Discussion Report: EU Ecolabel for Personal Computers ...ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/ecolabel/pdf/eup/... · of, at a minimum: (1) a central processing unit (CPU) to perfo rm

Discussion Report: EU Ecolabel for Personal Computers – Desktops and Computer Monitors

Date September 2008

AEA Energy & Environment

AEA Energy & Environment 2

Project summary

The purpose of this pilot project is to link the work of the Eco-design of Energy-using Products (EuP) Directive, with the development of EU Ecolabel criteria. The idea behind this initiative is that with both policy instruments requiring a similar information base for their operation, the work from the EuP preparatory studies can be utilised to develop EU Ecolabel criteria. This would mean that resources would be used effectively, as work will not be duplicated. This study comprises two phases:

1. Firstly, a comparison between two policy instruments, the EU Ecolabel and the Eco-design of Energy-using Products (EuP) Directive.

2. Secondly, utilising the data from the EuP preparatory studies to develop EU Ecolabel criteria. The first phase, now complete, had two purposes:

• To identify the similarities and differences between the two policy instruments commenting on these in terms of whether differences are significant and if so, whether these can be addressed and suggesting how,

• Assuming a positive outcome to the first point, recommending six products from the list of completed EuP Preparatory Studies to take forward to the criteria development process.

The conclusion of the first phase was that the similarities the two policy instruments share, including their development of underpinning life cycle evidence bases and stakeholder consultation means that EuP Preparatory Studies can inform the development of ecolabel criteria. Using a version of the ecolabel product group Prioritisation Methodology previously devised for the Commission’s ecolabel scheme, it identified the six EuP products to take forward into the criteria development process. The six products are:

1. Personal Computers – desktop and computer monitors 2. Personal Computers – laptops 3. Office lighting 4. Domestic lighting 5. Domestic refrigeration 6. Washing machines

Phase two of the project will develop streamlined ecolabel criteria for six product groups, utilising the evidence base gathered for the Eco-design of Energy-using Products preparatory studies. Streamlined criteria will focus on the main environmental impacts EuP products have, and will also cover the environmental impacts not identified in EuP study, but have been highlighted elsewhere as having a significant environmental impact. All criteria documents and discussion papers will be circulated to Competent Bodies and stakeholders. There will be two meetings of the ad-hoc working group (AHWG) for each product group. The timescales for the development of the criteria sets is as follows:

• September 2008 - distribute discussion paper

• 15th – 16

th October and 12

th – 13

th November 2008 - First AHWGs

• April 2009 – distribute second draft of discussion paper and criteria documents

• May 2009 - Second AHWGs

• March 2010 – Final criteria documents

Further information about the work is available from [email protected] and [email protected]


Table of contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 EuP Directive and preparatory studies 1

2 Product Definition 3

2.1 Introduction 3

3 Market Overview 6

3.1 EU Production 6

3.2 EU Trade Data 7

3.3 Apparent EU Consumption 8

3.4 Future Trends 8

3.5 Technology 9

3.6 Consumer behaviour 10

4 Life cycle impacts 12

4.1 Personal desktop computers 12

4.2 Personal Computer Monitors 17

5 Proposals for Ecolabel Criteria 23

5.1 Product group definition 23

5.2 Energy savings for computers 23

5.3 Shipping mode for computers 24

5.4 Power supply unit for computers 24

5.5 Energy savings for computer monitors 24

5.6 Power supply unit for computer monitors 25

6 Possible Criteria 26

6.1 Lifetime extension 26

6.2 Mercury content of a liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor 26

6.3 Noise 26

6.4 Electromagnetic Emissions 26

6.5 Heavy metals and flame retardants 27

6.6 Information appearing on the ecolabel 27



1 Introduction

This discussion paper for Desktop Computers and Computer Monitors is part of a pilot project to develop streamlined ecolabel criteria for six products groups, by utilising the evidence base gathered in the Eco-design of Energy Using Products (EuP) preparatory studies. The discussion paper consists of six sections:

• Section 1: introduction to the product and a brief summary of the EuP Directive and EuP preparatory studies

• Section 2: a review of product definitions

• Section 3: presents a summary of economic and market analysis from the EuP preparatory study

• Section 4: present a summary of environmental assessment results from the EuP project team

• Section 5: ecolabel criteria proposals informed by the EuP study

• Section 6: ecolabel criteria proposals for additional criteria that are not covered by EuP, and are based on the current ecolabel criteria

1.1 EuP Directive and preparatory studies

The directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design of Energy-using Products (EuP) is a framework for setting eco-design requirements for energy using products. The aim of the Directive is to reduce the environmental impact of energy using products. Those products that are compliant with eco-design requirements will be ensured free movement of products in the EU. The products covered so far have been chosen based on them meeting the following criteria:

• The product represents a significant volume of sales and trade (more than 200,000 units a year with EC) and,

• The product has a significant environmental impact, and

• The product has significant potential for improvement without entailing excessive costs For the products that are chosen a preparatory study will be produced. The purpose of a preparatory study is to provide information that the Commission need to know in order to decide if a product should be considered for implementing measured under the EuP. Each preparatory study is structured so that it contains eight sections. There are several similarities between the data collected for EuP in the eight sections and the evidence base that is required to develop EU Ecolabel criteria. The similarities are that both EuP and EU Ecolabel consider the following aspects:

• Product definition

• Economic and market analysis

• Consumer behaviour

• Technical analysis of existing products Obtaining the above data is a time consuming task, firstly to collect the data and secondly to gain agreement of the work from stakeholder consultation. Developing the preparatory studies takes between 11 and 21 months to complete and therefore to get maximum benefit from the work, the European Commission have commissioned this pilot study to utilise the data collected to develop EU Ecolabel criteria.


It should be noted that whilst the EuP preparatory reports contains useful data from which to propose ecolabel criteria, they do not contain all of the data in the necessary format to develop ecolabel criteria. For example, there is information on sales by appliance category, as well as information on the range of energy efficiencies, but what is not included is an overlay of market data on these ranges of energy efficiencies. It is the combination of this data that would allow an assessment of how much of a market place could meet a certain ecolabel criterion. This example applies similarly to other environmental issues. Any differing data needs between what the EuP preparatory studies provide and what is required for the EU Ecolabel, will be noted in the conclusions from the pilot study. These conclusions can then be used to guide the specification for what should be included in a EuP report.


