up to 300 watts or more -- that's why powerhouse systems need a 750-watt power supply. And the old-school CRT, which can use more than 100 watts by itself, and contains toxic materials such as lead, mercury, barium, cadmium and phosphorous. If improperly managed, the health risks associated with human contact to these five toxic substances within the CRT can be deadly.
Selecting the lower-impact components
Ironically, you can build a green PC that's more powerful than the system you are using today. The reason: The progress of technology. The newest products today are more powerful and use less energy then older.
An example of combination for a greener PC is:
- SeaSonic? S12 Energy Plus 650 power supply, an 80 Plus-certified product that runs quietly. In addition, it complies with the ATX 12V and EPS 12V specifications, which also address the issue of power draw. This is a very efficient PSU that sustains its efficency over wide range of power consumption. Lower grade PSUs? are less efficent when less power is used. All PSUs will however use only the power they need (plus some power lost due to the efficency factor).
- Antec Solo case. Made mostly from plastics, this light-as-a-pillow case uses the ATX form factor, but the Intel DG965SS? motherboard fits into it just fine.
- Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 160GB SATA hard drive, for two reasons. First, this single-platter drive uses less energy than a two-platter drive would. And second, SATA uses slightly less energy than IDE.
- Thermaltake Big Typhoon heat sink and fan combo, which looks like a souped-up motorcycle engine. It's all lead-free and the Big Typhoon really is whisper-quiet; hence the system should sound as lean as it looks and operates.
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 or AMD X2 4600 processor. E6700 runs 42 percent faster than the Intel Pentium D 960 yet consumes 40 percent less energy. Install it on the matching Intel DG965SS motherboard, which consumes 20 watts. This microATX board uses less energy and is less hazardous to the environment than a full ATX motherboard. Plus, it comes with an integrated 3D graphics and surround sound, which means you can skip those expansion cards and save more energy. That is if you aren't a gamer, if you are you will need a better graphics card and another motherboard. But if you aren't a gamer then you probably don't need the E6700 processor either. In that case you can choose among AMD X2 energy efficient CPUs? (X2 3800 and more), in combination with a motherboard with an integrated GeForce6150?/6100 graphics accelerator. The X2 4600 is performance-wise equivalent to Core 2 Duo E6400 but is cheaper and more energy-efficient. It is also sufficient for todays games, when coupled with a stronger graphics card than the GeForce6150.
- If you want to play games you will need a separate graphics card. It is impossible to have an energy-efficient computer with a high-end graphics card. However, there are more efficient options at the mid-range. The GeForce? 7900gs use around 20W idle and almost 50W under load. The slightly faster Radeon 1950Pro is 24W idle and 64W load. The 8800gts on the other side uses whole 55W idle and 102W under load (GTX version consumes 70W/130W). Another option is the almost ancient Radeon 9600pro which will give you much more performace than the integrated graphics and consumes only 9W idle and 15 under load. You will have to look for it on the second-hand market (ebay etc.).
- If you're concerned that Windows Vista won't run on these components (considering Windows XP is being discontinued quite soon), you may want to consider running Ubuntu(approve sites) (ubuntu.com) or another Linux-based Operating system, as these require less system resources yet are still up-to-par with Windows and Macs.
Laws Regarding Green PCs
There are more and more laws coming on the books requiring that companies make their products greener. In Europe there is the Reduction of Hazardous Substances Directive and in the US the Energy Star Ratings. In fact, in July, the Energy Star ratings are going to change to affect the requirements for PCs in the United States.
What's in your computer?
Strides have been made in relation to greening of computer companies. Unfortunately, this has not resulted in the complete greening of computer companies, as hazardous substances and processes still form a part of the production process, despite the recent implementation of European Union (EU) regulations to restrict the use of certain toxins in electronic equipment (marked with an asterix* below). Some of the toxic substances still in use include:
- Brominated Flame Retardants* (BFRs): used in printed circuit boards, cables, wires and plastic for computer casings. They can affect learning and memory functions in humans.
- Cadmium*: used in rechargeable batteries and computer screens. Can affect the nervous system.
- Mercury*: used in batteries, may be harmful to the nervous system and toxic in high doses.
- Lead*: used in cathode ray tubes, can be harmful to the nervous system and poisonous in high doses.
- Flux: its chemical reaction facilitates the soldering process. In high concentrations it can cause dizziness, unconsciousness and even death. High levels can also cause depression in the central nervous system.(3)
With most big brand companies outsourcing the production of various computer components to multiple suppliers, health and safety standards within these supply chains have become the focus of environmental and workers’ rights groups. For example, Greenpeace International’s ‘Eliminate toxic chemicals’ campaign has produced a Green Electronics Guide which includes a rating of computer companies based on their use of hazardous materials (see list below). It also scores companies on their product take-back.
Greenpeace's April 2007 leading mobile and PC manufacturers ratings:
- 8/10 Lenovo - Progress on all criteria but loses points for not having products free of the worst chemicals on the market yet.
- 7.3/10 Nokia - Good on all criteria, but needs clear timeline for PVC phase out for all applications. Needs to better report on how many discarded mobiles it recycles.
- 7/10 Sony Ericsson - The first to set 2008 as its deadline to put on the market products free of the worst chemicals. Some products are already greener, but needs better take-back reporting.
- 7/10 Dell - Still among the top but loses points for not having models free of the worst chemicals. Strong support for take-back.
- 6.3/10 Samsung - Moving up the rank and gaining points for take-back policies. But its take back system is not yet global and needs improvement.
- 6.3/10 Motorola - Loses points for not providing clear timelines for phase out of worst chemicals.
- 6/10 Fujitsu-Siemens - Some models free of the worst chemicals, but should improve take-back and recycling.
- 5.6/10 HP - Needs to do better on the chemicals criteria especially phase out timelines and greener products. It loses points for weak definition of take-back policies.
- 5.3/10 Acer - Improved chemical policies but no models free of the worst chemicals. Needs to improve on take-back.
- 4.3/10 Toshiba - Some models without the worst chemicals and has gained points by providing timelines for chemical phase out. But loses points for poor waste and take-back criteria.
- 4/10 Sony - Some models without the worst chemicals, but loses a penalty point for inconsistent take-back policies.
- 3.6/10 LGE - It loses a penalty point for inconsistent take-back policies. But scores points for providing a mobile free of the worst chemicals.
- 3.6/10 Panasonic - Failing to keep up with the movement of all the other companies. No commitment to eliminate the worst chemicals, and poor score on take-back.
- 2.7/10 Apple - Holding firmly in last place: low scores on almost all criteria and no progress.