Breasy Solar | Articles | www.breasysolar.com.

au

Oct-10

How can systems thinking improve societys metabolism for televisions and reduce the stress placed on urban infrastructure?
David Shirley
David Shirley, Master of Engineering (Sustainable Energy), Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, e-mail: david.f.shirley@gmail.com
Abstract This paper investigates the environmental impacts of burgeoning television consumption. Televisions are 2nd in household appliance energy intensity in Australia and are predominately deposited in landfill after just 5 years (Jones, 2007). This is a growing waste stream and has much wider implications on the urban ecosystem. Society must plan for a multitude of varying systems to deliver beneficial environmental, economic, and social outcomes from television consumption, of which the use phase generates the highest impact to the urban system as a whole. Government program effectiveness at promoting energy efficiency and developing a circular flow of materials must be complimented with a holistic approach in order to make significant inroads into television sustainability. The recommendation reached is to depict the annual operating cost alongside the purchase price, at the point of sale, to tackle increasing TV screen size and energy consumption. Index Terms CRT, EE, e-waste, Plasma, LCD, LCA, MEPS, OLED Introduction Australian viewing habits are changing as consumers bring home larger and more powerful televisions. Indeed the broadcasting and television industries are in a state of flux, as Australians undergo a mandated switch from analogue to digital signals and new technologies such as 3D TVs are heralded. Whether or not the launch of 3D TVs adds value or is just another clever marketing ploy, the fact remains that the number of televisions will soon outnumber people in the average Australian household (Singer, 2010).

The outline is as follows: the first section introduces pertinent background information and television trends for critical analysis. Secondly, issues of sustainability are discussed in a conceptual framework, with commentary on current performance from various stakeholders. Thirdly, the barriers and opportunities followed by potential implications from failure to address television consumption relating to the urban ecosystem as a whole. Lastly, recommendations are forwarded, followed by revisiting the main challenges in the conclusion. Context The panorama of media and entertainment brought into the average Australian household includes 3-4 hours of television viewing per day in 2005. TVs are the 2nd biggest energy consuming appliance behind refrigerators and growing (Jones, 2007), whereas refrigerator energy efficiency has increased at 4.6% per annum from 1993 to 2005 (DCCEE, 2009). A typical 42 plasma consumes 2.5 times more energy than a traditional 27 CRT(Pears, 2010) and exhibits a reduced usage duration of approximately 5 years, rather than the previous 10 year retention norm (Singer, 2010). This high turnover rate destines 84% of electronic waste to landfill, which in 2007-08 of the 16.8 million TVs and computers having reached their end of life, only 10% were recycled (EPHC, 2010). Obviously switching on a television has far greater environmental and social ramifications. These consequences are not likely to disappear as television saturation is set to continue as a medium in the digital age, due in part to marketing strategies that operate on powerful premises, such as Time Warners TV Everywhere (Bewkes, 2010). One mans vulgarity is anothers lyrics, but lets be clear on exactly what the likely future costs of television consumption entail for our urban ecosystems. Forecasts, such as Figure 1, show that from 2000 to 2015 energy consumption of televisions hence carbon emissions will increase more than 3 fold. The reasons for this are many, although on a technology front as the market share for Plasma televisions declines the number of units will continue to rise, as the common assumption that the vast majority of new TVs act as a replacement for existing sets is un-

Several issues require response from varying stakeholders due to this growing waste stream. A national approach to electronic waste (e-waste) management has been legislated to take effect in 2011 and address community concerns regarding e-waste recycling. Projects that aim to prevent hazardous materials like lead and mercury from entering the environment deserve merit, but what about mitigating stress on the electricity grid, climate change and health services, which are all part of an urban ecosystem? Developing a sustainable metabolism for TV entertainment has much wider implications.

Page 1

Breasy Solar | Articles | www.breasysolar.com.au

Oct-10

founded. Additionally, as LCD televisions win market share from Plasma televisions it is anticipated that Plasma manufacturers will migrate their product to larger screen sizes (Jones, 2007).

should be turned off completely including when on standby, given that behavioural aspects play a significant role.

