Slashdot Mirror
EU Proposing Mandatory Battery Recycling
Ironsides writes "The BBC Reports that the European Union is working on a directive to mandate battery recycling. Among other things, it will ban more than trace amounts of cadmium and mercury and require all batteries to be removeable. If it passes, it will be interesting to see how this affects such devices as MP3 players that generally do not have removeable rechargeable batteries."
Then there will be a seam on the back of iPods where the battery meets the casing and nobody will buy them anymore because they're so ugly!!!!
How very bold of the politicians to remove mercury from batteries now that the packaging on most batteries advertises "Mercury Free!". And getting rid of cadmium is a risky political move now that every device worth it's salt uses Lithium-Ion technology! Bold, bold moves from truly noble men and women.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Will they recycle lemon batteries?
Any battery is removable.
The ______ Agenda
This is no surprise to the industry, folks.
They've known for quite a while they will need to account for every scrap of material in their products, and accept them for recycling from any consumer or government unless they have a designated recycling agency in that member state. If the battery doesn't come out, the entire device goes to the recycler.
Even though mercury and cadmium is not as commonly used in batteries anymore, some countries in Europe there may still use them to a degree. The batteries I would wonder about are the imports that sell for a fifth of the price of a set of duracels. I kind of wonder what they use, but in any event, it wasn't that long ago that I read about a recall of chinese made crayons that had lead in them. So I don't discount anything.
If nothing else, one the law is in place, it is easy to amend it for future purposes than to draft a new one. The law also probably has something to do with putting in a europe-wide standard for such things as opposed to a hodge-podge of laws.
If there was a convenient way to dispose of "technological waste" such as batteries and computers, then most would not mind.
However, if you have to call around to chase a moving target to turn risky garbage in, most will just dump it in the regular garbage.
The trash pickup company could have a policy whereby tech waste is put in say blue bags by the side of the curb with the rest of the trash one day of the month. A small tax on semi-hazardous tech devices could pay for it. Or perhaps regular bags with a pre-determined message/sign taped to it.
Table-ized A.I.
What is the EU going to do about this little pink guy?
All that's going to happen is the manufacturers will provide a facility for you to return the device so they can remove the battery. I don't think the bill says batteries have to be user-removable, just removable.
This could potentially affect things like real-time clock chips, though. You'd either have to make the whole chip removable, or use an external battery. "Suicide batteries" in arcade game cartridges could also come under this.
As for banning cadmium - how will cordless power tools go? NiCd still performs better than NiMH or LiIon for high-current applications.
MP3 players will get thrown away by their owners with the battery still inside, it's not like they're going to pay the trash man to open every bag, open the device, and then write up a report to start an investigation on who dumped it. Unless they serialize the batteries and have expensive procedures to track manufacturers that have a low occurance of recycling...hope I don't give them ideas. I'm sure an expensive public information campaign is also in the works with television shots of dead babies covered in batteries.
Future models will likely have a cell-phone like removable battery with a slide/screw off case. Several people will comply to save the babies.
My question: What are they going to do about computer CMOS batteries, and other really embedded batteries. Why stop there, we need to put an end to the electrolyte seepage from large capacitors.
Who uses NiCad anymore anyway? NiMH is all I've seen for some time. Though I'm not a battery expert, I assume NiCad is still used in cheaper devices. The "memory" on those batteries was always horrible, charge it once before it was almost completely dead and that's the new lifetime unless you work to rebuild its capacity.
Chalk this one up to expensive and ineffective legislation to make a news story and do little else.
What's wrong with just burning them?
In the EU, they'd have to eye -this- little pink guy instead:= &q=Duracell+Bunny
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr
( no, not the same company at all - quite heavy competitors in the U.S. actually, though Duracell doesn't use their bunny in the U.S. I think )
If it passes, it will be interesting to see how this affects such devices as MP3 players that generally do not have removeable rechargeable batteries.
If you define interesting as "it will increase the overall price with respect to current units, and the increased amount of government regulation and oversight which will require additional tax funds," then yes, I agree with you, it's quite interesting.
Look, I'm as keen to recycle as the next guy, but since when did government become the solution to all problems? Here's a radical, way-far-out-there idea: if you want the battery industry to change, refuse to purchase devices that are non-recyclable! Nothing stirs an industry quite so quickly -- or so efficiently -- as a consumer revolt. We get greener products, the industry adapts to deliver what we want, and there's no intrusive government leaning over somebody's shoulder telling them what to do. What an elegant solution! It's a pity the knee-jerk reaction these days -- regardless of what continent or island group you're on -- is to scream "Here's a problem! We must demand that government do more to fix it!"
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
More importantly, will they recycle 500lb Potato batteries?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
The mountains of batteries being spewed forth by these little electronic gizmos are astounding.
In a week's time I can have a small bag of batteries used up. The worst offender is Sony Digital Cameras, that gobble up AA 1.5 volt batteries very quickly (it's got a powerful flash).
The only hope is to make all battery recycling mandatory.
When 'toss away' batteries become more expensive than rechargeable batteries, then behaviors should change toward greener (in saving money and saving the environment) behaviors!
if you want the battery industry to change, refuse to purchase devices that are non-recyclable! ... the industry adapts to deliver what we want,
That only changes the problem, without solving it.
Just because "X" buys only recycled paper doesn't me he is going to put the discarded stuff back in the recycling bin.
The public wants recycled goods, but it also doesn't want to be bothered with actually recycling them...
That was Apple's original line, but the reality was that many iPods stopped working after a year or so. Litigation followed. There's now a battery replacement program, a settlement fund and a trade-in deal.
The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. [...] By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market [due in part to] the makers' increasing skill at hiding the technology from drivers. [...] This presented drivers with a radically simplified surface, or "interface" in today's jargon, so that all they had to do was turn the ignition key, put their foot on the accelerator, brake, steer and change gear--and after 1940, when automatic transmissions were introduced, even gear-shifting became optional.
——
Surveys / SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Now you see it, now you don’t
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition
To be truly successful, a complex technology needs to “disappear”
IMAGE
THERE has never been anything quite like information technology before, but there have certainly been other complex technologies that needed simplifying. Joe Corn, a history professor at Stanford University, believes that the first example of a complex consumer technology was clocks, which arrived in the 1820s. Clocks were sold with user manuals, which featured entries such as “How to erect and regulate your device”. When sewing machines appeared in the 1840s, they came with 40-page manuals full of detailed instructions. Discouragingly, it took two generations until a trade publication was able to declare in the 1880s that “every woman now knows how to use one.”
At about the same time, the increase in technological complexity gathered pace. With electricity came new appliances, such as the phonograph, invented in 1877 by Thomas Alva Edison. According to Mr Norman, the computer-design guru, despite Mr Edison’s genius for engineering he was a marketing moron, and his first phonograph was all but unusable (in fact, initially he had no particular uses in mind for it). For decades, Mr Edison fiddled with his technology, always going for the most impressive engineering solution. For instance, he chose cylinders over discs as the recording medium. It took a generation and the entry of a new rival, Emile Berliner, to prepare the phonograph for the mass market by making it easier to use (introducing discs instead of cylinders) and giving it a purpose (playing music). Mr Edison’s companies foundered whereas Mr Berliner’s thrived, and phonographs became ubiquitous, first as “gramophones” or “Victrolas”, the name of Mr Berliner’s model, and ultimately as “record players”.
Another complex technology, with an even bigger impact, was the car. The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. People at the time hired chauffeurs, says Mr Corn, mostly because they needed to have a mechanic at hand to fix the car, just as firms today need IT staff and households need teenagers to sort out their computers.
By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market. Two things in particular had made this possible. The first was the rise, spread and eventual ubiquity of a support infrastructure for cars. This included a network of decent roads and motorways, and of petrol stations and garages for repair
Not as commonly used? Mercury batteries are still widespread in watches, and Cadmium batteries are still sold all over the place as "Rechargable Nickle-Cadmiums."
Any amount of heavy metals is too much for me, thank you.
No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
...and require all batteries to be removeable
Well, that part sounds good to me. I think it should be a law regardless of the environmental effect...
If the battery is not removable, you just need a better hammer.
After this, people will chuck their cell phones into the nearest river, even more directly polluting the environment they tried to protect.
I suggest you read Slashdot
"...since when did government become the solution to all problems?"
The same day they formed an army.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As others have pointed out, NiCd batteries are still preferred in many applications. I've still got quite a few around the house myself, actually.
But hey, at least you can change the battery is your disposable camera. Now if you could just get a law mandating that you be able to change the film too you'd have... a camera.
I don't swear much, but that is utter bullshit. I'll give you a real world scenario, perhaps this happened before you were born so you don't remember (I bet I am correct on this assumption). The large chemical companies were happily dumping toxic waste by the millions of tons wherever they felt like it. ALL OF THEM. THERE WAS NO FUCKING CHOICE. You couldn't "not" buy their products if you just lived normally. They had to be FORCED by legislation to start to "not do that" after years and years of legitimate complaints by all sorts of people. Another. Auto companies knew for years that simple ordinary seat belts worked wonderfully, yet it wasn't a standard feature until they were ordered to do so. Safety regulations on the jobsite-it took federal OSHA rules to get it to at least a half way minimum safe level.