2 Product Definition

2.1 Introduction

This first section reviews the different definitions that are currently used to define computers and computer monitors. Lot 3 of the European Commission preparatory studies is for Personal Computers (desktops and laptops) and Computer Monitors. The product definition used for this EuP lot is based mainly on the Energy Star definition. However, the scope of the Energy Star is slightly different from the scope of the EuP preparatory study, as the Energy Star covers a much wider range of computers and monitors (detailed below), whereas the EuP preparatory study is limited to personal computers and monitors.

2.1.1 EuP Personal Computers Definition

The personal computers definition used in the EuP preparatory studies is detailed below in Box 1. Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) - Section 1.4 Energy Star provides further definitions of computer types (i.e. integrated computers, desktop computers etc) and these are shown in Box 2.

Box 1: EuP Personal Computers definition A device which performs logical operations and processes data. Personal computers are composed of, at a minimum: (1) a central processing unit (CPU) to perform operations; and (2) user input devices such as a keyboard, mouse, digitizer or game controller. For the purposes of this study, personal computers include both stationary and portable units, including desktop computers, integrated computers, notebook computers and tablet PCs. For further definitions of these computer categories, the Energy Star definitions are applicable. Note that workstations, desktop-derived, mid-range and large servers, game consoles, thin clients/ blade PCs, handhelds and PDAs are not included in this product definition of personal computers, and will therefore not be covered by this study.

Box 2: Energy Star Computer definitions: Desktop Computer A computer where the main unit is intended to be located in a permanent location, often on a desk or on the floor. Desktops are not designed for portability and utilize an external monitor, keyboard and mouse. Desktops are designed for a broad range of home and office applications including, email, web browsing, word processing, standard graphics applications, gaming, etc. Desktop-derived server A desktop-derived server is a computer that typically uses desktop components in a tower form factor, but is designed explicitly to be a host for other computers or applications. For the purposes of this specification, a computer must be marketed as a server. Game consoles Stand alone computers whose primary use is to play video games. For the purposes of this specification, game consoles must use a hardware architecture based on typical computer components (e.g. processors, system memory, video architecture, optical and/or hard drives etc.) The primary input from game consoles are special hand held controllers rather than the mouse and keyboard used by conventional computer types. Game consoles are also equipped with audiovisual outputs for use with televisions as the primary display, rather than an external monitor or integrated display. These devices do not typically use a conventional operating system, but often perform a variety of multimedia functions such as DVD/CD playback, digital picture viewing, and digital music playback.


Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – section 1.3.1

2.1.2 EuP Computer Monitor Definition

The computer monitor definition used in the EuP preparatory study is also based on the Energy Star requirements for computer monitors eligibility criteria (version 4.1). The exact definition used in the EuP preparatory study is below in Box 3, the text in italic in Box 3 is the part of the definition that is from Energy Star.

Integrated Computer A desktop system in which the computer and display function as a single unit, which receives its AC power through a single cable. Integrated computers come in one of two possible forms: (1) a system where the display and computer are physically combined into a single unit; or (2) a system packaged as a single system where the display is separate but is connected to the main chassis by a DC power cord and both the computer and display are powered from a single power supply. As a subset of desktop computers, integrated computers are typically designed to provide similar functionality as desktop systems. Notebook and Tablet computers A computer designed specifically for portability and to be operated for extended periods of time without a direct connection to an AC power source. Notebooks and tablets must utilize an integrated monitor and be capable of operation from an integrated battery or other portable power source. In addition, most notebooks and tablets use an external power supply and have an integrated keyboard and pointing device, though tablets use touch sensitive screens. Notebook and tablet computers are typically designed to provide similar functionality to desktops except within a portable device. For the purposes of this specification, docking stations are considered accessories and therefore, the performance levels associated with notebooks do not include them. Workstations For the purposes of this specification, to qualify as a workstation, a computer must: a. Be marketed as a workstation b. Have a mean time between failures (MTBF) of at least 15,000 hours based on Bellcore TR-NWT-000332, issue 6, 12/97; and c. Support error-correcting code (ECC) and/or buffered memory d. In addition, a workstation must meet three of the following six optional characteristics:

i. Have supplemental power support for high end graphics (i.e. PCI-E 6 pin 12 V supplemental power feed) ii. System is wired for 4x or 8x PCI-E on motherboard in addition to graphics slot(s) and/or PCI-X support EuP preparatory study, TREN/D1/40-2005, Lot 3 18 (325) iii. Does not support Uniform Memory Access (UMA) graphics: iv. Include 5 or more PCI, PCIe, PCI-X slots; v. Capable of multi-processor support for two or more processors (must support physically separate processor packages/sockets, i.e, not met with support for a single multi core processor) and/or vi. Be qualified by at least 2 Independent Software Vendor (ISV) product certifications; these certifications can be in process, but must be completed within 3 months of qualification for Energy Star.

Product groups not covered by Energy Star include mid-range and large servers, thin clients/blade PCs, handhelds and palm-top organisers.


Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – section 1.4

2.1.3 EU Ecolabel Definition

Commission Decision 2005/341/EC for personal computers has a definition for personal computers and computer monitors. This definition is below in Box 4. Source: Commission Decision of 11

th April 2005 (2005/341/EC)

The EuP and EU Ecolabel definitions are similar in scope; the difference between them is that the EuP definition is more prescriptive about what is and what is not in the scope. Considering that the purpose of the current study is to develop EU Ecolabel criteria from the evidence base developed for EuP Lot 3, it is sensible to adopt the EuP product group definition. Personal Computer: A device that performs logical operations and processes data. Personal computers are composed of, at a minimum: (1) a central processing unit (CPU) to perform operations; and (2) user input devices such as a keyboard, mouse, digitizer or game controller. Note that workstations, desktop-derived, mid-range and large servers, game consoles, thin clients/ blade PCs, handhelds and PDAs are not included in this product definition, and will therefore not be covered by this study. Note that portable computers are included in separate ecolabel criteria from the EuP evidence base. Computer monitor: A commercially-available, electronic product with a display screen and its associated electronics encased in a single housing that is capable of displaying output information from a computer via one or more inputs. This definition is intended primarily to cover standard monitors designed for use with computers. The computer monitors included in this definition must have a viewable diagonal screen size greater than 12 inches and must be capable of being powered by a separate AC wall outlet or a battery unit that is sold with an AC adapter. Computer monitors with a tuner/receiver are included as long as they are marketed and sold as computer monitors (i.e., focusing on the computer monitor role as the primary function).

Box 4: EU Ecolabel Personal Computers definition The Product group ‘personal computers’ shall comprise computers designed for use in a fixed location, such as on a desk, and consisting of a system unit and display, whether or not combined in a single case, as well as a keyboard. The product group shall also cover system units, keyboards and displays designed for use with personal computers. The product group shall not cover servers

Box 3: EuP Computer Monitors definition A commercially-available, electronic product with a display screen and its associated electronics encased in a single housing that is capable of displaying output information from a computer via one or more inputs, such as VGA, DVI, and/or IEEE 1394. The monitor usually relies upon a cathode-ray tube (CRT), liquid crystal display (LCD) or other display device. This definition is intended primarily to cover standard monitors designed for use with computers. The computer monitors included in this definition must have a viewable diagonal screen size greater than 12 inches and must be capable of being powered by a separate AC wall outlet or a battery unit that is sold with an AC adapter. Computer monitors with a tuner/receiver may be covered by this study as long as they are marketed and sold to consumers as computer monitors (i.e., focusing on computer monitor as the primary function) or as dual function computer monitors and televisions. However, products with a tuner/receiver and computer capability that are marketed and sold as televisions are not included in the scope of this study.


3 Market Overview

The purpose of the EuP market analysis is to gauge whether a product type is significant in terms of sales. The EuP Directive itself identifies that sales of a particular product group need to be more than 200,000 units per year in the EU to be chosen as a product sector. The ecolabel has a slightly different need for market data whereby such information is used to gauge whether a product is applicable equally across the EU or is confined to a handful of member states. The EuP Task 2 report (Economic and Market Analysis) captures data from PRODCOM and EU trade statistics. The following sections summarise EU production (the amount of product manufactured in the EU), EU trade data (imports and exports of product in the EU) and apparent consumption (production plus any imports, minus exports) from the report.

3.1 EU Production

Data on production of desktops in the EU-25 in 2005 is shown below for countries where information was available. Not all countries have reported data.

Table 1: EU-25 Production of Desktop PCs, 2005

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – Table 24 Table 1 shows that the domestic production is greatest in Germany, France and Poland. EU-25 production data for monitors is also limited with only values for a few countries being available. The reasons for gaps within the data are explained in section 2.1.2.1 in EuP Lot 3, but examples of possible reasons for data gaps are that the data maybe confidential or the data may be missing as a result of the reporting country not surveying the heading.

2005 Desktop PCs

Volume Value

(1000 units) (M EURO)

Germany 736 388

France 251 168

Poland 242 78

Romania 98 48

Portugal 82 51

Estonia 68 27

Spain 59 32

Belgium 55 45

Italy 45 54

Croatia 42 15

Lithuania 34 16

Finland 23 26

Bulgaria 22 3

Slovenia 18 10

Latvia 4 2

Denmark 2 4

EU25 Totals 2732


Table 2: EU-25 Production of Computer monitors, 2005

2005 Colour video monitors

cathode-ray tube Flat panel video monitor Black and white or other

monochrome monitors

Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value

(1000 units) (M EURO) (1000 units) (M EURO) (1000 units) (M EURO)

Germany 67 5

Italy 1210 110 2 2 222 38

Denmark 0 4 1

Spain 8 4

EU25 Totals

1341 154 361 190 437

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – table 25 Table 2 shows the production of computer monitors for four countries in the EU-25. Unfortunately, data is not available for the majority of the EU and therefore it is not possible to identify the countries with the largest share of the market.

3.2 EU Trade Data

Table 3 below (taken from EuP Task 2, page 57 – Trade Statistics) shows the EU trade data for the EU25 in terms of imports and exports in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Table 3: EU-25 Total trade (import-export)

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – table 26 From Table 3 it can be seen that the EU-25 is a net importer in terms of volume of desktop PCs and the number of imports have grown between the years 2003 to 2005. The value of imports has decreased, a consequence of a decrease in unit price. For computer monitors the EU-25 imports more of each type of monitor than is exported. The figures also show for monitors that the flat panel monitor is quickly becoming popular with a significant increase in sales between 2004 and 2005.


3.3 Apparent EU Consumption

Calculating apparent EU consumption has presented the authors with some difficulties in the EuP preparatory study because of the limited country production data provided to PRODCOM. Data was therefore collected from surveys, as well as using the original PRODCOM data. Approximate apparent consumption of the 2 main kinds of computer; desktop and laptop and the 2 main technologies for monitors; CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) and LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), is shown below.

Table 4: Approximation of apparent consumption in EU-25, calculated mainly from figures from the industry survey, 2000-2008

Source – Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – table 33 Apparent consumption is the production plus any imports, minus exports. Table 4 shows that the apparent consumption for the EU-25 has increased most quickly for flat panel monitors and laptops, with desktop apparent consumption rising steadily, whilst concomitantly and obviously linked the apparent consumption for cathode ray monitors is decreasing. Overall consumption of all monitors has been increasing from 22 million in 2001, to 26 million in 2004 to 36 million in 2007.

3.4 Future Trends

The survey undertaken for the EuP preparatory study did not give any estimation of sales volume after 2008. However, with the information available within the survey to 2008 best estimates up to 2010 have been calculated for installed computers and monitors by extrapolating the trends. (The term ‘installed’ relates to the number of computers and monitors that are in the home/office, taking account of the lifetime of the product)

Table 5: Rough approximation of installed computers and monitors, 2009-2010

Source – Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – table 38 The extrapolated results in Table 5 show continued increase for desktops, laptops and flat panel monitors. The only downward trend is for CRT-monitors.


The downward trend for CRT monitors is shown further in Figure 1 below where the estimated installed base of units in operation in the EU-25 is shown. The figures have been extrapolated to provide estimations up to 2020.

Figure 1: Estimated installed base for desktops, laptops, cathode ray and flat panel monitors

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – figure 43 The EuP Lot 3 study authors predict that CRT monitors will no longer be used in the EU-25 after 2011, and with sales being insignificant from 2006 no further analysis is made in subsequent sections of this discussion paper.

3.5 Technology

3.5.1 Desktop computers

The data presented in EuP Lot 3 preparatory study suggests that the trend is for increasing sales of laptops in comparison to desktops, which the EuP authors predict to stagnate. The EuP study explored the much-vaunted concept of product convergence whereby computers and TV equipment evolve to become the same product. Exploring this possibility with suppliers via a survey drew mixed reactions. Some respondents expressed the view that the market will supply specialised equipment for each application, while others believe the computer will gradually take over from the TV. In a recent UK conference (Intellect Consumer Electronics Conference 2008: Tomorrow's Technology, 3 July 2008, London), the general view was that product convergence would not occur with the principle reason being that consumers do not want converged products and have not bought the products when placed on the market. Examples of where product convergence hasn’t really happened include mobile phones with TV functionality and internet connected TV were identified. The current economic lifetimes of the first life of a home desktop and computer monitor is shown below in Table 6. The data in table 6 is the opinions of suppliers and therefore the economic lifetime is assumed to be the average time that each of the listed products will be used for by their first owner.


Table 6: Average economic lifetimes - opinions of the suppliers, for the first life

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – table 34

3.5.2 Computer monitors

Before summer 2006 it was typical for computer backlights to be mercury-filled fluorescent lamps, however a few manufacturers have found that full size monitors with LED (light emitting diodes) backlights are commercially viable particularly in high end products, such as those used in CAD (Computer Aided Design) suites. However very few manufacturers produce LED screens. Samsung estimate that in 2006 just 3% of all LCD monitors sold were equipped with LEDs. On this point, the EuP study remarks that LED technology is unlikely to achieve significant market share for some years ahead because of its relatively high cost. The work also notes that at the present time, LED screens consume more energy than their CCFL counterparts a point also noted in the recent work to revise the TV ecolabel (AEA’s report to the Commission, 2008). The sale of CRT-monitors is rapidly declining in volume, as shown in the market analysis section 3.4 as consumers take up LCD screens, which are now a cost-effective option.

3.6 Consumer behaviour

Consumer usage patterns of computers and monitors are important to understand in terms of how long they are in use, left in active, sleep mode and turned off. Although these terms can have different meanings to different people they are generally accepted as having the following definitions

• Off includes soft off (computer turned off by software or power button but still connected to mains) and hard off, i.e. zero energy consumption.

• Sleep includes several low energy consumption states, none of them permitting interactive usage.

• Active/Idle includes all power states between idle and high (maximum power usage), (i.e. in idle the machine is on, some programmes are running and it is therefore ready to be used.)

The consultants who developed the EuP preparatory study found that consumer usage patterns is an area where there is a lack of robust, up to date information. This was especially the case with older studies because usage patterns change very rapidly as the performance and function of computers change and users adopt new behaviours and do so in increasing numbers such as on-line banking and shopping. Information was gathered for the EuP study from a number of sources and put into common units, such as active, sleep and off modes. The resulting mean values from all sources are presented below in Table 7.


Table 7: Computer usage pattern, mean values from all sources

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – table 53 For Table 7 the term ‘active’ can be used interchangeable with the word ‘idle’, because there is no differentiation between times spent in idle and active modes. However, for the rest of this discussion paper the term ‘idle’ will be used for the reason that when gaining data from manufacturers the EuP authors could only ask for power consumption values for idle, sleep and off modes as these are the modes supported by test standards. The Energy Star definitions for these modes are provided later in section 4.1.3.


4 Life cycle impacts

This section presents a summary of the methodology and key findings of the EuP study lot 3 in terms of the environmental impact of desktop computers and computer monitors. From these findings we have proposed several ecolabel criteria in this section, alternatively you can view a summary of the criteria in section five. It should be noted that section four and five only look at data from EuP studies to propose criteria and other criteria not covered within the EuP Lot 3 study are taken into account in section six. Data for the EuP preparatory study was gathered from computer and monitor manufacturers. The data collection procedure included;

• a stakeholder meeting on 30th May 2006 and 20

th April 2007,

• a questionnaire to stakeholders during summer 2006, referred to in this discussion paper as the IVF (Industrial Research and Development Corporation) Survey. This is a survey that was sent out by IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation to stakeholders. Due to secrecy agreements the names of the companies who completed the survey are not included.

• requests for LCA data. In order for the data collected to be all from a similar computer and monitor specification, survey questions focussed on a standard product specification. These specifications or base cases are detailed in section 4.1 below. The product base cases, one for the office and one for the domestic environment, were chosen as they represented the largest share of the market in 2005. The data provided from manufacturers is presented as an average, as to not disclose confidential information. The participant list for the stakeholder meetings included Fujitsu Siemens, NEC, Sony, AMD, Intel, Mitsubishi, HP, Apple, Toshiba and Dell indicating that most of the major manufacturers took part in the EuP preparatory studies.

4.1 Personal desktop computers

The data gathered for desktop PCs was based on the following specification:

• 3GHz processor (or equivalent)

• built in graphics card

• 512 MB RAM (Random Access Memory)

• 80 GB HDD (Hard Disk Drive) The usage pattern of this PC type in an office environment and a home environment differ and therefore the EuP study adopted two different scenarios. The above base case product specification was used in the EuP study to represent an environmental impact assessment for an average computer in 2005. Whilst there are two different usage patterns the difference between the two scenarios are not so great that one would draw different conclusions regarding the life cycle impacts, by looking at one rather than the other. Section 4.1.1 below reviews data extracted from the EuP preparatory study to determine the key environmental impacts from a personal desktop computer through its lifecycle.

4.1.1 Environmental Impacts

From the environmental impact data collected the EuP authors concluded that the most energy is consumed in the use phase (EuP Lot 3 section 5.2.1). The in-use phase consumes about six times more energy than in any other phase, production being the next most important for energy consumption, and therefore minimising energy use during this phase is an obvious improvement area. This can be seen in Figure 2 below.


Figure 2: Life cycle primary energy per product

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – figure 16 Figure 2 shows that the energy consumed while the desktop is in use is larger than in production, distribution and end-of-life. The energy consumed while the desktop is in use is greater for an office desktop then a home desktop due to the more intensive usage pattern for an office desktop computer, as can be seen in Table 7. The energy in the production phase can be mainly attributed to integrated circuits, surface mounted devices, big capacitors and coils, copper wiring, PWB (printed wiring board) manufacturing, sheet metal manufacturing and galvanised steel.