Figure 2: Relative Comparison of Overall Environmental Impact by Television Technology [SOURCE: Hischier & Baudin, 2010]

Figure 1: Digital CEnergy Forecast of Energy Use by TV type [SOURCE: Jones, 2007]

This forecast reveals the impact both technology and consumer behaviour have on TV market share, but more importantly environmental impact. Understanding which technology and stage in the complete lifecycle of a television generates the greatest impact is critical to avoid misguided and token efforts at minimising the impact to our urban ecosystems. A recent television Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), comparing LCD, CRT and Plasma technologies from cradleto-grave, identifies the stages of use and production as yielding the highest environmental impact (Hischier & Baudin, 2010). Even though LCD technology is more Energy Efficient (EE), Hischier & Baudin show that LCD units garner the highest impact during production via indicators including human toxicity, acidification, abiotic resource depletion and marine aquatic ecotoxicity. Whereas an equivalent Plasma unit, even though it consumes more energy when in use, maintains a lower overall impact in terms of eco-indicator score, Figure 2. The conclusion reached is one of preference toward Plasma rather than LCD units, pronounced by the lower impact of the production phase electronics and the potential for recovery through recycling. Whilst recycling is advisable, the impact of the use phase depends significantly on the electricity mix utilised. Insofar as fossil-fuel electricity derived from brown coal is sourced, Plasma technology is redistributed as having the highest impact, somewhat dissolving the ecological benefit from endof-life material recovery strategies. What then becomes of Hischier & Baudins advice to retain televisions for as long as possible due to the impact from the production phase? The answer is not straightforward. As there exists a difference in the materials and emissions associated with each of the main television varieties, I believe that the relative environmental performance is important. However, what can be concluded is that televisions as with all electronic devices

To what degree behavioural aspects influence societies collective burden on the environmental and social systems that support urban communities is highly complex. A direct impact on the environment arises from the amount of carbon emissions produced upstream during electricity generation and distribution, but also social aspects including health and cognitive learning capability. Several studies have been conducted into the harmful impacts of television viewing habits. The widespread belief is that exposure to television impairs early development learning outcomes in children. TV exposure has also been partially linked to childrens socio-economic background and the ensuing class divide (Teutsch, 2010). As causality has not been proved, television viewing per se does not have any measurable impact on childrens test scores (Munasib et. al, 2010). However, if we consider a wider perspective, it is all to evident that hours accrued watching television are negative given that time could be better spent engaging in enriching activities and tasks that include physical activities which are both beneficial for mental and physical health, memory retention and decreased risk of early death (Kellett, 2010). The health impacts from a sedentary lifestyle are indeed magnified via substantial hours of TV viewing, particularly in Australia. The implications are further still from subsequent impacts on the ability of health services to cope. Outwardly it appears that hospitals and ambulance infrastructure are struggling with current demand, troublesome as cities like Melbourne are set to expand by one million people by 2030 (DSE, 2005). Key Issues Society must plan for a multitude of varying systems to deliver beneficial environmental, economic, and social outcomes in urban ecosystems and this requires finding alternative solutions unlike those proposed via analytical paradigms. Instead, a holistic perspective is supported, one which considers systems to be more than the sum of their parts due to networks of relationships within a system that give rise to the whole (Jackson, 2003). An urban metabolism is a systems way of looking at the resource inputs and