Here's a clue: "the market", left unfettered and unregulated, seeks to concentrate capital in fewer hands,and it does that by forming cartels, the cartels gradually eliminate choice and pricing differences (see gasoline prices for a hint there, a dozen big brands, all within a few pennies of each other all the time, that is what cartels do), cartels gradually give way to monopolies as one big player swallows another, they always seek to "maximize profits" by eliminating what they see as unnecessary, but might well be pretty necessary from the consumers viewpoint. We've been there, done that as a society, it is FUCKED UP. Examples all over, I could rant on this all night long.
What you want is a return to the good old days of snake oil and "caveat emptor", and almost universally that was found to result in consumers getting shafted, hurt, ripped off, killed, maimed, etc. Rotten meat as the norm in the grocery stores, sweatshops with 16 hours a day and kids working there, devices that hurt people constantly when they malfunctioned, all our lakes streams rivers and aquifers unnecessarily polluted, and etc, etc, etc.
There's a reason we have governmental regulations on consumer goods, and on the environment now, it's because the corporations have overwhelmingly proven over and over and over again they will NOT do the ethical, reasonable or moral thing by and large if it impacts them for a *single penny*.
I would LOVE for common sense ethics to be adopted by corporations, absolutely LOVE IT, I am really against big government, but we live in the real word, not an academic theoretical world. If good engineering by design and intent from the beginning, safety first, be "clean" for the planet and future generations, would be taken as a primary consideration,if they were a common and normal part of corporations as a default in their business models, it would be *wonderful*, just wonderful, but IT JUST PLAIN ISN'T. THAT'S REALITY.
They, by and large, the *vast majority* of them, won't do jack-shit until forced to by laws and regulations.
The "free market" people just WILL NOT "GET IT" ON HUMAN NATURE AND GREED.
In this exact case, they should go further, why do we consumers have to do their work for them? They should make it illegal to sell devices that make it extremely hard to change batteries out. It's that simple. Batteries are recognized as a major landfill pollutant, persistant long term pretty nasty stuff. Pass a law, eliminate most of the crap by force. That's it, stroke of the pen, law of the land, it puts all the corporations that sell gadgets right back into the same level of so called competition, and the consumers and environment benefit immediately.
You shouldn't be forced to jump through dremel tool, solder gun and putty knife hoops to change out batteries in fucking gadgets. One screw, access panel, remove batteries. They should all be consumer accessible and have cash deposits on them, to really induce responsible recycling. You want a market solution, there it is. States that have cash deposits on pop and beer cans prove this. It hasn't hurt sales at all, desp
The curb-side recycling programs are undeniably conveniet, but that's not good enough. A lot of people don't bother recycling because they have no personal incentive to do so.
p aper.cfm?DocID=118&) However, I have read numerous studies that curb side recycling is inefficient. Regardless I can attest that in the house I grew up in every single bottle with a deposit was saved and eventually returned for the refund, whereas every other recycleable item went straight to the trash, regardless of a mandatory curb side county-wide recycling program. We used that blue bin to save deposit bottles in.
I would propose deposits on batteries that can be reedemed at the store of purchase or other location. A fifty cents deposit on every battery would result in most of them being recycled.
This is identical to the bottlebills (http://www.bottlebill.org/) that exist in several states on beverages. Opponents of bottle bills argue that they are inefficient. (http://www.gmabrands.com/publicpolicy/docs/white
It's simple, if you want things recycled create a personal economic incentive for people to do it. Pay for each item with the consumers own money.
It's great people are doing something about battery pollution but it would be unfortunate if the law just said batteries need to be recylced rather than focusing on the problem. In particular the problem is that batteries usually contain toxic chemicals not that it is intrinsicly important to recycle anything that might transform chemical energy into electricity.
Hopefully their law just requires all batteries containing the problematic chemicals be recycled so in the future if someone creates a clean/biodegradable battery it won't be included.
Also they should still let companies make non-removeable batteries but only if these companies agree to take the whole device off the government's hand when the consumer throws it in the battery recycling box. Though perhaps seperating them from other batteries makes this too expensive.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Sure, just take it down to your local recycling center and they'll take care of it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This allows the end-user to do something most MP3 players do not allow you to do - exchange the old power source for a newer, possibly better one. Not only does this extend the life of the player, but it could very well extend the respect of the player's user, and give a more sustainable profit from a potential long-time customer. Never underestimate the value of interchangable parts, especially when it comes down to the things that seem to matter to people nowdays - guns and music and consoles and other things that are really taken for granted nowdays.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
That's pretty much what I'd expect to hear from an organization which "advances the interests of the food, beverage and consumer products industry on key issues that affect the ability of brand manufacturers to market their products profitably" (the organization's mission statement.)
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I would wish that the Industry finally comes up with a standardized lithium-Ion Battery. In some form factor which enables it to be put on many types of devices. E.g. some sort of lego-type snap together or slide-on so if you want more capacity you just put more batteries.
Yes, not round cells but square ones. Why do batteries have to be round?
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
Situations in Europe vary from countries : for example, German people are known to be very careful of the recycling. In France, the situation differs a bit.
Since several years, in big metropolitan areas, people have different garbage cans for paper, recyclable plastics, food and unrecyclable stuff, etc. Some of these big metropolitan areas have even moved a step forwared in what is called the "durable developement" : they have build nature-friendly power plants that consume wood garbages, or uses the methane from decomposition for the central heading in habitation buildings.
In the past, French people weren't very fond of the recycling and didn't care much about it. More and more do, and authorities have set up mandatory battery recycling for garages and battery retailers. But as more and more people are buying computers and electronic stuff, no one knows how to manages these kinds of garbage. And even if the battery recycling becomes mandatory, what should I do and where should I go for my old digital walkman with a build-in battery ?
As of a few months ago, the city ordinance of my home city in California banned the disposal of batteries or electronics of any kind in the regular trash. One day every year the city receives problem waste from the inhabitants free of charge.
The ordinance is completely unenforceable but it has changed my conduct, probably that of many other people as well. So it might significantly reduce the amount of toxic waste ending up in landfills.
You can count on manufacturers to come up with ways to make batteries that are removable as required by new EU laws but not replacable (or at least very expensive to replace) so your mp3/whatever is still guaranteed to be unusable in two years.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
California already passed such a law (http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WPIE/Batteries/) and requires that all batteries be recycled. While good in theory, this law is hard to enforce unless you dump a couple of pounds of batteries in your garbage. Even then, you can always say it was your neighbor that used your garbage can.
I've been recycling batteries ever since I can remember. Radio Shack stores used to take non-rechargables and then they quit. I switched to Walgreens, which still accepts them.
-Palal
In Germany we had the Batterieverordnung since 1998, and it hasn't had the catastrophic consequences most people in this thread imagine. It just means you can't toss old batteries in the trash (and yes, they do check occasionally) but have to take them back to any store where batteries are sold (not just electronics stores) and dump 'em into the recycling containers conveniently displayed at the entrance of the store. In the case of non-removable batteries you have to turn in your whole device and hand it in at any electronics shop. I really don't see where the problem is with that, and why it should be so much better than the American way of just putting all kinds of garbage in a bag, burying it in a landfill and then forgetting about it until the cancer rates go up.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Ever heard of rechargable batteries?
I have been looking for a place to recycle my dead batteries for quite a while, and this is good news! Thanks!
I own several old cameras that were designed to use mercury batteries. Such batteries were banned from manufacture and import in the 1990s and the supply has been dry for a few years now. The closest compatible battery is silver oxide. They don't quite give an accurate reading, but one can compensate for this or have the light meter recalibrated.
The mercury batteries lasted for four or five years with average use. And they lost very little of their charge when dormant. The newer batteries have a much, much shorter life and lose quite a bit of their charge when they are sitting in an unused camera, or even their packaging. I own a few mercury batteries that are 10+ years old and they still work.
So the switch to non-mercury batteries has effectively doubled and in some cases tripled the number of worn out batteries thrown away every year. In my book this isn't very good progress. As a matter of fact I think it is a step backwards.
The EU directive WEEE (2002/96/EC) is about recycling of electric and electronic waste. In Germany it was implemented as the ElektroG law. So, since 24. march 2006 no electric and electronic devices may be thrown away into normal trash. These devices have to be disposed in a special way and then recycled.
As the disposal has to be free of cost for private households (also free of cost for businesses if the devices were made after august 2005 AFAIR)
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
You can make thin flat batteries (e.g. the ones in Polaroid film, if you can remember the last century), but they are fragile and only really suitable for use built into something.
Pining for the fjords
The problem is the next guy who doesn't give a shit. He will keep buying the cheapest stuff and dump it in the ordinary landfill. In many cases it will be stuff that leaks some poison once it has corroded on the landfill.