4.1.2 Energy Use

With energy in use being the phase where most energy is consumed over a desktop computer’s lifetime, this is the area where the EU Ecolabel should look to push for environmental improvements. Section 4.1.3 sets out further data from EuP Lot 3 and proposes EU Ecolabel criteria.

4.1.3 Energy Savings

Data collected for a number of base case models (specification detailed above in section 4.1) on energy in-use, shows that the majority of energy consumption occurs in the idle stage. As shown in Figure 3 below.


Figure 3: Power figures for laptops and desktops

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – figure 14 The definition for the operational modes (idle, sleep, off) used in the EuP study have been taken from Energy Star:

• Idle – For purposes of testing and qualifying computers under this specification, this is the state in which the operating system and other software have completed loading, the machine is not asleep, and activity is limited to those basic applications that the system starts by default.

• Sleep – A low power state that the computer is capable of entering automatically after a period of inactivity or by manual selection. A computer with sleep capability can quickly ‘wake’ in response to network connection or user interface devices.

• Off (standby) – The power consumption level in the lowest power mode which cannot be switched off (influenced) by the user and that may persist for an indefinite time when the appliance is connected to the main electricity supply and used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Figure 3 is looking at data collected against the base case specification, which has been compared in Table 8 below with data from the IVF survey, as well as Energy Star data. The survey and the product case data sets, is data representing the best-selling computers in 2005 according to the major manufacturers. Whereas, the Energy Star data comprises 100 different models on the market in 2006. The IVF survey results indicate lower power consumption values for home desktops, which is likely to be the result of what is called the ‘white box market’ not being included in the IVF survey results. The white box market includes products assembled from standard components by small local companies, sometimes with their own brand name. Computers assembled in this way are less likely to take consideration of energy efficiency statistics then the larger branded computers. The survey was undertaken by the large manufacturers and therefore the energy credentials of the white box market is less likely to be included in the survey results, compared with the Energy Star values.


Table 8: Desktop computer power

Data Sources IVF summer survey

Operational modes

Office desktop

Home desktop

Product case data sets

Energy Star 2006 data

EU Ecolabel 2005

Idle, Average (min-max) (Watt)

73.8 (70.5-78) 61 (50-79.7) 78.2 81.7 (221-23) -

Sleep, Average (min-max) (Watt)

3.3 (1.2-4.2) 3.7 (2.61-5) 2.2 3.1 (1.4-10.1) 4

Off, Average (Watt)

1.4 (1-2.3) 1.4 (0.7-3) 2.7 2.0 (0.4-10.1) 2

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – table 73 The energy consumption criteria in the existing EU Ecolabel Commission Decision (2005/341/EC) for personal computers, is detailed in Box 5 below. The EU Ecolabel energy requirements were developed prior to 2004, which was before the time that the Energy Star brought in energy efficiency values for sleep and off modes. The advantage of using Energy Star criteria compared with setting criteria based on the data collected for the product base case and the survey, is that Energy Star looks at a number of different computer operational modes to calculate idle criteria. Computers with different purposes are set different energy targets, these are separated into category A, B and C (see box 6 for a definition of these categories). The distinction between different operational modes was not made when the survey data was collected from manufacturers. Therefore, even though the data from manufacturers in Table 8 suggests that more stringent criteria could be set, this does not take into account the different operational modes that exist.

BOX 5: EU Ecolabel Personal Computer – Energy Criteria Criterion 1a) The computer system unit shall have an easily accessible on-off switch Criterion 1b) The computer system unit shall meet the Energy Star configuration requirements that enable energy efficiency modes. Criterion 1c) The computer shall support the ACPI S3 sleep state (suspend to RAM) to allow minimum energy consumption of not more than 4 watts. Criterion 1d) The off-mode power consumption shall be no more than 2 watts. In this context, the off-mode is the state initiated through the command to shut down the computer.

BOX 6: Energy Star Operational Modes Desktop Categories for Idle Criteria: For the purposes of determining Idle state levels, desktops (including integrated computers, desktop-derived servers and game consoles) must qualify under Categories A, B, or C as defined below: Category A: All desktop computers that do not meet the definition of either Category B or Category C below will be considered under Category A for ENERGY STAR qualification. Category B: To qualify under Category B desktops must have: • Multi-core processor(s) or greater than 1 discrete processor; and • Minimum of 1 gigabyte of system memory.


The EuP authors have considered the collated data for personal computers and monitors to develop a number of scenarios for improving the environmental performance and energy consumption from computers and monitors. These scenarios are all described in section 8.1.2 in EuP Lot 3 study. All of the scenarios are very similar, as they are based on the voluntary requirements set out within Energy Star. The difference between the scenarios is whether the requirement is kept voluntary or is made mandatory. The Energy Star voluntary requirements are regularly updated, the latest Tier 1 requirements are shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Key product criteria for Energy Star qualified computers

Source: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=computers.pr_crit_computers We have proposed two options for an energy criterion, both of which are based on the data from Energy Star. The difference between the two options is that the energy consumption values in option two will change as the criteria for Energy Star are reviewed, whereas in option one the values will be frozen in time to the Energy Star criteria reference that the EU Ecolabel criteria refer to. Option 1 The computer meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode, sleep mode, and idle state that are set out in the July 2007 Energy Star criteria

1.

Option 2 The computer meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode, sleep mode and idle state that are set out in the latest product criteria for Energy Star qualified computers.

1 As defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Website:

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=computers.pr_crit_computers

Category C: To qualify under Category C desktops must have: • Multi-core processor(s) or greater than 1 discrete processor; and • A GPU with greater than 128 megabytes of dedicated, non-shared memory. In addition to the requirements above, models qualifying under Category C must be configured with a minimum of 2 of the following 3 characteristics: • Minimum of 2 gigabytes of system memory; • TV tuner and/or video capture capability with high definition support; and/or • Minimum of 2 hard disk drives.


4.1.4 Shipping mode

The authors of the Lot 3 study describe the enforcement of power management as one of the most effective measures for energy conservation in computers. Most modern computer hardware has an advanced, built in functionality for power management, which is often not used. The authors of EuP Lot 3 explain how many computer owners actively turn off the power management function due to anticipated problems with legacy software and with network applications. Studies undertaken by industry have shown that products which have an enabled power management system are turned off my less than 20% of users, leading to a much higher use of such a system than if the user have to actively enable it. The Lot 3 authors recommendations is to introduce legislation which forces the manufacturers to provide the computers with the power management system enabled at the time of delivery to the customers. They also recommend that information about how to use the power management system should also be provided to customers. The proposed criterion for power management is shown below: a) The computer shall be shipped with the power management system enabled at the time of delivery to the customers. Power management settings shall be:

i) 15 minutes to screen off (display sleep) ii) 30 minutes to computer sleep (system level S3, suspended to RAM)

b) The computer manual shall state in the first few pages of the manual the benefit of keeping the computer on the power management setting.

4.1.5 Power supply unit

Power supplies for desktops and for monitors in today’s market show a relatively large distribution in efficiency. The EuP Lot 3 authors state that technology is available to get efficiency in the area of 80-85% and even higher, while some units on the market are considerably less efficient. The below proposal for power supply unit efficiency is based on the recommendations of Lot 3, which have in turned been based on the Energy Star test methods and criteria for internal power supplies and Lot 7 findings for external power supplies. The authors of Lot 3 suggest that even higher efficiency of power supply units then the 80% they state could be reached, such as +85% or +90%. For internal power supply (desktops): 90% minimum efficiency at 20%, 50%, 80% and 100% of rated output and Power Factor ≥0.9 of rated output.

4.2 Personal Computer Monitors

The EuP lot 3 preparatory study presents data on both CRT and LCD monitors. For the EU Ecolabel only the data on LCD monitors is considered because of the declining numbers of CRT monitors on the market, as described in section 3.4– Future Trends. The declining numbers mean that the use of CRT will be minimal by the time new EU Ecolabel criteria are published. The base case at which all data was gathered on LCA monitors in the EuP study was on a 17” LCD screen, resolution 1280x1024. This base case product has been used to represent an environmental impact assessment for an average LCD monitor in 2005. Whilst there are two different usage patterns (office and home) the difference between the two scenarios are not so great that one would draw different conclusions regarding the life cycle impacts, by looking at one rather than the other. Section 4.2.1 below reviews data extracted from the EuP preparatory study to determine the key environmental impacts for LCD monitor through its lifecycle.


4.2.1 Environmental Impacts

From the environmental impact data collected the EuP authors conclude that the most energy is consumed in the use phase. The in-use phase consumes about six times more energy than in any other phase and therefore minimising energy use during this phase is an obvious improvement area. This can be seen in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Life cycle primary energy per product

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – figure 16 Figure 5 shows that the energy consumed while a LCD monitor is in use is larger then in production, distribution and end-of-life. The largest quantity of energy used in the in-use phase, is associated with the backlights where 90% of the power is consumed (EuP Preparatory Study Lot 3 – section 4.3.2). The energy consumed while the LCD monitor is in use is greater for an office LCD monitor then a home LCD monitor due to the more intensive usage pattern for an office monitor, as can be seen in Table 7.

4.2.2 Energy Use

With energy in use being the phase where most energy is consumed over a computer monitor’s lifetime, this is the area where the EU Ecolabel should look to push for environmental improvements. Section 3.2.3 sets out further data from EuP Lot 3 and proposes EU Ecolabel criteria.

4.2.3 Energy Savings

On-mode Using a typical use pattern, energy consumption is highest in active (on) mode. The EuP authors describe that on-mode power consumption is related to the size of the LCD monitor and not resolution. This is because of the way a LCD monitor brings the picture to the screen. The idea that the energy use correlates to the resolution (megapixels) is from when the standard was a plasma screen where each pixel element is an individual light source that is illuminated as needed. The way an LCD monitor works is to have backlights running and rather than lighting up pixels, an LCD will block them, so the light does not get through. Therefore, it is the screen size that impacts on energy used, as the larger the screen size the more backlights used. Figure 6 shows the correlation between energy


consumption and screen size. It also shows that LCDs use less energy in-use per cm2 of screen size

than an equivalently sized CRT screen, i.e. they are more energy efficient per square area. For a more detailed explanation of on-power consumption, resolution and screen size please refer to section 4.3.2 of EuP Lot 3 preparatory study.

Figure 6: Computer monitor power consumption by screen area

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – figure 10 LCD display power consumption values are compared in Table 9 below from product base case data, IVF survey and data from TCO (TCO certification is a labelling scheme for low emissions standards for a number of products, one of which is computer monitors). In the IVF survey and for the product base case data sets, the data represents the best-selling LCD-displays in 2005. The number of individual displays reviewed in the product base case is less. The TCO data, comprises of around 100 different 17” LCD-display models, which have no correlation to market share.

Table 9: LCD display power consumption from different sources

IVF summer survey Product case data sets

TCO 2005 data 17” LCD

Operational Modes

Functional Unit

Ave Max Min Ave Max Min Ave Max Min

Active (Watt) Per m2 415 604 330 345 - - 285 526 191

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – Table 81 The current energy requirements detailed in the European Commission Decision (2005/341/EC) for computer monitors are below in Box 7.


The difficulty comes when deciding what measurements should be used for recording energy consumption. The current EU Ecolabel energy requirement values are based on per screen area and screen resolution. The EuP evidence base describes that energy consumption is correlated with screen size. However, Energy Star and TCO requirements ask for energy values to be measured using resolution. Within the EuP policy recommendations the authors acknowledge that Energy Star is a well-known and widely used system and therefore propose that the first step of implementing measures should be measured in power per resolution as per Energy Star requirements. The authors of Lot 3 then recommend that for the second implementation step (around 2011) the requirements for power per screen area be developed, as the authors believe these will have a wider impact. The recommendations given with the EuP study for active/on mode energy consumption are based on the equation

• Y=10+410*A, Y is the active/on power in Watts and A is a “true” value in m

2 for the area of the screen surface.

The EuP authors state that almost all the products from the Energy Star database would be able to meet this requirement. This can be seen below in Figure 7 for all those points (representing a monitor) underneath the limit line.

BOX 7: Present EU Ecolabel for Monitors – Energy Criteria Criterion a) The monitor shall have an easily accessible on-off switch Criterion b) The monitor shall have a sleep mode power consumption of no more than 2 watts. The default mode-change time from operation to the sleep state shall be no more than 30 minutes of inactivity. The manufacturer must enable this feature, but the user may disable it. Criterion c) The monitor shall have an off-mode power consumption of no more than 1 watt. In this context, the off-mode is the state initiated through the command to shut down the monitor. Criterion d) Monitors shall not exceed the Energy Star Version 4 requirements for Tier 2, maximum active power consumption. Monitors must comply with the appropriate formula given below:

i) if X<1 then Y = 23 ii) if X ≥1 then Y = 28X

(where X is the number of mega-pixels and Y the energy consumption in watts)


Figure 7: Active/on mode power for monitors, compared to statistics available from E* (Energy Star database) and C’t (Computertechnik)

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – Figure 46 The majority of monitors within the Energy Star database meet the EuP recommendations for active/on mode energy consumption measured by screen size (based on Y= 410x + 10). The Energy Star labelling scheme criteria is based on the performance of approximately 25% of the best available products on the market when the criteria are set. The average on-power consumption figure for the best available 25% of the market is 290 W/m

2.

Table 10: Power in on-mode for monitors according to Energy Star statistics

Power (W/m2)

LCD

Max 617

Average 290

Min 184

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – Table 71 The two proposed criterion options for on-mode power consumption for computer monitors are: Option 1 - Energy Savings measured by resolution: Monitors shall not exceed the Energy Star maximum active power consumption. Monitors must comply with the appropriate formula given below:

• If X < 1 megapixel, then Y = 23;

• if X > 1 megapixel, then Y = 28X (Y is expressed in watts and rounded up to the nearest whole number and X is the number of megapixels in decimal form) Option 2 – Energy Savings measured by screen area: Active/on mode energy consumption shall not exceed 290 watts per m

2 for a computer monitor.

Sleep and Off Modes


For sleep and off modes the current EU Ecolabel criteria and the Energy Star criteria, currently measure energy consumption on a per display basis. The energy consumption values collected from IVF summer survey, product base case and TCO are shown below in Table 11.

Table 11: LCD display on-power consumption per display

IVF summer survey Product case data sets

TCO 2005 data 17” LCD

Operational Modes

Functional Unit

Ave Max Min Ave Max Min Ave Max Min

Sleep (Watt) Per display 1.2 2 0.7 0.9 - - 1.1 4 0.5

Off (Watt) Per display 1.1 2 0.7 0.8 - - 1.0 3.0 0.5

Source: Lot 3 Final Report (Task 1-8) – Table 81 The disadvantage however, of the above data is that it is not clear what percentage of the market this data is representative of. The EuP authors recommend that for sleep and off mode power for monitors, the Energy Star, tier 2 criteria should be followed i.e. sleep mode ≤ 2 W and off mode ≤ 1 W. The Energy Star labelling scheme criteria is based on the performance of approximately 25% of the best available products on the market when the criteria are set. Below are two options for a proposed off mode and sleep mode energy criterion, both of which are based on the data from Energy Star. The difference between the two options is that the energy consumption values in option two will change as the criteria for Energy Star are reviewed, whereas in option one the values will be frozen to the Energy Star criteria reference that the EU Ecolabel criteria refer to. Option 1 The monitor meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode and sleep mode that are set out in tier two, 1

st January 2005 Energy Star criteria.

Option 2 The computer meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode and sleep mode that are set out in the latest product criteria for Energy Star qualified computer monitors.

4.2.4 Power supply unit criterion

The below proposal for power supply unit efficiency is based on the recommendations of Lot 3, which have in turned been based on the Energy Star test methods and criteria for internal power supplied and Lot 7 findings for external power supplies. The authors of Lot 3 suggest that even higher efficiency of power supply units then the 80% they state could be reached, such as +85% or +90%. For internal power supply (monitors): 90% minimum efficiency at 20%, 50%, 80% and 100% of rated output and Power Factor ≥0.9 of rated output.


5 Proposals for Ecolabel Criteria

This section outlines the proposals for ecolabel criteria drawing on the data and information available in the EuP Lot 3 study report. It only covers those issues covered by the work in support of EuP. Given though that the ecolabel considers a wider range of issues than EuP, these additional aspects are discussed in Section six drawing on the criteria development experience for other ecolabelled product groups.

5.1 Product group definition

Based on the review presented in section 2, we are proposing to use the EuP definition. As although both the EuP and EU Ecolabel definitions are similar in scope, the EuP definition is more prescriptive about what is and what is not within the scope. We therefore propose to use the EuP definition for desktop computers and computer monitors. Proposed Ecolabel Definition Personal Computer: A device that performs logical operations and processes data. Personal computers are composed of, at a minimum: (1) a central processing unit (CPU) to perform operations; and (2) user input devices such as a keyboard, mouse, digitizer or game controller. Note that workstations, desktop-derived, mid-range and large servers, game consoles, thin clients/ blade PCs, handhelds and PDAs are not included in this product definition, and will therefore not be covered by this study. Note that portable computers are included in separate ecolabel criteria from the EuP evidence base. Computer monitor: A commercially-available, electronic product with a display screen and its associated electronics encased in a single housing that is capable of displaying output information from a computer via one or more inputs. This definition is intended primarily to cover standard monitors designed for use with computers. The computer monitors included in this definition must have a viewable diagonal screen size greater than 12 inches and must be capable of being powered by a separate AC wall outlet or a battery unit that is sold with an AC adapter. Computer monitors with a tuner/receiver are included as long as they are marketed and sold as computer monitors (i.e., focusing on the computer monitor role as the primary function).

5.2 Energy savings for computers

Option 1 The computer meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode, sleep mode, and idle state that are set out in the July 2007 Energy Star criteria

2.

Option 2 The computer meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode, sleep mode and idle state that are set out in the latest product criteria for Energy Star qualified computers. Assessment and verification: The applicant shall provide the Competent Body with a report certifying that the level of power consumption measured using the procedure in the current Energy Star programme requirements for computers.

2 As defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Website:

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=computers.pr_crit_computers


5.3 Shipping mode for computers

a) The computer shall be shipped with the power management system enabled at the time of delivery to the customers. Power management settings shall be:

i. 15 minutes to screen off (display sleep) ii. 30 minutes to computer sleep (system level S3, suspended to RAM)

b) The computer manual shall state in the first few pages of the manual the benefit of keeping the computer on the power management setting. Assessment and verification: The applicant shall provide the Competent Body with a declaration to certify that the computer has been shipped in the power management settings stated above or better. The applicant will provide the Competent Body with a copy of the user manual that complies with criterion 2b above.