Page 2

Breasy Solar | Articles | www.breasysolar.com.au

Oct-10

waste outputs of groups (Pamminger, 2008). Therefore by applying systems thinking it is possible to explain the underlying framework that gives rise to behaviour of television consumption in an urban system, to both consolidate and identify shortcomings and optimise the entire system. The key television consumption issues, those at the forefront of sustainable practices, engage in energy efficiency and the urban materials challenge. Equally important is the broader ethical and social terrain, eschewed by the current preoccupation of consumer orientated modes of citizenship (Miller, 2007). In particular, the current focus on selfregulation leading to a displacement of questions of social responsibility away from government and corporations onto individuals and their lifestyle choices (Lewis, 2008). I believe questions concerning ethical consumption of televisions and social responsibility surrounding our contemporary lifestyles approach the heart of a need to develop a sustainable metabolism for TV. Insofar as facilitating reduced exposure to the idiot box, the paths forward are less defined. Regardless, we must adopt a rethink in treating the waste stream as a resource and should strive to use less in every process along the material chain, only then can we be armed with the knowledge to act on our detrimental couch potato behaviour. In order to rise to the urban materials challenge we need to use fewer materials, energy and maximise recovery of wastes generated during all phases along the lifecycle of a product. At the end-of-life phase the opportunity for recycling is a viable tool to begin tackling issues regarding toxic/heavy element accumulation and runoff, but equally the high recyclability of materials such as copper and glass. However, the potential benefit of energy recovery is minor in terms of environmental impact compared to the production and usage phases as stated earlier. One reason stems from the potential for sub-optimal outcomes from waste management strategies, as transportation of e-waste to specialised recycling plants is necessary and may incur a net cost rather than benefit to the environment. Thus, focusing primarily on recycling is misguided, as the additional tools afforded to tackle this challenge exist in a hierarchical order Redesign, Reduce, Refuse, Reuse and then Recycle (Pears, 2010). To illustrate this order of preference, a redesign initiative such as requiring products have the ability for disassembly, promotes end-of-life recycling to a greater capacity. This ability for redesign to drive change in more than one area is invaluable. What role then does the consumer assimilate in this 5R model? Surely the consumer can have an affect on stakeholders upstream, to reallocate social and environmental outcomes and help grasp EE opportunities? Whilst con-

sumer pull can enable some degree of product avoidance, it cannot hope to achieve significant reallocation upstream unless either the majority or most influential groups of consumers are sending similar messages on the types of products they desire and are equally unresponsive to products or services to the contrary. Indeed the urban system under analysis is far more complicated, I posit that the problem exists both within consumer groups and their locus of control, but also with institutional arrangements that are able to dictate the rules of regulation. However, Sonys latest LED LCD model televisions obtain best in class energy efficiency, at just 63W for a 32 set, with several eco-settings including a presence sensor for auto-off when occupants are absent. Whilst it is promising to see manufacturers respond with EE gains, in practice social formations and hidden product origins and impacts tend to form an effective veil between consumer and manufacturer. The result often removes substantial decision making on behalf of the end user, manifested here by the absence in communicating the relatively high impact of the production process to consumers, particularly for an LCD TV. Thus consumer choice is handy, yet can any effective solution involve consuming our way to sustainability? As invalid as this statement may seem - and conversely as valid as an oxymoron - the potential for a workable result is hindered when one considers the difficulty of reducing energy intensiveness while TV screens increase in size and energy consumption. Unfortunately, societys reliance on landmark technology, in this case organic LED screens (OLED), which are reportedly twice as efficient as current TV technologies, may fail to actually reduce energy consumption if TV sizes continue to increase. Initially OLED technology has been restricted to smaller screen sizes, however, manufacturers and consumers are pushing to go larger (Jones, 2007). To climb mount sustainability the flow of e-waste needs to become circular, hence all of the tools in the sustainability arsenal should be implemented. Government programs and policies are tackling some of these issues, with additional programs that provide old CRT donations to the community. Programs aimed at reusing CRTs are welcomed, particularly as they generally use less energy and have technical life-spans far in excess of retention norms. The policies which set-out to regulate markets and industries, setting performance standards and focusing user attention on certain issues, aim to provide a higher level of informed decision to consumers and set standards within industry. Examples using both policy tools are found with the energy star scheme and Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS), which are mandatory for most appliances sold in Australia. However, the effectiveness of Aus-

Page 3

Breasy Solar | Articles | www.breasysolar.com.au

Oct-10

tralian programs is somewhat limited, compared to Japanese top-runner programs promoting best in class Energy Efficiency (EE) adoption. This is due in part by the scale and relatively low stringency levels for labelling and MEPS respectively (Pears 2010). To illustrate this point, television energy consumption has risen dramatically and is expected to double between 2004 and 2014, due to the rise of plasma and LCD technology (Cubby 2008). Anecdotal experience indicates that the majority of consumers of plasma and LCD televisions predominately relegate energy efficiency toward the lower end of priority during purchase, especially as energy labels have only recently been mandated. Is the reason for this simply due to consumer irrelevance regarding EE in such devices? An A.C. Neilson survey suggests otherwise with 84% within the community supporting energy rating labels on televisions (Jones 2007). It is further reasonable to assume then that either a case of decision complexity or a failure of government program(s), resulting from time delays and/or a miscommunication in the messages being sent by energy label policies and MEPS, are responsible for the wide range of TV energy efficiency performances. I have a suspicion that the later is more often the case. Whilst TV energy labels finally arrived in 2009, their absence could only have caused confusion and a tendency to communicate a false sense of low energy consuming televisions. To realise the full potential of schemes that promote reduction in energy usage, Governments need to drive EE with Japanese style top runner programs as in the long-term TV technologies will become more energy efficient. Thus a MEPS index cannot be static and must instead set higher levels for compliance in the future (Jones, 2007). Barriers and Opportunities Some fundamental questions plague any attempt to define a healthy television metabolism within an urban ecosystem. Prevention is the best form of cure, therefore onus on preventative measures must be promoted. The position here is that the use phase of a television far outweighs the production phase in terms of the broader impact to the urban system as a whole. Firstly, we must identify the service, most readily considered as entertainment. If one considers the immediate alternatives which provide the same type of service, albeit with a much lower energy intensity, the justification for an oversized TV screen appears poor. However, one alternative, a wearable media device that projects an image just infront of the eye, suffers from practicality in terms of eyestress. Thus we cannot judge televisions in isolation as alternatives may be prohibitive for replacing TVs, let alone

hand-held devices. Indeed for some people television provides a social experience between family and friends. Therefore, how can we redesign the television to reduce materials and energy consumption in its current state?

Beginning with the raw materials that constitute a television, using indicative composition figures1 for a 30kg Plasma set, it is theoretically possible to redesign for a reduction in energy and carbon emissions by approximately 50%, Figure 3. This calculation is based off Bath Universities Inventory of Carbon & Energy and assumes material grade does not pose a design limitation (Hammond & Jones, 2009). Obviously the private sector must be engaged in order to redesign for EE televisions with recycled materials. The theoretical improvements in raw materials and evidence from some manufacturers, indicates that there is good scope to improve EE in all types and sizes of television (Jones, 2007).

Figure 3: Indicative Television Material Redesign Assessment

Implications With such a linear trend of replacing televisions, until the proposed Government leadership program begins recycling our profligate behaviour, it will still not address the wider issue that TVs have become a grossly inefficient service. Larger screen Plasmas and LCDs, which consume more energy and are viewed for longer durations albeit at reduced times to end-of-life are not only unsustainable, but beckon a much more alarming trajectory for Australian households. To expand on this point, what are the wider implications facing our urban ecosystems? Exponentially increasing computer power has enabled faster and also cheaper computers to tackle everything from mimicking the human brain via thousands of networked computers to issues with market externalities. The adage when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail is painfully relevant. Whilst I have no evidence to support this, I believe there is a risk that

(Source: O. Murakami, Mitsubishi Elec. ADVANCE, pp. 6-9, 2001).

Page 4

Breasy Solar | Articles | www.breasysolar.com.au

Oct-10

consumers are facing the possibility of a market approach to the rising demand in electricity and likely introduction of a price on carbon that incorporates a smart grid requiring replacement of everything from fridges to toasters and every appliance in between. Looking beyond smart meters there has been sufficient discussion, within grid experts, that the pending smart grid may evolve a cost driving mechanism to ensuring gird stability (Jennings, 2010). Most appliances have embedded computers and at the heart of a smart grid is the ability for several devices to communicate with the aim of ensuring efficient allocation of electricity, but also for stability issues such as demand smoothing. This idea is not new, with dynamic demand control testament to the potential of feedback to facilitate a steady system (Short et.al, 2007). However, should this solution be implemented, each appliance theoretically requires an inbuilt computer network link. The magnitude of obsolescence that would face the entire swath of electronic products in the average household is worrisome, if summed a posteriori given previous marketing hubris. The thrust being just that, society may be compelled into incorporating the real-time price of electricity, or is forced to go without. Furthermore, this perceived choice, by allowing the consumer to decide on the price of electricity based on when they use household appliances, fails those dependent on electricity for basic needs. Suffice it to say that low-socio economic households in financial stress will be adversely affected if this system were implemented, whether or not electricity is viewed as a necessity or a commodity. The challenges of meeting electricity demand are further compounded by several factors including the switch to mandatory digital television, the accompanying digital set-top box and increasing stand-by energy intensity associated with digital TVs. The net effect contributes significantly to Victorias 1.6% energy growth rate (Sustainability Victoria, 2008). A level 2 energy audit of a medium sized home with typical electricity consumption of the surrounding urban environment of Moreland North, places the digital set-top box 6th in total energy usage per year, or approximately half of the energy usage of a 42 plasma TV2. This alarming example, whilst uncorrelated with the average households electricity breakdown, is certainly compounded by users who have a tendency to only turn their TV off and are not conscious that the digital set-top box remains in operation. Unfortunately, should demand continue its rapid growth the task of meeting burgeoning energy consumption with low and zero-emissions sources becomes impossible (Hamilton,

2010). Thus, what measures can be enacted to prevent complacency regarding televisions in the household? Recommendations Whilst I have no evidence to support this I venture a proposition to remedy energy efficiency. Plasma and LCD televisions soon to be replaced with 3D screens and no doubt in proportions dwarfing their predecessors, would stand a far better chance of being represented fairly and effectively by depicting the annual operating cost alongside the purchase price at the point of sale. This absolute number, based off independent laboratory tests using the price of electricity adjusted pro rata and tested under standard operational condition, would hopefully adjust for the spread in energy efficiency, and hence energy consumption, across the range of similar devices. Comparison is at the behest of the consumer who is engaged via leverage at the bottom line, a proven approach. With only a 5 year retention norm, the point of sale exudes consumer accessibility. Indeed, it is only a matter of time before consumers consider the running costs, as opposed to just the purchase price (McNeil 2009). Additionally, the message is clear, uncontrived, and highlights selection of energy efficient devices within a particular service, thus moderating over cross-technology comparison. In other words, justification of a bigger and more energy intensive television is only possible with immediate association of excess operational cost of a unit with a smaller equivalent. Is this approach too simplistic to work and would it also create market instabilities? Also, EE might not strictly be rewarded as the consumer may select a smaller less efficient television because of a reduced operating cost, compared to a more efficient yet larger and higher operating cost alternative. Regardless, the smaller television garners the greater saving in energy consumption and carbon emissions. With regard to market instabilities, the outlook is considerably less certain. Conclusion The problems arising within our urban ecosystems are highly complex. Governments who have the resources to tackle these issues need to think long term and resist the fixes that fail archetypes (Caveleri, 2002). Recycling TVs is the first step, yet treats the cause rather than symptoms. Human motivations also shape social systems and it is these dynamic relationships which appreciate the complexity inherent to synthesise a healthy metabolism for television. One possible leverage point is to promote smaller TVs, from the hip pocket instead of a separate decision variable via energy labelling, to revert the dominance of TV culture that has pervaded our society; this strategy generates less waste thru avoidance and beckons a healthier urban ecosystem. We must exercise restraint in promoting new TV technologies to reduce energy consumption, as television sizes

A 35W digital set-top box left operating all day consumes 306.6kWh/yr and contributes 407.8kg of CO2-e/yr (using NGA Factors, June 09).

