183 comments on DrumBeat: February 27, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
183 comments on DrumBeat: February 27, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
—Albert Einstein
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I came across a startling news item yesterday which I thought I'd share. It should be of interest to most people on TOD.
The reliability of electronic devices is going down. This is because of a two-year-old ban on lead solder in electronics. The ban was instituted by the EU, but since electronics is a worldwide industry, most manufacturers have complied and virtually anything you buy today has lead-free solder. The new solder, from what I understand, contains tin, silver and bismuth.
The problem is that this type of solder grows "tin whiskers" - single crystals that mysteriously grow from pure tin joints. You should read the whole article - a relevant quote follows:
Such sudden catastrophic failure could have serious consequences - failure in a nuclear powerplant, in an airplane, radar, online banking, etc - it's not hard to see that this could be disastrous. The military is particularly worried. And circuit boards made with tin solder cannot be repaired, only replaced.
Some of my favourite camera lenses disappeared from production due to this ham-fisted piece of legislation.
Lead in petrol - bad
No lead anywhere at all, even in tiny amounts is not near so clever, especially in critical applications.
Which camera lenses?
The Canon200/1.8 is the most famous example, one of the finest lenses ever built and much used in astronomy.
They still haven't replaced it in their line up, I believe.
Seems a shame as the actual production of the lenses was minuscule, and they were hardly likely to be licked by infants or such - at any rate most photographers would give any toddler who did so many more life expectancy issues than were caused by the lead! ;-)
As noted above, the fear wasn't that babies would eat circuit boards. It was that the electronics (and their lead) would end up in landfills.
Probably not too much of a worry with Canon lenses, as they hold their value very well and are pricey enough that people repair them rather than throw them away.
Check out the prices those beauties still fetch - I don't think landfill is a concern!
OTOH, I'm not sure lead is the reason they were discontinued. Why would only that lens require lead? They're still making lots of other lenses.
I suspect the real reason is they didn't sell enough to make it profitable. IOW, it would be out of production anyway, lead or no lead.
I don't know in a referenced way, but at the time was spending a lot of time on dpreview, that was not the only lens discontinued when they weren't allowed to use lead to dope the glass, and most of the very highest quality glass did.
Of course, low demand explains why they did not make greater efforts to build a replacement with the new restrictions, but regardless of other motivations the EU lead regulation would have made them discontinue it, so it seems unnecessary to look harder for causes.
Canon and other lens makers routinely retire lens models and replace them. This one would have been retired anyway, no doubt. It was retired just about the time when people were switching from film to digital. A lot of lenses were retired then (and replaced with spiffier versions with IS). The slow-selling models were not replaced. This was probably one of them. It took them 13 years to sell 5,000 lenses. Not very profitable, lead or no lead.
Canon probably made a decision to replace the fabrication processes using lead with some other technology. When your fab processes change, your design usually follow. Lenses with small markets could well not be justified to go through redesign and probably retooling.
Why would only that lens require lead
Optical properties of leaded glass? Or perhaps the lead makes the glass more shape-able, thus allowing the maker to get the lenses correct.
And my gut was right:
(Now I'm looking up homemade glass foundries - just what I need - more stuff to consume electricity!)
I don't buy it. That doesn't explain why the 200mm f/1.8 would need lead, but not, say, the 300mm f/2.8.
I do.
Channeling physics of optics from my teen years and my now dead grandpa commenting on how all the good binoculars were made in Germany VS Japan - I have no trouble believing that better manufacturing and knowledge of optics would make the lenses 'better' over time. Better ways to make glass lenses helped drive down the cost and up the quality so my Grandpa's POV was just wrong by the time came I cared about a set of Binoculars.
In the case of the 2 lenses - we do not know the size or the arrangement of the glass elements - therefore one can not say with any kind of authority if the improvements are due to the better manufacturing of the glass elements or changes in the placement or different dopants in the glass.
Optics and the rules about how photons travel are well enough understood that if we know the lens placements and the dopants in the glass, we can calculate the 'betterness' or even how one lens is working VS the other. Finite Element analysis or POV ray tracing are to ways I can think of - based on what I remember of physics of light and such from my misspent youth.
