Page 23 - st3_spr09.indd

sustainabletimes 23 www.binfo.co.uk

Printer users are being encouraged to pay more attention to the environmental impact of printing, for example by printing on both sides of the page to reduce paper consumption (see cover story on pages 18 and 19). But should we also be using remanufactured toner cartridges, which as well as being cheaper have a lower carbon footprint than manufacturers’ own cartridges?

The United Kingdom Cartridge Recyclers Association (UKCRA) clearly believes so. In December, it released a new study conducted by Xanfeon Energy & Environmental Services, which found that the carbon footprint of a remanufactured cartridge was 25-40% smaller for short life cartridges (SLCs) that can be re-used up to 3 times and 60% smaller for long life cartridges (LLCs) that can be remanufactured up to 15 times. The report, Carbon Footprints and Ecodesign of Toner Printer Cartridges , underlines the potential benefits (both to the environment and re-manufacturers) of compelling OEMs to adopt eco-design principles that extend the after-life of consumables and is likely to form the basis of the UKCRA’s campaign against anti re-use devices (ARUDs), such as smart chips and sonic or zig-zag welding, that make it increasingly difficult to remanufacture OEM cartridges.

Even if a cartridge is remanufactured for the average of 3.5 times, the

benefits are considerable. According to a recent study by Best Foot Forward for the Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse, remanufacturing in the UK produces 46% fewer CO

2 emissions than manufacturing a new cartridge based on raw materials used, energy consumption, transport and disposal. Best Foot Forward based its study, The Carbon Footprint of Remanufactured Versus New Mono Toner Printer Cartridges , on cartridge remanufacturing at CartridgeWorld in Aylesbury, on the assumption that a mono toner cartridge can be re-manufactured an average of 3.5 times. The main reason that remanufacturing has a lower footprint is that a large number of components are re-used in the remanufacturing process, notably the High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) outer cases, which account for 45% of the material in a new cartridge. Overall, Best Foot Forward found that a new cartridge requires 16 times as much material by weight as a cartridge refill.

Incomplete results

The OEMs themselves argue that such studies are flawed because they fail to take into account variable factors such as the toner used; the quality of the recycling at end of life (i.e. are materials recovered and used to make other things or incinerated); and most importantly the quality of the remanufactured cartridges themselves,

including yield and performance. Lexmark quotes a Buyers Laboratory Inc (BLI)/Lexmark study from 2005, which found that three out of 10 remanufactured cartridges failed to print the expected number of pages. Market leader Hewlett-Packard regularly compares the performance of its toner cartridges to remanufactured ones. In a May 2008 study, Quality Logic compared the quality and reliability of HP LaserJet toner cartridges to 7 brands of remanufactured ones. Of the 168 remanufactured cartridges tested (24 for each brand), 51 failed to perform adequately: 4 were dead on arrival and 47 had 50% or more pages of limited or no use.

Overall, the HP LaserJet toner cartridges printed an average of 96.1% of pages to an acceptable standard for all uses, compared to an average of 69% for the seven remanufactured toner brands.

Despite these findings, remanufactured cartridges are used by a huge number of printer users – the UKCRA estimates that they now account for 20-30% of all toner cartridge sales. As well as preventing cartridges from going to landfill and providing schools and charities with a valuable source of revenue (from the empties), remanufacturing delays the need to manufacture a new cartridge, helping to preserve resources. Not all remanufactured cartridges meet the highest standards, but if you choose well the evidence suggests that they can help you reduce your carbon footprint. Choose badly and you may find that carbon savings from remanufacturing are dissipated through the need to replace cartridges sooner than anticipated.

Even if you do take the car to work or business meetings (see page 21 to find out why you shouldn’t), there is still much that you can do to reduce the negative effects of doing so.

Robbie McKinnon of the Energy Saving Trust (EST) told Sustainable Times that there were four things drivers should do to reduce fuel consumption:

1) Change up gears earlier;

2) Remain in high gears as much as possible, even at low speed;

3) Improve powers of observation so you can keep the car moving at an optimum speed;

4) Drive for free – when going downhill remain in a higher gear and take your foot off the accelerator.

“Just through these four principles you can save 15% of your fuel costs. This equates to £250 per year for an average driver - and company car drivers are doing a lot of mileage,” he said.

The potential benefits for business are even greater. EST claims that companies with car fleets of 100 vehicles could save £90,000 a year through a combination of smarter driving and the use of teleconferencing to reduce the six trips that the average company car driver

makes each week.

Further savings in reduced fuel and national insurance costs are possible by choosing eco-friendly cars.

EST offers a free Green Fleet Review for businesses with fleets of 50 or more vehicles (20 in Scotland). For smaller fleets, it offers free advice over the phone and by email. It also runs the Motorvate accreditation scheme which sets measurable carbon reduction targets for companies that wish to demonstrate their commitment to lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/fleet

A smaller footprint

Which is best: to recycle or to remanufacture?

Smarter driving saves money