thebutler14 t1_j41tj77 wrote
Thank you! 'Green' can be a blanketing term, which can be frustratingly opaque when there's a lot of aspects (sustainable, non-toxic to humans/animals/plants, biodegradable, etc). Given that there's strong financial incentives to NOT investigate or obscure the external impacts of a product, how do you see standards or regulations safeguarding OE given the diversity and complexity of the field?
amarrocchi OP t1_j43a2p6 wrote
Hi, and thank you! Well, to the best of my knowledge there are technical committees attempting to set standards for sustainability in the field of OE. These will need to comply with the current legislation on chemical substances, of course. But, you’re right, the field is extremely diversified and complex. And, also, this aspect didn’t draw much attention up to very recent times. Just like ‘ok, now let’s think about achieving the most efficient devices, it doesn’t matter how, then we’ll see’. This delay will be an issue. Fabrication plants are hard-pressed, for example, due to the regulatory requirements which ban the use of hazardous solvents. So, to make OE viable, the paradigm shift urges, also in terms of regulations and standards. Though I think the whole process will take a lot of time … substitutions of materials are not easy to identify, for example. They need to maintain performance, otherwise one will have a final product that is environmentally sustainable but not economically and socially sustainable. I also think, btw, that setting standards requiring LESS hazardous materials, and LESS energy than those for the state of the art devices would already be a good start.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments