Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
intro_pcb [2026/07/07 14:05] – [State of the art: environmental impacts] lucas.burlot.extintro_pcb [2026/07/07 15:56] (current) – [State of the art: environmental impacts] lucas.burlot.ext
Line 132: Line 132:
 | **Scope** | Cradle-to-grave | Cradle-to-waste | Board fab + manufacturing | Gate-to-gate / Cradle-to-gate | Cradle-to-gate | | **Scope** | Cradle-to-grave | Cradle-to-waste | Board fab + manufacturing | Gate-to-gate / Cradle-to-gate | Cradle-to-gate |
 | **Use phase** | Excluded | Excluded | Excluded | Excluded | Excluded | | **Use phase** | Excluded | Excluded | Excluded | Excluded | Excluded |
-| **Technology** | FR-4, PET, paper, multilayer | FR-4 vs paper P-PCB | FR-4 single-layer | FR-4 PTH, all stackups | FR-4, 6Layers SMT | +| **Technology** | FR-4, PET, paper, multilayer | FR-4 single-layer | FR-4 vs paper P-PCB | FR-4 PTH, all stackups | FR-4, 6Layers SMT | 
-| **Key GWP hotspot** | Epoxy resin, layer count | Copper (O-PCB); silver (P-PCB) | Etching (FAETP, ODP); copper in board fab | Electricity consumption (~86% of GHG) | Electricity (~45% GWP) |+| **Key GWP hotspot** | Epoxy resin, layer count | Etching (FAETP, ODP); copper in board fab | Copper (O-PCB); silver (P-PCB) | Electricity consumption (~86% of GHG) | Electricity (~45% GWP) |
 | **GWP order of magnitude** | ~50–500 kg CO₂eq/m² | 18.6 kg CO₂e/m² | 39.2 kg CO₂e/m² (O-PCB) | 60–200 kg CO₂eq/m² (company range) | 200 kg CO2eq/m² | | **GWP order of magnitude** | ~50–500 kg CO₂eq/m² | 18.6 kg CO₂e/m² | 39.2 kg CO₂e/m² (O-PCB) | 60–200 kg CO₂eq/m² (company range) | 200 kg CO2eq/m² |