Slashdot Mirror


A Printer That Uses No Consumables

jimboh2k sends word of a printer introduced by Japanese company Sanwa Newtec, called the PrePeat RP-3100 (a play on "repeat"). It prints on A4-sized sheets of PET plastic, and these sheets can be reused up to 1,000 times, the company says. The printer uses heat transfer technology rather than ink, and so has no consumables. There's a video of the printer in operation at the link. The PrePeat costs about $5,600 and a supply of 1,000 plastic sheets will set you back another $3,300. However, the company gives a use case in which a corporation saves $7,360 per year on consumables, as well as putting less CO2 into the atmosphere. So far the PrePeat is available only in Japan.

27 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Yes but.... by budword · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are there Linux drivers ?

    1. Re:Yes but.... by Bootarn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One can hope that they release a .ppd, making the printer usable under GNU/Linux, *BSD and OS X at the same time.

    2. Re:Yes but.... by gafisher · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, Windows-only. Linux users will have to plant a tree every few years to achieve the same environmental benefits.

  2. Define "consumable" by kent_eh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These proprietary plastic sheets sound a bit like a consumable to me.
    Yeah, they're re-usable. But if it's stuck in a filing cabinet then you can't re-use it now can you.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    1. Re:Define "consumable" by cohensh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless it runs without electricity it consumes that as well.

    2. Re:Define "consumable" by davester666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But now you can just file documents by date, and instead of buying new paper, just reuse the oldest sheets that have already been printed. This takes care of the document retention policy at the same time as making filing extremely easy.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Define "consumable" by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pro-tip: Anything that's "resuable" that has a limit on the number of times it can be re-used like, say CD-RWs or this plastic paper, are actually consumable.

      Still, if it really does last 1,000 times (which I doubt), and you're only printing stuff for temporary consumption (as in, you aren't keeping hard copies of anything locked in a filing cabinet), you actually could save enough money -- if you print enough, that is.

    4. Re:Define "consumable" by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Informative

      These proprietary plastic sheets sound a bit like a consumable to me.

      Yeah, they're re-usable. But if it's stuck in a filing cabinet then you can't re-use it now can you.

      I've got a boss who prints crap out all the time. Just random junk. Instead of forwarding an email to me, he'll print it out and hand it to me. And those random bits of junk get thrown away pretty quickly.

      I routinely have to print out documentation for various clients... Take it on-site with me... And after I'm done there, the printout gets shredded.

      For non-permanent bits of information that you'd still like to take away from a computer screen, this could be very handy.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:Define "consumable" by N1AK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pro-tip: writing pro-tip just makes you look silly. Additionally, their is a limited number of times anything will work before it fails, we simply define consumables based on the quantity of use being sufficiently/entirely limited. A car isn't generally considered to be a consumable, but they don't have a lifespan beyond the useful lifetime of a CD-RW (depending of course on how you use both).

    6. Re:Define "consumable" by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Instead of forwarding an email to me, he'll print it out and hand it to me.

      You're obviously one of the lucky ones, who doesn't have to deal with their boss forwarding emails to them.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Define "consumable" by scotch · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pro-tip: if you're going to be a douche on-line, be sure to login for that extra personal touch.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    8. Re:Define "consumable" by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Instead of forwarding an email to me, he'll print it out and hand it to me.

      You're obviously one of the lucky ones, who doesn't have to deal with their boss forwarding emails to them.

      The emails he forwards to me are the stupid ones I don't need - chain letters and whatnot.

      The ones that I actually need, with useful links and product specs and whatnot, he prints out.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    9. Re:Define "consumable" by Starayo · · Score: 5, Funny

      PROTIP: To defeat the Cyberdemon, shoot at it until it dies.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Define "consumable" by timeOday · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hear, hear. I'm holding out for a perpetual motion printer that consumes no energy to do its work.

    11. Re:Define "consumable" by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Somehow, I doubt that "erase" destroys the previous version beyond forensic analysis.

  3. Under a very narrow set of conditions... by ErikZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great, so long as you never pin the paper up, fold, wrinkle or spindle it. Never get oil on from your fingers on it, coffee stains, pen marks, or tape residue.

    Until they include a box that will shred the old "Paper", melt down and extrude new paper, this is worthless.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  4. usefullness? by green1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's great and all, but if I was keeping the physical piece of "paper" I wouldn't need to print it in the first place, and if I did need to print it, I would want it to be permanent, so I wouldn't be ever re-using the sheet. I print things either because other people need them, so I'd be giving away all my expensive plastic sheets in no time flat. Or because I need to keep a permanent copy, so I would never re-use the plastic. Many of those I didn't give away would have been cut up to make quick reference cards, labels, etc.

    If they came up with a way to do this with plain paper (say some form of laser etching which required no toner/ink/film/etc) I'd be interested, but as long as it only works with it's own proprietary "paper" this is pretty much useless.

    1. Re:usefullness? by oh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of hardcopy is only read/used once or twice and then recycled. Sounds like a great idea to me.

      --

      Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

  5. Yeah by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is nice, but misses the purpose of more than half of most printing - to distribute to other people and to mark up your own copies. If I give anyone else the sheet, it's no longer recyclable by me. If I mark up a hard copy - or just make notes while I'm in a meeting - it's no longer reuseable. What about staples?

    If I've got a dozen people in my office, it would be cheaper to simply buy them each a KindleDX - and I'll never run out of paper there.

    (Yes, I'm being negative today. I'm sure this has a niche - like a training center where you can update your handouts for each class, as long as thy can't take them home)

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  6. False accounting? by martinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "about 0.3 yen a sheet/number of times of rewriting."

    Correct me if I'm wrong but this cost assumes you don't need to keep a hard-copy, i.e., you're printing to said sheet 1000 times.

    In other words, if you never keep a copy and always reuse the sheets you'll save cash... The ratio of sheets you wish to keep to sheets you consider disposable has to be high; why else would you print something if not for long-term reference?

    Also, staples?

  7. I've been in the copier printer business for 30 by p51d007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    years, I've seen "green" ideas come and go, but still here we are 30 years later, and we are still putting ink or toner on paper. In the mid 80's, the "paperless" office idea was run up the flag pole, and friends of mine said I better look for another line of work. I just laughed. I said as long as we have a government, with regulations, we'll have paper. These idiots have to justify their jobs some how, and paper reports is how they do it. When the HIPPA laws came into being a few years ago, my work load INCREASED, just from the extra copying & printing those silly laws generated. For the past few years, I've tried until I'm blue in the face to talk people into going toward electronic filing & document storage, only to be told no, because "we've always done it with paper". It's a mind set...people don't like change and sometimes will push against change. In the early 80's, fax machines were taking off big time, but it was hard to convince people to give up messenger services and go with a fax machine. The fax was faster, cheaper than using a courier service, but, some would say "we've always had a courier". Now, I'm having the same problem getting people to give up a fax machine, because scan to e-mail is faster, and cheaper, but people say "we've always had a fax machine". People just don't brace technology sometimes. I gave up trying to change peoples minds. I show them the benefit, the cost savings, the time savings, and if they don't get it, I just let it go. Their money, not mine. Human nature......go figure.

    1. Re:I've been in the copier printer business for 30 by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, I'm having the same problem getting people to give up a fax machine, because scan to e-mail is faster, and cheaper, but people say "we've always had a fax machine".

      Sending a fax: (1) walk to fax machine, (2) put down document, (3) enter fax number, (4) press send, and done.

      Scan and send as e-mail: (1) walk to scanner (same as my fax, printer and copier so at least it has a sheet feeder, most stand-alone scanners don't), (2) put down document, (3) return to computer and open scan software, (4) scan document, (5) enter name and location to store scan file, (6) create new e-mail, (7) enter address, (8) enter subject and body, (9) add attachment, (10) remember where it was stored and how it was called this time, (11) press send, and done.

