Hey Sunyn, I believe that Cd-free has been clea
Post# of 22465
Posted On: 04/08/2016 3:46:39 PM
Hey Sunyn,
I believe that Cd-free has been clearly shown to be less efficient than Cd though. That's the argument that companies like Nanosys, QDV and 3M are using. With QMC able to produce both I don't think it's any of their concern really. The only companies that stand to lose anything are QD Vision (only Cd) and Nanoco (only Cd-free). Academics and industry alike (even Nathan Stott) agree that Cd-free performance lags behind that of Cadmium. I'd say until they can definitely prove that Cd-free is as energy efficient as cadmium there won't be a full, outright ban.
Cadmium is already used in "extremely limited quantity". I believe the currently allowed limit is already something miniscule. The whole banning cadmium argument is being pushed by Nanoco in my opinion.
I believe that Cd-free has been clearly shown to be less efficient than Cd though. That's the argument that companies like Nanosys, QDV and 3M are using. With QMC able to produce both I don't think it's any of their concern really. The only companies that stand to lose anything are QD Vision (only Cd) and Nanoco (only Cd-free). Academics and industry alike (even Nathan Stott) agree that Cd-free performance lags behind that of Cadmium. I'd say until they can definitely prove that Cd-free is as energy efficient as cadmium there won't be a full, outright ban.
Cadmium is already used in "extremely limited quantity". I believe the currently allowed limit is already something miniscule. The whole banning cadmium argument is being pushed by Nanoco in my opinion.
(0)
(0)