|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
pricey
Joined: 28 Feb 2005 Posts: 6444
|
|
|
|
|
Will
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 571 Location: Grenoside, Sheffield
|
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
jema Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 28239 Location: escaped from Swindon
|
|
|
|
|
judith
Joined: 16 Dec 2004 Posts: 22789 Location: Montgomeryshire
|
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
puffedpride
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 300 Location: bristol
|
|
|
|
|
Fee
Joined: 21 Mar 2005 Posts: 15922 Location: Earth
|
|
|
|
|
ele
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 Posts: 814 Location: Derby
|
|
|
|
|
Will
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 571 Location: Grenoside, Sheffield
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 06 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
The range from 12% to 53% is for the same appliance (an AAB rated washing machine), calculated according to three different bases.
Based on the total electrical energy consumed over the life of the machine, from raw material extraction through production, distribution, use, maintenance and disposal, the phase up to arrival with end user is 12% of the total.
If other factors such as scarcity of materials, environmental impact of extraction, pollutants created in the production process, pollutants created in use, etc, etc are included in an analysis of the whole life, the impact of the phase up to end user rises to up to 53% of the total, depending on the weighting used.
The point this illustrates is that energy usage is only part of the impact of a product - arguably if entirely renewable energy sources were used, the energy impact could be considerably reduced.
The aim of the study was to estimate mathematically the point at which it becomes environmentally desirable to replace an appliance - i.e. the overall impact of replacing an existing product with a new one is less than continuing to use the old one. On a purely energy based calculation (with an assumption as to how much more efficient the new appliance is) it appears that regular replacement is desirable. However if all the other environmental impact factors are taken into account, the improvement in efficiency required for replacement to be desirable is far higher, and replacement is unlikely to have a positive impact.
None of this has anything to do with whether dishwashing is more or less environmentally damaging than hand washing, but it's an interesting twist on working out how to limit our impact. |
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
jema Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 28239 Location: escaped from Swindon
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45676 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
tawny owl
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 563 Location: Hampshire
|
|
|
|
|
|