      Ymmv but for stuff printed already, faxing is for me the easier option! And fax is still more of an "it just works" type of tech than e-mail is, as strange as it may sound.

      Receiving faxes otoh I do in e-mail. And if necessary print them out.

      And finally businesses are still expected to have a fax. That part certainly is legacy, but also because fax is such an easy and simply to use technology. As easy as the telephone. And in ease of use that can not be beaten by e-mail.

    2. Re:I've been in the copier printer business for 30 by PyroMite · · Score: 2, Informative

      The procedure at my office would be:

      1. Put down document on printer/scanner combo device's page feeder
      2. Type the email address of recipient on the touch screen display on that device
      3. Push send.

      Benefits aside from speed and ease of use are that now the recipient has a digital copy without having to scan it themselves and in my experience the quality is pretty much always better than a fax machine.

      I know you said that for you faxing was the easier option, but I don't think gp was advocating the process for you, more for people who have a device built to handle that task. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't advocate fax as the best solution to someone who only had a hand scanner and a fax modem.

  8. We've gone electronic by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That doesn't mean we don't generate paper. I go through 500-1000LF of 36" wide paper a month, plus probably 1500-2000 sheets of letter (we only have 4 employees). What we don't do is keep the paper. Everything either gets scanned and the paper recycled, or printed to PDF and never committed to dead tree form. The savings isn't in paper and printing - it's in storage. I was looking at having to buy storage space and filing cabinets (very expensive for large format drawings). At $1-$1.50 a sheet at the service house, it was cheaper to scan and recycle than to buy cabinets and store. Two years ago we dropped $15k on a large format scanner (well, it copies and prints, too). The result is everything we've ever designed it on the servers (and backed up in two places) and at our fingertips in less than a minute, and I'm not paying for a storage unit somewhere.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  9. stupid execs by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Informative

    All it takes is for one management-type to keep a 100-page report on her shelf to blow your entire savings for the year.

  10. the bean-counter math does not work out by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The math just does not work out.

    At $5,600 for the printer, just the interest alone is $300 a year. For that you can buy 100,000 sheets of copy paper a year. If you expect the printer to last 5 years, that's another $1,100 that could go towards buying almost 400,000 sheets of paper.

    And I doubt if the plastic sheets can be reused more than 10 times in a typical office situation. They're going to get wrinkled, bent, curled, and soiled after just ten cycles. Most printers balk at feeding paper that is even slightly curled. Let's assume 10 uses is a practical limit. So this 33 cent sheet of plastic is now costing you 3 cents a page, ten times more than the equivalent piece of paper.

    Now a good deal.

  11. Cost by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I keep having to do math to debunk so many reports. The page that uses .3 yen as the sheet cost does not take into account sheets that are not returned. They are calculating it as if it is a closed system where every sheet print will be returned in re-printable condition. Pages can be lost, damaged , written on, or stored and never returned. The true cost of using these sheets is as follows;

    ((purchase cost) + (replacement cost of non returned sheets))/cycle size

    Replacement cost is the cost to replace each failed sheet (damaged or not returned) over the life of one page as follows;
    (purchase cost * failure rate * cycle size)

    Therefore with a purchase cost of 300yen, a failure rate of 10% (I am being generous) and a cycle of 1000 the cost per printing would be;

    (300 +(300*.1*1000))/1000 = 30yen.

    Even with the questionable power costs added that would be almost 4 times as expensive as plain paper.

    Bump that up to a 30% failure and you get a cost of 91 yen/printing and 11x the cost of plain paper. To the "no shedding costs" comments; there is still a cost to erase the pages before they are returned to the printer for recycling.

    They also do not factor the cost of collecting, sorting and cleaning the returned pages .

    Another aspect not touched on is print speed. According to the specifications the printer takes 3 to 6 seconds per page to print. I am talking about the commercial printers not the desktop version. Yeah I am going to wait ten minutes to print 100 pages. That is very poor throughput.