5.4 Power supply unit for computers

For internal power supply (desktops): 90% minimum efficiency at 20%, 50%, 80% and 100% of rated output and Power Factor ≥0.9 of rated output. Assessment and verification: The applicant should declare compliance with this criterion and provide the Competent Body with test results as per the methodology described in the Internal Power Supply Efficiency Protocol www.efficientpowersupplies.org

5.5 Energy savings for computer monitors

Option 1 Energy Savings measured by resolution: Monitors shall not exceed the Energy Star maximum active power consumption. Monitors must comply with the appropriate formula given below:

• If X < 1 megapixel, then Y = 23;

• if X > 1 megapixel, then Y = 28X (Y is expressed in watts and rounded up to the nearest whole number and X is the number of megapixels in decimal form) Assessment and verification: The applicant shall provide the Competent Body with a report certifying that the levels of power consumption in on-modes have been measured using the procedure in the Energy Star Programme Requirements for Computer Monitors. Option 2 Energy Savings measured by screen area: Active/on mode energy consumption shall not exceed 290 watts per m

2 for a computer monitor.

Assessment and verification: Awaiting confirmation from Commission consultation

5.5.1 Sleep and Off modes for computer monitors

Option 1 The monitor meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode and sleep mode that are set out in Tier two, 1

st January 2005 Energy Star criteria.


Option 2 The computer meets the energy efficiency requirements for off mode and sleep mode that are set out in the latest product criteria for Energy Star qualified computer monitors. Assessment and verification: The applicant shall provide the competent body with a report certifying that the level of power consumption in sleep and off modes has been measured using the procedure in the current Energy Star. The report shall state the measured power consumption in these modes.

5.6 Power supply unit for computer monitors

For internal power supply (monitors): 90% minimum efficiency at 20%, 50%, 80% and 100% of rated output and Power Factor ≥0.9 of rated output. Assessment and verification: The applicant should declare compliance with this criterion and provide the Competent Body with test results as per the Energy Star external power supply test methodology.


6 Possible Criteria

The following criteria are all the criteria within the current Personal Computers EU Ecolabel (minus those in section five). At the first meeting we will discuss which of the following (if any) should be included in the streamlined criteria proposals.

6.1 Lifetime extension

(a) The computer shall be designed so that the memory is readily accessible and can be changed. (b) The computer shall be designed so that the hard disk, and if available the CD drive and/or DVD drive, can be changed. (c) The computer shall be designed so that graphic cards are easily accessible and can be changed. Assessment and verification: the applicant shall declare the compliance of the product with these requirements to the competent body.

6.2 Mercury content of a liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor

The background lighting of the LCD monitor shall not contain more than 3mg of mercury on average per lamp. Assessment and verification: the applicant shall provide a signed declaration that their computer monitors complies with this requirement. It shall include documentation on the mercury content of lamps from suppliers.

6.3 Noise

The ‘Declared A-weighted Sound Power Level’ (re 1 pW) of the personal computer system unit, according to paragraph 3.2.5 of ISO 9296, shall not exceed:

1. 4.0 B (A) in the idle operating mode (equivalent to 40dB(A)) 2. 4.5 B (A) when accessing a hard-disk drive (equivalent to 45dB(A))

Assessment and verification: the applicant shall provide the Competent Body with a report, prepared by an independent test laboratory accredited to ISO 17025, certifying that the levels of noise emissions have been measured in accordance with ISO 7779 and declared in accordance with ISO 9296. The report shall state the measured levels of noise emissions in both the idle operating mode and when accessing a disk drive, which shall be declared in accordance with paragraph 3.2.5 of ISO 9296.

6.4 Electromagnetic Emissions

The personal computer monitor shall meet the requirement set out in EN50279, Category A. Assessment and verification: the applicant shall provide the Competent Body with a report showing that the monitor’s emissions are compliant with the requirement.


6.5 Heavy metals and flame retardants

If a criterion on heavy metals and flame-retardants was to be included in the revised ecolabel criteria for computers, it is likely that the same proposal as for the Television Ecolabel would be put forward. The draft for which is as follows: (a) Cadmium, lead, mercury, chromium 6+ or poly-brominated biphenyl (PBB) or poly-brominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, as listed in Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, shall not be used unless the applications of those substances are listed in the Annex to that Directive as exempted from the requirements of Article 4(1) of that Directive or unless their maximum concentration value is equal or lower to the threshold specified in that same Annex.)]. Regarding the Annex, for PBBs and PBDEs the maximum concentration value shall be <0.01%. (b) Plastic parts shall not contain flame retardant substances or preparations containing substances that are assigned or may be assigned, at the time of application, any of the following risk phrases:

• R45 (may cause cancer),

• R46 (may cause heritable genetic damage),

• R50 (very toxic to aquatic organisms),

• R51 (toxic to aquatic organisms),

• R52 (harmful to aquatic organisms),

• R53 (may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment),

• R60 (may impair fertility) or

• R61 (may cause harm to the unborn child),

as defined in Council Directive 67/548/EEC . Assessment and verification: a certificate signed by the computer producer declaring compliance with these requirements shall be submitted to the awarding competent body. A declaration of compliance signed by the plastic and flame retardant suppliers and copies of relevant material safety data sheets shall also be provided to the awarding competent body.

6.6 Information appearing on the ecolabel

Box 2 of the eco-label shall include the following text:

• High energy efficiency

• Reduced CO2 emissions

• Designed to facilitate repair and recycling

Assessment and Verification: The applicant shall declare the compliance of the product with this requirement and shall provide a copy of the ecolabel as it appears on the packaging and/or product and/or accompanying documentation to the awarding competent body.


The Gemini Building Fermi Avenue Harwell International Business Centre Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QR Tel: 0845 345 3302 Fax: 0870 190 6318 E-mail: [email protected],uk

www.aea-energy-and-environment.co.uk

Discussion Report: EU Ecolabel for Personal Computers ...ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/ecolabel/pdf/eup/... · of, at a minimum: (1) a central processing unit (CPU) to perfo rm

Documents