Re: RoHS just a thought

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:34:22 +0100, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Chris Jones wrote:

Bob Masta wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:56:40 GMT, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"greenplanetsolutions@xxxxxxxxx" wrote:

What do you think?

The general consensus among all the electronic enginers I know is that
the whole lead-free thing is 100% barmy and is a solution looking for a
problem.

No-one I know wants to make equipment that will be less reliable (lead
free).

Stop to consider why the miliary, aerospace (AIUI) and certain
telecoms/networking are exempt.

Furthermore, the regulations (certainly in the EU) regarding
documentation are so excessive that no small company can ever actually
afford to comply fully. It's simply bureacracy gone totally mad.


Personally, I'm all in favor of making things kinder to the
environment. The problem with lead-free solders,
however, is that they are simply not an acceptable
solution. The issue is "tin whiskers" which grow
from the so-called solder at an alarming rate and
can short to adjacent conductors. It's hard to
imagine that anyone could seriously consider this
as an acceptable replacement for leaded solder.

My first reaction to all this was that we should just
do a better job of diverting electronics devices from
the landfills, and into some sort of material recovery stream.
But these days "electronics" might be in almost anything,
including kids' sneakers. If the RFID proponents get
their wish, electronics will be in damn near *everything*.

What's the answer?

How about make all of the disposable consumer crap lead free except offer
a blanket exception to allow 5% leaded solder in any product which comes
with a 5 year or greater warranty, and up to 36% lead if the warranty
exceeds 15
years. I think that companies that offer a long warranty will put more
thought into making the product last longer, and they should be given the
best materials to achieve the lowest total amount of pollution (which must
include the energy and materials that goes into making lead-free
electronics that fails and is scrapped after a couple of years due to tin
whiskers). The warranty would need to be backed by a pre-paid voucher on
the appliance for shipping to the manufacturer within the warranty period
or shipping to a proper recycling facility thereafter. It would be
reasonable to require the manufacturer to buy insurance to protect the
warranty service in the event that they might go out of business within
the warranty period (as otherwise this would be a cheap get-out for
unscrupulous companies), but any "insurance", "recycling scheme" or
membership fees should be set at a fixed price per kilogram of electronics
content sold, rather than the kind of annual per-company bribes /
protection money / membership fees / WEEE registration that penalises
small businesses and start-ups, and favours only the largest companies
(and therefore has been implemented).

Chris


Or another option: allow lead but tax it at 1 euro per gram. Tax it equally
per gram of lead, whether it is in flashing on the roof of a house, in a
car battery, in steel alloys or in solder - there is no reason to victimise
only one industry. Give a full refund when it is recycled. The refund
would be paid for the ingots of reclaimed alloy, and let businesses figure
out a way of buying back the old appliances for the right price. New
consumer appliances would mostly be lead-free or nearly so, for cost
reasons. Recycling rates would be very high, yet expensive and important
equipment could be built with the most reliable solder. And best of all:
with my hoard of 60/40, I'll be rich!

You are both proposing yet more complex laws and yet more taxes.

If ingots were bought back at $1 a gram, imagine the amount of lead
that would be smuggled in from China!

The sensible thing would be to allow small amounts of tin/lead solder
(as on component leads) and exempt industrial/small-production stuff
entirely.

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lead-free wire soldering?
    ... >> I am not particularly moved by the lead-free movement. ... >> products, it seems to make more sense to use leaded solder, and rather ... > Electronics in general should be banned from landfills and sent to recyclers. ... we'll have to pay more for less relaible electronics so that it can't leach lead into the soil - yet ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: RoHS just a thought
    ... The problem with lead-free solders, ... as an acceptable replacement for leaded solder. ... But these days "electronics" might be in almost anything, ... a 5 year or greater warranty, and up to 36% lead if the warranty exceeds 15 ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Swatch kills RoHS
    ... THE SWATCH GROUP IS GOING BACK TO LEAD SOLDER-PRECURSOR FOR THE ... ELECTRONICS WORLD? ... did the lead-free R&D for 2 years, ... lead-free solder problems and more: ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Swatch kills RoHS
    ... ELECTRONICS WORLD? ... going-on $4B sales, one quarter of world watch production, diligently did the lead-free R&D for 2 years, went into lead-free production 13 months in advance of the RoHS deadline, and then disaster. ... Now the Swatch Group is applying for an exemption from RoHS so they can go back to lead. ... For those who escape tin whiskers, lead-free solder has some other treats in store. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: RoHS just a thought
    ... lead-free thing is 100% barmy and is a solution looking for a problem. ... as an acceptable replacement for leaded solder. ... But these days "electronics" might be in almost anything, ... Biodegradeable organic conductors ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)