Page 5

Breasy Solar | Articles | www.breasysolar.com.au

Oct-10

continue to increase. Small levers can drive big change, hence manufacturers have a significant role to play via designing for energy efficiency, also providing feedback to the user to influence behaviour for instance by displaying number of hours viewed and energy consumed. Minimisation is key, however, the trend of increasing television energy consumption and changes in the market may spawn new solutions to the wider issues of urban infrastructure. Should the rise of the smart grid be accompanied by smart appliances, placing the onus for electricity balance on the consumer, how will the urban landscape transform? What is to become of the rapid influx of e-waste, as it is cheaper and easier to buy a new appliance rather than upgrade? Where this perceived choice fails to act as a driver is evident in our dependence on electricity. Unfortunately, societys fetish with growth is the pre-eminent challenge that tempers any progress toward sustainability. REFERENCES
BEWKES, J. 2010. The Coming of the Golden Age of Television. The Wall Street Journal [Online]. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870438050 4575530461209634820.html. [Accessed: 23/10/2010] CAVALERI, S. A., OBLOJ, K. 1993. Management Systems A Global Perspective, Wadsworth, Inc. CUBBY, B., 2008, The Plasma is about to get an energy rating, Sydney Morning Herald. Available: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/29/1182624165 361.html [Accessed: 4/6/2010] DCCEE, 2009. Energy Rating: Program Evaluation in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency [Online]. Available: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/gfk.html. [Accessed: 5/6/2010] DSE, 2005. Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Sustainability and Environment [Online]. Available: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online/. [Accessed 20/10/2010] EPHC, 2010. National Television and Computer Product Stewardship Scheme. Commonwealth of Australia, Environmental Protection and Heritage Council [Online]. In: COUNCIL, E. P. A. H. (ed.). Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/waste/publ ications/pubs/fs-product-stewardship.pdf [Accessed 19/08/2010] HAMILTON, C. 2010. Requiem for a species, Allen&Unwin. HISCHIER, R., BAUDIN I. 2010. LCA Study of a Plasma Television Device. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15:428-438.

JACKSON, M. C. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. JENNINGS, A. 2010. Interview by David Shirley. Potential for Market Approach to Electricity Demand with a Smart Grid. (August 19, 2010). R. U., MELBOURNE (ed.) JONES, K. 2007. Television Energy Rating Labels: The case, and proposal, for MEPS and Labelling Televisions. Digital CEnergy Australia. Available: <http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/200710tv-meps-labelling.pdf> [Accessed 01/06/2010] KELLETT, C. 2010. TV's deadly effects: study proves box link to early grave. The Age [Online]. Available: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/tvsdeadly-effects-study-proves-box-link-to-early-grave20100112-m3cq.html. [Accessed: 5/09/2010] LEWIS, T. 2008. Transforming citizens? Green politics and ethical consumption on lifestyle television. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 22:227-240. McNEIL, B. 2009, The Clean Industrial Revolution: Growing Australian Prosperity In A Greenhouse Age, Allen & Unwin, Sydney

MILLER, T. 2007. Cultural citizenship: Cosmopolitanism, consumerism and television in a neoliberal age. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. MUNASIB, A., BHATTACHARYA, S. 2010. Is the Idiots Box raising idiocy? Early and middle childhood television watching and child cognitive outcome. Journal of the Economics of Education Review, 29:873-883. PAMMINGER, F. K., S. 2008. URBAN METABOLISM IMPROVING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF URBAN WATER SYSTEMS. Journal of the Australian Water Association, 45-6 PEARS, A. 2010. Design For Energy Efficiency. In: MIET 2129, R. U., MELBOURNE (ed.). RMIT Uni Learning Hub. SINGER, M. 2010. Television are breeding faster than Australian households. The Age [Online]. Available: http://www.theage.com.au/digitallife/hometech/televisions-are-breeding-faster-thanaustralian-households-20100718-10g3k.html [Accessed 18/07/2010] SUSTAINABILITY VICTORIA. 2008. Energy Use in Victoria [Online]. Available: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/1819energy-use-in-victoria.asp [Accessed 23/08/2010 2010].

SHORT, J.A., INFIELD, D.G., FRERIS, L.L. 2007, 'Stabilization of Grid Frequency Through Dynamic Demand Control', Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1284-93. TEUTSCH, D. 2010. Class Divides TV Viewing Habits. The Age [Online]. Available: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-lifenews/class-divides-tv-viewing-habits-20100403-rkqs.html. [Accessed 22/09/2010]

Page 6