TECHNET Archives

April 2008

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Gregory <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Gregory <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:42:08 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (146 lines)
Hi Kenny!

There's one article that I remember reading and did a search for it.
Luckily, I found it (even blind pigs find acorns once inna while!). Here
it is:

http://tinyurl.com/44dpnr 

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Bloomquist
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] [LF] The Cost of EU RoHS: $32.7B

Hi Joe,

The one number I keep waiting to see but never seems to show up is the
environmental impact from the excess power required for the higher
temperature processing requirements of all the electronic manufacturing
equipment to process lead-free. With all the coal fired power plants
polluting the air to meet these higher temperature requirements the
increased carbon emissions have to be staggering.

KennyB

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Fjelstad [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] [LF] The Cost of EU RoHS: $32.7B

Thanks for the message and link, Michael. Interesting  (sobering?)
reading. 
The annual cost numbers cited are likely to rise, I  would be willing to
bet.
 
Sounds like Harvey Miller's year 2000 prediction in his monograph
"Lead-free, Why?) of a price tag of 80 to 100 billion might be  near the
mark at the end of the day. And then, of course, there will be the
ongoing higher costs for

the extra energy for baking and reflow and higher  temperature laminates
and

warranty pay outs (which by the way are on the  rise, as I understand
according to a friend with a son who is an actuary in the  insurance
industry) 
 
Sadly WEEE makes RoHS (i.e., lead-free) unnecessary. The justification
that

it makes electronics recycling safer is self-serving in my  opinion. The
data does not support the claim. Poor recycling  practices for RoHS
compliant products will be no less hazardous than for those  containing
less than 0.5% lead.  
 
 
Wish there really was some environmental benefit to it all to justify
the  
cost. (or that I had at least purchase a boat load of tin metal
futures...;-)  

Nothing quite like legislated market demand... 
 
I looked out the window. The sun is shining. It is going to be a good
day
 
Thanks agian
 
Best regards, 
Joe  
 
 
In a message dated 4/19/2008 6:33:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Well  FINALLY the results of the survey we (along with Technology
Forecasters...I  actually brought the project to them to be the lead on
since
market  research at this scale is their forte, not ours) did for the
Consumer
Electronics Association last fall have been published. See the  article
in
Purchasing at  http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6552729.html.

Just to add a bit to  this report that's missing, we determined that
annual
maintenance is a  little above 10% of of the initial cost to comply
(which
is
the $32.7B  number). So to date it's cost the industry around $40B.

And that's just  EU RoHS...not China RoHS, Korea RoHS, Californy RoHS,
or
any
other of your  favorite regulations. They're all incremental, of course.

So if you're  working on REACH, track your hours and keep those
receipts...I'm sure we'll  be coming around again to ascertain the cost
to
industry of that in a  couple years.

Michael Kirschner
President
Design Chain  Associates, LLC
415.904.8330
--
Design Chain Associates, LLC - Design  Chain Solutions for Competitive 
Advantage  

www.DesignChainAssociates.com
www.ChinaRoHS.com
www.KoreaRoHS.com




---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at:
http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site
http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2