Unless you have some regulation to keep this stuff off the market in the first place.
C - the footgun of programming languages
It cannot be beyond the realms of science to design 5 or so "pocket" style batteries for small devices and perhaps 5 or so "laptop" style batteries for larger devices, ranging in power and dimensions and require all consumer devices to use them. The likes of Intel, Nokia, HP could even have a hand in their specification to ensure they were up to the job just as long as they were standardized.
I can't see any reason whatsoever for the multitude of chargers. It's virtually dictated by the brand rather than the device in that brand. Standardization also means there is no need for the multitude of chargers and docks that every device needs. If the batteries were the same then the chargers could or should be too, meaning less packaging and waste since you could buy the charger separately and use it with many devices.
To tag the idea as stupid shows a complte ignorance about the harmful effects of batteries, specially when disposed in landfills.
Whoever put those tags deserves to live close to a landfill where these batteries would be freeely disposed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We've had a system like that for cans and bottles for 20+ years in Sweden and Finland - I'm amazed to find out that it isn't the case everywhere in the U.S. too. And it works very well, I think - it gives you the necessary incentive to do what everybody thinks that everybody should do but nobody really wants to bother to. Some people go as far as taking huge bags with them and walking around collecting bottles that have been thrown away whenever there's been some major event going on - I did that a few times with a few friends as a child and we could easily make ~30 $ in a couple of hours in the morning after a certain event that takes place every spring and results in students getting drunk all over town (sorry, I don't know what the event is called in English). Nowadays I see old ladies too doing that since they still belong to the generation that learnt to save money whenever they could.
Compared to living in Australia, it's tempting because the EU has (my personal top 10 reasons):
Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2005
see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html
http://www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=96074
A small tax on semi-hazardous tech devices. Check. It is called eco-tax.
We have a flat-rate of $10 per coomputer and $15 per CRT.
Not a big deal on a $1500 computer system, but as someone who used to collect and re-deploy "obsolete" gear, $10/$15 per becomes very expensive when you try get rid of a garage full of scrounged gear. Now I won't scavenge stuff unless I know I can sell it.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
This seems fairly straight-forward:
"The directive calls for collection points to be established where consumers can hand in used batteries - including those from toys, computers or mobile phones - and obliges shops to collect used batteries from consumers at no extra cost."
So basically when you go to buy new batteries, there will probably be a box to deposit old ones in.
"The cost of implementing the new rules will be borne by industry. "
Bullshit.
The cost is always borne by the consumer. While the idea is worth celebrating, recycling batteries, the lie to sell it to the public is not. These costs will simply be embedded into the cost of the batteries and equipment. While the consumer may not see a "battery deposit" or "battery disposal" fee in writing it will be there.
I am all for helping the environment and getting industries long ignored into the fold, but damn, do we have to lie to sell it?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Thanks for speaking for all of us without asking , may i see your stats ?
[site]
A couple of AAA batteries in a pocket somewhere are *no* issue at all.
here it is
Which would save on funeral costs I suppose. Artificial pacemaker
Reduce, reuse, cycle
No.
Instead of rewarding recycling, start punishing pollution.
Some people claim they "can't be bothered" to recycle -- bullshit. I say, then make the fuckers bothered! Most supermarkets have recycling centres in their car parks. Well, if you fetched the fucking full containers home from the supermarket, why the fuck can't you take them back there when they're fucking empty? Dickheads.
It's not fucking rocket science. Different kinds of waste don't magically mix themselves up. It takes human effort to combine metals, glass, plastics, organics and non-recyclables in a way that makes them difficult to separate. You open a tin of beans: now you have the empty tin and its lid, which are recyclable, and the beans, of which any remaining uneaten are compostable. {The paper label isn't the problem you think: it will burn up completely long before the steel melts and, since it's giving out energy, reduce the fuel requirement for the process a little}. The stuff doesn't mix itself up. People mix it up -- well, ignorant, lazy, selfish cunts do.
Your local authority is having to pay good money right now to bury stuff in landfill that it could have been selling to earn revenue. That is money that they can't spend on police, schools, home helps and so forth. It comes out of your pockets. Your rates went up this year; how much do you think they would have gone down by if every one of those selfish, lazy, ignorant, stupid cunts who put recyclables in their rubbish had separated their rubbish and recyclables properly in the first place?
