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."
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.
If Apple cant redesign the iPod to have a removable battery and also make it look good then no-one can.
And that's exactly how it should be, and that's why Apple gets it and Slashdotters don't. The iPod's sole purpose in life is to play music. So it plays music. Why should I need to know any more than that?
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
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.
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.
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
Cordless power tools are exempt from the cadmium restriction, so they can continue using NiCd cells. But if I read the article correctly, they must be removable and collected for recycling when you buy the replacement battery. More information and regulation history is available at the EU web site. On the whole, this is very much in line with the RoHS and WEEE directives. It's surprising they delayed implementation for as long they have.
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...
umm lets see the big No nos are Lead : http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/l2347.htm Cadmium : http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/CA/cadmium and the other stuff in the batteries isn't exactly good either lithium goes boom if it gets wet oh and mercury, in the US mercury batteries are BANNED due to the health hazards
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
The iPod's sole purpose in life is to play music. So it plays music. Why should I need to know any more than that?
It's a dangerous path you tread.
I would imagine there are people who say My computers sole purpose is so I can surf the web and read email. Windows does that. Why should I need to know any more than that?
It's just not in the geek vocabulary to say why should I need to know any more than that
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
Well, sure, geeks like you and me are always going to want to know more, and that's great. The trouble begins when we start saying everyone should have to know what we know just to do simple, everyday things like surf the web and send email. Grandma shouldn't have to know how to setup an 802.11b network or configure port forwarding behind a NAT just to videoconference me in iChat. That's totally unreasonable. You wouldn't expect your brain surgeon to ask you to learn the ins and outs of neurobiology before he removes a tumor, would you?
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
This has actually been done for a *long* time with automotive parts - see Core Charge. Usually you can "break even" on this by returning your old broken part at the same time as you buy the new one.
(Note that partially this exists because "broken" car parts can be easily refurbished and resold, so they really are buying a moderately-defective part back from you. I'm not sure how true that is with computers.)
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
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.