Forget the lead. Look at the dates. The EU ban started July 2006. Canon stopped manufacturing the lens in question in 1998, and officially announced its retirement in 2001. Lead had nothing to do with it. It was all about low sales.
Hmm, actually I expressed myself poorly, and there was more than one lens at issue - I can't remember the details now at this distance in time - the 200/1.8 was the one everyone focussed on.
But the real issue though is that it didn't just affect luxury goods, medical imaging equipment and so on was also affected, where it is really, really nice to be able to see what is happening.
There are probably other fields I am unaware of where it also may have had a major impact.
Now I am not sure if they have been able to work around these problems and get the same standard of performance in all fields as before, but the general point is that bans should be imposed with care, and individual items looked at to assess the impact, rather than just coming out with one size fits all legislation.
Chromatic aberration becomes more of a problem as the f-ratio gets smaller.
Lead in the environment is a big problem. You average early 1990s vintage computer and CRT contain about 4 lbs. of it. Most of that has probably ended up in landfills, either in the U.S. or "recycled" in third world countries (which means dumped in a pile more often that not it seems). All landfills leak, even new ones, it just takes them longer. Secondly, lead in the environment does not go away, not really ever. When hurricane Katrina swept through the gulf states, people started seeing elevated lead concentrations in near surface soils and sediments. They realized that what this was was the lead that was deposited from when leaded gasoline was being used. It never went away, it just got buried and kicked up again when the hurricane swept through. Additionally, there is still noticeable lead contamination at and downwind of sites where the Romans roasted lead ore and that was a couple thousand years ago.
I'm sorry you won't be able to take pictures in your favorite way, but by removing all sources of lead ending up in waste streams you are minimizing the risk of literally hundreds of future generations from developing neurological problems.
I thought putting lead in petrol was insane - perhaps they had been exposed to too much lead as children? :-)
However I am not too keen on politicians blanket bans, and bland assumption that the technical guys will somehow get over it, and think that a wiser course would have been to offer very limited and specific exceptions with strict rules for recycling.
Top quality optical glass is jut one example of areas which are tough to substitute, and I feel that bans need intelligent application, not just for lead but any future materials which are held to be hazardous.
Yeah I do see your point, specialty cases like you lens are not ever going to be a major component of a waste stream. I suppose if Canon had lobbied hard enough, they might have gotten an exception... or maybe not. These things are hard to tell, especially if it's a case of where to draw the line. Dichotomies are much easier to grasp and legislate I suppose.
"All landfills leak, even new ones, it just takes them longer"
Most of the time I would blow off most comments. But I spent my first 5 years out of school designing and doing construction over site on landfill projects.
I have a hard time to believe that a newer landfill would leak, the only way is if a owner allows for to much head then they have a sidewall blowout, that another issue, and those people should go to jail!
Otherwise with 4 feet of clay correctly installed and a liner there is no way a NEW landfill would leak, plus with the leachate collection systems today.
Boy I'm happy not doing that any more, but I did realize how wasteful we really are.
From my years working as a mechanical and civil engineer, I have to ask
"What is this landfill liner with an infinite life-span?"
"Where is the clay that cannot be eroded by geological processes?"
"What is the system that prevents people from excavating and releasing toxic landfill materials in the future?"
"What happens to the leachate? (Is it disposed of in a meta-landfill?)"
Clearly as claimed above, on some timescale, all landfills will leak. Better-designed landfills will leak on a longer timescale, but no design can defeat the forces of entropy, erosion, and material degradation forever.
Tommyvee is right. You can put as much effort and money as you wish into the containment system for your waste, but at some point it becomes prohibitive and you have to stop and it WILL leak given enough time. Here's the official EPA take on it:
The longest certification for a waste disposal system that I can think of is the Yucca Mountain Repository. There the DOE has certified that radionuclide escape will be at or below acceptable levels for 10,000 years. That doesn't mean there is no escape, only acceptable levels of it. Of course, this was struck down in court because it doesn't correspond to the peak in radiation coming from the site, which is on the 100,000 year time scale. If I remember correctly, DOE has stated it is unable to certify the repository for that long, so at this point it requires an act of congress to say, "yes unacceptable levels of leakage are okay after 10k years."
The same sort of phenomenon has occurred with forest fires near Los Angeles putting back into the air decades of car exhaust detritus from the leaded fuel era. What a toxic legacy humans have.
No lead anywhere at all, even in tiny amounts is not near so clever,
As I remember the chain of events:
1) Electronics were just being tossed in the trash.
2) The Lead in the CRTs and solder joints was a problem.
3) The people who make laws offered up, as a way to keep lead outta landfills - either take this stuff back or stop using lead
4) The makers of stuff opted to stop using lead VS taking stuff back at EOL.
Now if the 'tronics die in a few years and you have to go buy more it becomes the fault of lawmakers and not the makers of stuff.
Lead free solder is harder to work with - but then so are the really thin traces and solder pads of todays surface mount devices. As I recall, having more space and treating the boards surface with resin will stop wiskers from happening.
Besides - the life of a TTL gate is 50 years or so due to migration. If a TRUE collapse comes and man can not make TTL gates anymore - the electronics as we know 'em will be gone then in 50 years.
Back to hi powered tubes.
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/01/make_your_own_vaccum_tube.html
Don't forget -- the principal of planned obsolescence operates here. Perhaps the politicians were really trying to save the brains of babies, but I'm sure they got no real push back from makers of circuit boards.
If all of electronics were to vaporize tomorrow, it would be better for the human race, and much better for the world.
If all of electronics were to vaporize tomorrow, it would be better for the human race, and much better for the world.
No. Electricity is a very flexable tool for man to have harnessed.
You are trying to claim that the non-electric powered ways of doing things would be better for 6.5 billion humans?
You are gonna have to show your work on THAT conclusion. Please explain where all the bees wax will come from for lighting, and how going back to Fossil Fuel boilers fueling gravity fed steam heating is gonna work out as two examples.
Electronics does not equal electricity.
Please, there is enough disagreement around here not to have it exacerbated by misreadings.
Ok, then at what point does an 'electrical consuming item' starts to become 'electronics'?
A motor acts as a resistor, choke, and can be a generator.
Is a resistor "electronics"? How about a Capacitor? Battery? LED? The junction of Silicon where dopant values differ?
PLEASE define 'electronics' for us - so we can know at what what point the statement If all of electronics were to vaporize tomorrow can be discussed.
NeverLNG.. Never say Never. Not ever.
Really, Do Try to avoid ridiculous absolutes.
Even avoiding the 'Vaporize Tomorrow' aspect of that line, I doubt you've thought through your statement in much detail.
1) Radio Communications (& phone, telegraph, satellite, etc..ALL Long Distance Communications, Diplomacy, Coordination, Energy Future Planning ?)
2) Water Pumping
3) Refrigeration/Freezing
4) All Electric Lighting sources
There might be ~some~ workarounds for these particular, predominantly electrical tasks, but they would be considerably worse, less efficient, and at the very least, would take considerable time and work to put in place.
More importantly, though, I don't see the real core of an argument that tries to say all technology is always a detriment.
Bob
I hadn't heard of that, and it is a little concerning.
I doubt that immediate failures in anything safety critical are a major concern in that anything that can be designed to fail into a safe configuration should be being designed on the assumption of other things such as, eg, hitting the assembly with an axe triggers failsafe behaviour. (I gather there are somethings like the latest jet fighters which are literally completely aerodynamically unstable and are only flyable at all with the active aid of the avionics, but they're relatively rare.)
What's more concerning is if it introduces such high levels of failures that field replacements of the affected boards is overwhelming/too expensive.
This is huge.
Almost every microprocessor based system I've worked on uses the CPU to perform monitoring and some sort of control. Subsystems intended for aviation go through an exhaustive process in order to qualify for FAA certification (Google DO-178 for this), but there are still many subsystems totally dependent on hardware and software. It would be very hard to design the electronics to survive failure or shorting of *any* connection.
The EU-driven RoHS standard is driving the reduction of at least six hazardous substances in electronics. All consumer electronics produced or sold in the EU since early 2006 has had to use these lead-free techniques. Most electronic parts produced since then (including in the U.S.) are now lead-free, but the U.S. has no equivalent program forcing manufacturers to use lead-free solder.
It's odd. I always thought RoHS was good for the environment, but I never considered its benefit to manufacturers for planned obsolescense. Has everyone seen http://www.storyofstuff.com ?
Chris
That's the law of unintended consequences at work. Very close to the heart of Tainter's work on collapse of complex civilizations.
For want of a nail, a shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, a horse was lost;.... Until, of course, the kingdom was lost.
LaoZi pointed this out some 2500 years ago.
what are the examples of human inventions that can not be "misused" to do more harm than good?
I can't speak for the aviation industry, but I can say that military specs require the use of leaded solder. Why? Well, for reliability, of course! I would imagine that aviation would have similar exceptions.
How do I know? Well, a close family member designs and manufactures circuit boards for a living.
Better hold on to your last computer, as the newest one may go belly up any time. That would include your hard drive as well. More frequent backups would be in order for those of us who tend to be a bit lazy.
E. Swanson
I wonder how many people have died of lead solder circuit boards?
I remember this tech, whenever I walked into his lab he would have a soldering iron in one hand and a spool of solder in the other and he would always pull the solder off the spool with his mouth.
Today when he comes to our retirement get togethers he looks like a 70 year old man but he is only in his 80's.
Most sensitive solder applications today use a 96/4 tin silver eutectic solder. It is mechanically stronger and from past experience does not have the problem in question, however it melts at 205 C about the same as the bismuth solder, rather than 179 C of the 63/37 eutectic or the 60/40 tin lead variety.
Actually it is not the SnAg (usually SnAgCu in fact) solder that is the problem, it is the pure Sn coatings being used on componenets to make them compatable with this solder that tend to form whiskers.
Peak electronics.
As someone who has wielded a soldering iron while putting together several electonic devices from kit back when one could do so in the 1960s, I'm not sure it would be a totally bad thing to have to go back to that era. You got to really understand how your equipment worked. Such devices were could be repaired and re-repaired for decades and decades. Now, almost anything you buy is non-repairable. Use it until it breaks (which isn't very long, either), and then you have to throw it away and buy another. That is about as far removed from sustainability as it is possible to be.
Beyond the whiskers, the lead free solder melts at a higher temperature, and the joint quality is generally poorer. At the same time the complexity is increasing, the size of features is decreasing, and so it the price. I see a lot of stuff, especially computer stuff, that simply doesn't work (at least not for long).
There is also no continuity, as all the design and manufacturing work is outsourced (it seems even the "low cost countries" are outsourcing to even lower cost countries), so often each batch is a dead-end one-shot and designs do not evolve over time.
Contrary to what most people believe, electronic devices don't last forever. There are alway exceptions, but in general I'd bet that if all electronic manufacturing were to end, then virtually all electronic devices would be gone within a generation. Motors and other heavy electrical devices can last much longer, depending on how well they are made.
I don't know anyone who believes that. At least here in the US, people treat electronics as disposable. If your cell phone or computer or DVD player breaks, you don't get it repaired. You throw it away and buy a new one. Apple even says iPods are only supposed to last four years.
They are disposed of due to damage, defects, the batteries fail, but mostly due to obsolescence. But I suspect that most people would think these items would continue to work indefinitely otherwise, as they are "solid state" so they never wear out. Nobody keeps electronics long enough to experience them simply failing due to old age - they were obsolete long before that.
My bet is the average American has no idea what "solid state" means.
More probably know that the motherboard of a computer "rots" after awhile, and that seven years is probably the most you should count on from it.
Please don't let my 23 year old original Nintendo know that! If it knew, it might decide to stop working for those twice a year gaming flashbacks! ;)