I propose a fine equivalent to a week's wages for a first offence, six months' imprisonment for a second offence and the death penalty for the third offence. Really. It's not harsh, because anybody can avoid it.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
punishment rarely works, it makes the victim aggressive
reward works great
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
know the table of the elementse n&btnG=Search+Froogle
and know the subsections of froogle,
find that which ye seek
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=pb+solder&hl=
know thee is wrong...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
This device _WILL_ break and need servicing within 18 months.
I have an iPod I got in 2002. It works fine.
Of course, the battery doesn't last as long as when it was new, and it's got a dent in the metal cover, and the carry pouch is falling appart, and the earbuds started distorting after I wore them in the rain with my hair wet...
But the iPod works just fine, YOU FUDing S.O.B.
You can't take the sky from me...
3-4 sizes/forms for laptops, 3 types for cameras, (which is my pet peeve, I've got 3 types of very similar batteries, but each has its own connectors. (Canon/Olympus/Nikon)). Small/flat for compact, larger for larger cameras, and big one for cameras with vertical grips. Camcorder batteries seems to be very similar too.
All that's going to happen is the manufacturers will provide a facility for you to return the device so they can remove the battery. I don't think the bill says batteries have to be user-removable, just removable.
You can probably do it yourself. If you can remove a battery by breaking the gadget, then it is user-removable. All Apple has to do is to ship a slip of paper with the iPod with instructions to break it open to remove the battery.
There's entirely too many people on /. that simply worship at the temple of the free market without actually doing any critical thinking on the subject. The idea that the free market solves everything is seductivly simple, but as with most greedy algorithms, it's fundamentally flawed. I like the free market just fine, but I recognize that as with everything else, moderation is the key.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Bureaucracy - Belgium is a world leader in bureacracy, although I understand Italy is trying to challenge.
:)
Tax - Yup it's high, it pays for the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy doesn't pay for itself!
I think that covers five of your seven points about the bad things of Belgium (which is not the same thing as the EU
Thats ridiculous. It's not pointless because Mercury based batteries are still being placed in landfills just waiting to seep into groundwater etc. This directive stops that enviromentally damaging practise. There is nothing pointless about that.
Well to answer it in your own vulgar words... People are ignorant, lazy, selfish cunts. It's not fucking rocket science. That's why things don't get recycled.
I can just imagine the television campagain you would run to promot cycle... "Recycle, you stupid people!"
Guess what? That doesn't work.
You're hell bent on "punishing" people who don't recycle, well what do you think deposit refunds do? They economicly punish those who don't return the item for the refund.
You guys still use batteries in the EU?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Now, instead of internal, non-removalbe Li-Ion batteries, all the IPODs will have to allow removable batteries, so that everyone can use disposable batteries in them. He he he....
I also restrivt my buying to players that use disposable batteries. I usually select more by battery type and battery life than by other features. I love anything that runs off a single e2 lithium AA, or a lithium 123A.
Andy Out!
It just occurred to me...I often throw away a broken device (e.g., battery powered drill, cell phone, etc.) that still has a good battery. I can sometimes get more for a spare battery on eBay than a new device (especially a cordless drill) costs to replace.
What if they all took standard batteries?
Take a look at the cordless drills...they all have standard voltages (multiples of 1.2V, like 10.8V, 12V, 14.4V, 18V, etc.) Why don't they all take the same battery connection?
Industry has tried and failed to standardize (remeber the Duracell "standard" laptop batteries of the '90s?)
I've also see flashlights that used Nokia cell phone batteries (I built one myself, with half a dozen Hi-flux 200mW LEDs) but Nokia sues anyone who commerically produces them saying they are violating an (expired) patent on the battery's connectors. Of course, big money beats honesty in a court room. Imagine a cordless Dremel tool that took 3 or 4 Nokia cell phone batteries. Imagine if your pocket flashlight, digital multi meter, IPOD, and portable speakers all took the same battery.
I always like to leave these things to industry, but the US Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce (to promote interstate commerce.) They could demand that all cordless drills take battery packs with standard connectors. They could demand that all consumer electronics devices come with standard batteries.
Even if Congress just mandated that patents & other IP did not apply to battery connections; anyone can copy your battery connection, and plug in their own battery that works with your device. He he he...I could make flashlights that used Cell Phone batteries.
The thing that most annoys me is throwing away a wonderful laptop because of a project $3 part that Sony refuses to sell. I lost a perfectly good Vaio because the proprietary connector on the AC adapter died. A new AC adapter would have cost well over $300, so I still have it on a shelf, 3 years later. Can we please standardize on DC adapters with coaxial power connectors that are rated in volts and amps? We could have about 5 different connectors for different voltage ranges. (e.g., all 12V connectors are the same dang size.)
