Green phone?

[Christophe]

In the case of Belgium, the practice of telephones sold at a loss is prohibited. It would be interesting to know the renewal figures to know if there is really less renewal in number of phones or if the difference is rather in the quality of the renewed devices.

No need for numbers I think: just look at our Belgian and French knowledge and compare the age of their mobile on average ...

It is clear that the French renew their phones much faster ...

I have in mind that the average lifespan of mobile phones was 18 months but I believe that it is valid for England ...

[Chartrousin]

An interesting study from ADEME, on the analysis of the life cycle of a laptop:
http://www.ademe.fr/internet/telephone- ... rtable.pdf

Conclusions:

This study allowed us to show that the environmental impacts of a mobile phone come mainly from the manufacturing phase and more particularly from the LCD screen, the electronic assembly, the battery and the charger.
Regarding the functionality of the phone, the comparative study demonstrated the possible actions to limit the environmental impact associated with the use of a mobile phone, namely:
Large LCD screens, GPS function and flap technology should be avoided.
· It is advisable to disconnect the charger from the telephone when it is not being charged. Indeed, a connected charger consumes whatever happens to electricity! To further reduce this consumption, it is even better to use a dynamo charger. This conclusion applies in the hypothetical case where you can choose the type of charger when buying the phone.
· Rather than leaving your phone stored in a cupboard, it is preferable to put it in a treatment channel, newly accessible thanks to the regulations on the treatment of electronic waste at the end of its life. The phone will be recycled or reused after repair.

[Did67]

In return for this, we have much more expensive communications in France! CQFD: we reimburse telephones received "free".

[Woodcutter]

Well, something too, I changed my phone recently to be able to lower its SAR ...

[Did67]

To illustrate what I said above: telephone for 1 (or a few) euros, with everything and anything as a "gift", go see:

http://webmail1f.orange.fr/webmail/fr_F ... E_RETURN=1


Without any ads, let it be clear !!!

[C moa]

An interesting study from ADEME, on the analysis of the life cycle of a laptop:
http://www.ademe.fr/internet/telephone- ... rtable.pdf

Conclusions:

This study allowed us to show that the environmental impacts of a mobile phone come mainly from the manufacturing phase and more particularly from theLCD screen, electronic assembly, battery and charger.

They are very strong at ADEME, what's in a phone apart from the screen, the electronic assembly, the battery and the charger of a phone? the carton?

[Chartrousin]

They are very strong at ADEME, what's in a phone apart from the screen, the electronic assembly, the battery and the charger of a phone? the carton?

This is true, but in fact this is a life cycle analysis (LCA), which takes into account all the impacts of the "life" of a phone (manufacture, use, ...) . They concluded that the use impact (in fact it is mainly the battery charge power consumption) was minimal, and that the biggest impacts were, in order, due to the manufacturing of:
- the LCD screen
-the electronic assembly
-battery
-the charger

This is the objective of an LCA. Talking about cardboard packaging is not that stupid as that, on certain products, LCAs give very surprising results. On poorly designed products, transport and packaging can represent the greatest environmental impact, even more than the design of the product itself. Other times it is the use of the product.
Here is manufacturing (90 to 99% of the impact depending on the criteria studied).

[Did67]

Which brings us back to the heart of the matter: if it is the manufacture that "weighs" so heavy from an ecological point of view, and not the use, it is because it is indeed wrong to let us "Fuck" by offers to renew our laptops while they are still working - or we should simply change the battery.

Rest, as an admissible argument, that of radiation and replacement by less emitting devices ... Come on, I leave a way out for those who want an argument to change absolutely!

[Woodcutter]

[...] Remain, as admissible argument, that of the radiations and the replacement by less emissive devices ... Go, I leave a door of exit to those which want an argument to change absolutely!

Do you think I needed an argument to change absolutely?

[Did67]

No, I was in my own reasoning:

1) it is not economical to replace your device - it is demonstrated above (given the gray energy put into its fabircation)

So there are two alternatives:

1) admit that we "consume stupidly", which, on such a small object, can be defended and assumed

2) or still seek to reduce its exposure to radiation, and we can then justify the acquisition of a new device ...

I was in my reasoning, but I do not care: I change my battery, as I wrote above. I don't want to break my head learning to use a new cuckoo clock, I only master 10% of the possibilities of the one I have!