This would also help those of us on alternative power (solar & wind; 12V plugs) to charge our cordless Dremel tools. If all 6V plugs look the same, then expensive DC/DC converters can be used for several tools.
Andy Out!
Yes, in fact, GP mentioned them in the final paragraph.
I recently found the battery Xtender (or something like that) which recharges alkalines. Of course the batteries say not to recharge them - we spent billions on the throwout kinds last year. Recharged alkalines have as much power and shelf life as normal.
Every store that sells small batteries has a box where you can drop them into. For every large battery (think car, motorbike), there is a 10 Euro deposit which you get back when you return any other large battery of the same kind. ;)
For normal waste, you have the trash bins and sacks for easily recybalbe stuff (yellow), houses with gardens have one for biological 'waste' (brown), paper (blue) and the rest (grey or black) excluding glass and tin cans.
This brings us to the collection points every city has at least one of. There, you can drop everything from a washing machine to the uprooted tree in your garden. A couch, construction waste, toxic wastes, you name it.
Oh, and we have that small tax on electronics, too.
And he took one look at the best "recycling computer stuff" filk in the history of Slashdot, and one look at the moderators, and he realized that not one of 'em was gonna read it with the 22 paragraphs in four-part harmony... 'cuz they was on crack. :)
Why would anyone tag this story "stupid"? Sheesh.
Nice work, troglodytes.
you had me at #!
One point in the BBC story caught my eye. Referring to the directive, they say "It also says all batteries must be clearly labelled to show how long they will last, from 2009 onwards."
When I put a pair of AAA pen cell batteries in my remote control they last forever, or at least longer than they do in my noise-cancelling headphones. These, in turn, last longer than in a Minidisc player, and longer still than in an MP3 player, or a torch. How, then, do they propose that batteries should be labelled? Any meaningful measure of longevity (say by expected life at a given current drain) would be incomprehensible to the average person in the street.
I hope this means that Ray-o-Vac will be bringing back their secondary alkaline "Renewal" line (Alkalines designed to be recharged). They can be recharged at LEAST 25 times (more usually hundreds of times if you don't deep cycle them) and cost about the same as conventional alkalines.
I haven't purchased any Ray-O-Vac products since they discontinued the Renewal line - since I HAVE to buy NiMH if I want a rechargable battery option, I buy Energizer instead.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Sure, lets have reward schemes for not killing people, for not stealing, and for not avoiding taxes (huh?)
Whilst there are some examples where deposits make sense, such as reusable bottles, sometimes new legislations have to ensure an effective way of dealing with waste.
Three-hundred years ago, nobody was doing anything wrong if they emptied a bucket of shit on the street. Should we reward people who don't?
Look, I'm as keen to recycle as the next guy, but since when did government become the solution to all problems? Here's a radical, way-far-out-there idea: if you want the battery industry to change, refuse to purchase devices that are non-recyclable! Nothing stirs an industry quite so quickly -- or so efficiently -- as a consumer revolt. We get greener products, the industry adapts to deliver what we want, and there's no intrusive government leaning over somebody's shoulder telling them what to do. What an elegant solution! It's a pity the knee-jerk reaction these days -- regardless of what continent or island group you're on -- is to scream "Here's a problem! We must demand that government do more to fix it!"
Because the eco-nazi, nanny-statists will have none of it. You are just a drone that needs to be dictated to.
... with a big enough hammer :-)
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
This device _WILL_ break and need servicing within 18 months.
I have an iPod I got in 2002. It works fine.
Of course, the battery doesn't last as long as when it was new, and it's got a dent in the metal cover, and the carry pouch is falling appart, and the earbuds started distorting after I wore them in the rain with my hair wet...
But the iPod works just fine.
P.S. I reject that a comment's first moderation can be "overrated".
You can't take the sky from me...
You still can. Just sell over eBay, maybe using somebody in a difficult-to-sue-in country as a proxy merchant. Or make a generic casing which will take more kinds of batteries, and let the mentioned third party sell the adapters. Or use the same tactics other people use for selling counterfeit stuff and avoiding getting busted.
The thing that most annoys me is throwing away a wonderful laptop because of a project $3 part that Sony refuses to sell. I lost a perfectly good Vaio because the proprietary connector on the AC adapter died. A new AC adapter would have cost well over $300, so I still have it on a shelf, 3 years later. Can we please standardize on DC adapters with coaxial power connectors that are rated in volts and amps? We could have about 5 different connectors for different voltage ranges. (e.g., all 12V connectors are the same dang size.)
Sony is a scum gang (Nokia too, though somewhat less). Don't ask them. You have couple choices; you can take the contact springs from other connectors, and cast the body from an epoxy (will take time, but probably much less than trying to buy the connector; then please publish a howto/instructable, to piss them off as they deserve); or you can disassemble the laptop, and replace the connector with something more standard. If the connector won't fit the case, you can let it dangle on a length of cable from its hole, and use a cable-mounted one. Looks ugly but works well, maybe even better than the standard. I had this on one of my ancient laptops, and on a couple of other devices as well.
Other power-related mods I did with success were along the lines of eg. mounting a battery holder for standard AA NiMH cells on the back of a cellphone when its own battery died; it was big and ugly but it did the job "until I'll get around to upgrade", which in that case was about 2 more years.
The iPod's sole purpose in life is to play music. So it plays music.
That's strange - I thought that the Ipod's sole purpose, along with any other MP3 player, was to play MP3-formatted files, regardless of their content.
[I go aside and load my MP3 player with 95MB of radio discussion articles including an interview with a palaeontologist about a new book. Shameless plug.]
I hardly ever waste my time, ears or battery power on music, and I do get rather annoyed at my MP3 player's controls being designed on the assumption of short audio files. It also makes it difficult to use the machine for practicising my Russian on the bus - poorly implemented scrolling facilities.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The problem is the next guy who doesn't give a shit.
Then we, as the human race, get what we deserve by not giving a shit. It is not the job of government to "nanny" us. I realize that's a popular way to use government today, but it is a very bad role for government to be given power to exercise over.
Side observation: isn't it funny how those who are so quick to endorse the concept of majority rule (i.e. a true democracy) are so quick to cast it away "for the common good"? After all, if the vast majority of people want something, most liberals think they ought to get it. Why should environmentally-damaging products be any different? Food for thought.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Because the eco-nazi, nanny-statists will have none of it. You are just a drone that needs to be dictated to.
My point exactly. Humans who cast away their personal responsibilities so cavalierly are not deserving of the title "sentient" if you ask me. I would classify them on the same level as slaves except slaves do not give up their freedoms voluntarily. Nanny-statists do.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Goddamn, the moderators were on crack. However, I am meta-moderating, and bitchslapping the SOB who has never heard of dear Arlo, Alice, Fasha the dog, and the 27 8 by 10 color glossy photographs (and a paragraph on the back of each one sayin' what each one was).
--
BMO
"Nannying" usually refers to things where the government tries to regulate things that will harm only yourself. Like forcing you to use the seatbelt in your car. In these cases, I agree that government should stay out of peoples' lives. I would even go further and make it legal to use most drugs, for instance.
But the problem with dumping toxic waste into the landscape is that it hurts others, and that is not something we should allow. Even the most libertarian society needs some rules against ruthless behaviour that affects your fellow citizen.
Considering your side note:
If the vast majority of people votes for a government that will NOT regulate environmentally-damaging products, they will get them. Just keep voting republican.
If they want such stuff regulated, they can vote green and will get bans on hazardous substances.
Democracy works fine here, except for a lack of fine control (usually, you cannot vote on individual substances to be banned or allowed).
C - the footgun of programming languages
"Nannying" usually refers to things where the government tries to regulate things that will harm only yourself. Like forcing you to use the seatbelt in your car. In these cases, I agree that government should stay out of peoples' lives. I would even go further and make it legal to use most drugs, for instance.
Agreed on all points.
But the problem with dumping toxic waste into the landscape is that it hurts others, and that is not something we should allow. Even the most libertarian society needs some rules against ruthless behaviour that affects your fellow citizen.
Agreed as well, as that is a proper function of government. Here is my definition of how laws ought to be structured: you should be free to perform any action you can possibly want so long as that action does not deprive someone else of their life, liberty, or property through force or fraud. In your toxic dump scenario, if I owned a stretch of land and wanted to allow someone to dump toxic stuff on it and pay me for the privilege, that's my right. However, my rights stop at the borders of my land -- and that includes the air above and groundwater below. It should be legal for me to do whatever I want with that land insofar as I take the appropriate steps to make sure it never seeps beyond my land. If it does, the surrounding landowners now have cause to hold me completely and totally responsible for any and all costs required to rectify the situation. If it is technologically impossible for me to prevent such seepage, then I should be prevented from using the area as a toxic dump. There you go, yin and yang, perfect and equal. And government need be only invovled in the most peripheral fashion.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky