Jump to content

Talk:Battery Directive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Just started this and hope someone picks up on it. Wondering why lithium and lithium-ion are not included.

DonL 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From (Battery) Directive 2006/66/EC:

"Article 10

Collection targets

1. Member States shall calculate the collection rate for the first time in respect of the fifth full calendar year following the entry into force of this Directive. Without prejudice to Directive 2002/96/EC, annual collection and sales figures shall include batteries and accumulators incorporated into appliances.

2. Member States shall achieve the following minimum collection rates:

(a) 25 % by 26 September 2012;

(b) 45 % by 26 September 2016.

3. Member States shall monitor collection rates on a yearly basis according to the scheme set out in Annex I. Without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2002 on waste statistics (2), Member States shall transmit reports to the Commission within six months of the end of the calendar year concerned. Reports shall indicate how they obtained the data necessary to calculate the collection rate.

4. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2):

(a) transitional arrangements may be laid down to address difficulties faced by a Member State in satisfying the requirements of paragraph 2 as a result of specific national circumstances;

(b) a common methodology shall be established for the calculation of annual sales of portable batteries and accumulators to end-users by 26 September 2007."

Battery Collection Targets from Annex I: Please see table in main article.

DonL 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. May need to augment the list of European states already using battery regulation.

2. Think the auto battery makers wanted to get away with specifying a battery's number of "cold cranking amps" as a capacity rating, arguing "CCA" was a true measure of "performance." I think what the EU intended was for makers to mark battery life expectancy so consumers could shop more mindfully of environmental impact. Vendors and auto stores are correct in that drivers want to know how well they can start their trucks on cold mornings, SOMEWHAT measurable in amps. Ergo the CCA ratings. Generally batteries with higher CCAs are better quality and last longer but this isn't necessarily an indicator of life expectancy.

Even "Reserve Capacity" (please see the Terms and Ratings section of Car_battery for a more comprehensive detailing of auto battery specifications) ratings on some auto batteries, which give the amount of time a battery will furnish enough current for power to run the car when the generator stops working, at a minimum of 87.5% of the nominal battery voltage, only indicate battery "charge" (Current X Time) at a specific temperature.

So both of these parameters, "CCA" and "charge" (really discharge) are relatively short-term capacity specifications that don't absolutely indicate longevity. Upon depletion, lead-acid car batteries are recharged, so are not at end-of-life. Factors in longevity are use, i.e., workloads (short-term cranking or normal workload), rest periods, the buildup of unavailable charge during discharge.

Car battery warranty durations are usually touted by salespeople as a quasi-life expectancy. Though longer warranty batteries last "longer," it has always seemed to this author that they are a considerable exaggeration of true life of battery.

So even with the knowledge that a battery is rated at 1000 CCA, then 1000 (Amps) = 1000 (Coulombs/second) X [6.3 x 10^18 (electrons/Coulomb)] = 6.3 x 10^21 (electrons/second), an O.G. like I can short the jumper cables and tell by the spark how much charge an auto battery has.

DonL 07:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More 2006 Battery Regulation and Recalls

[edit]

The Wall Street Journal (subscription [1]), in an article by Arran Scott & Yoshio Takahashi, on defects found by Sony Corporation on the Liquid Crystal Displays of eight of its digital cameras, reported 24 Nov. 2006 that Sony Corporation's battery recall (please see below) had triggered costs contributing to its net profit dropping 94% for the quarter ending September 2006. Article states up to 9.6 million Sony-made batteries recalled.

The following articles were covered in the Nov. 2006 "Current Newsbreaks section of Conformity Magazine:

  • 1 Dell Computer, Apple Recall Millions of Notebook Computer Batteries
  • 2 Shipping Lithium Ion Batteries May Soon Be Subject to Tougher Restrictions
  • 3 Other Battery-Related Recalls

1. The recall of laptop lithium-ion batteries in laptops made by Dell and Apple alone (IBM and others not mentioned) made by Sony Energy Devices Corporation of Japan (who have apologized for the recall Abstract; Wall Street Journal) numbered than six million.

According to this article, exploding Li-Ion batteries have resulted in property damage and minor human skin burns. These companies' websites related to the recall are:

Dell

Apple

2. The Wall Street Journal is quoted reporting that the FAA has started an assessment on the financial impact on commercial cargo carriers that regulation of the shipment of the LiIon batteries on cargo planes would have; that no outright ban of laptops with Li Ion batteries on cargo planes is expected since fire suppression has been manageable. The FAA started testing after receiving five reports of battery-related fires on aircraft. The FAA showed its findings at a NTSB hearing in the summer of 2006.

3. Other battery recalls:

  • Lands’ End (Wisconsin), after an internal review, announced the recall of ~40 Cool Blue brand children’s backpacks
  • Spin Master Toys (Toronto, Canada) voluntarily recalled ~7500 units Air Hogs RC Skywinder Radio-Controlled Airplanes
  • Children’s Science Kits: School Specialty Publishing (Ohio) recalled ~43,000 Ideal and Brighter Child brand science kits.

In all three above cases, possible overheating and burn hazard are cited. The first two products were made in China, the third, in S. Africa.

The Conformity article also links to the U.S. Consumer Product Commission website.

Please also see the Safety Concerns section of the Wiki article, Lithium Ion Battery.

DonL 22:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits

[edit]

My thanks to Alex (Vortexrealm) for the edits and the reference list in proper format. DonL 08:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Battery Directive

[edit]

EU Issues Correction on New Battery Directive ; 2 Jan. 2007

Conformity magazine reports that the EU has allowed another year for recycling processes to meet guideline efficiencies. Directive Article 12(4) says the deadline is 26 September 2010 which is changed to 26 September 2011.

Corrigendum/Correction text; Official Journal of the European Union; 10.11.2006

DonL 05:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium-ion battery standard update

[edit]

From Update on Lithium-Ion Battery Standards ; Jan 11, 2007; Conformity Magazine

"According to a report by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has begun work on incorporating improved measures into its standard for lithium ion batteries, IEEE 1625, Standard for Rechargeable Batteries for Portable Computing. It is expected that the revised standard will address the electrical and mechanical construction of lithium-ion batteries, as well as methods for evaluating and verifying the quality and reliability of batteries.:

DonL 19:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics trade group Position Paper on Article 11 of directive (battery placement)

[edit]

From the European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association [2]; EICTIA "Position Papers" Section:

Joint Postion Paper[3]; 7 December 2006; on the Battery Directive's "battery removability" requirement (Article 11)

This paper asks the European Commission for clarification of battery "removability" and "replaceablity" in the directive's Article 11, and states it may be difficult and costly to redesign a wide gamut of small electronics products so that the end user can easily replace the battery. Endemic in the minitiarization of electronic products like PDAs, key fobs, Bluetooth products, solar-powered calculators, watches, MP3 players, cameras, instant cell phone chargers, game devices, etc. is the placement of small, flexible batteries, deep inside the product (which affords fire and mechanical safety), not easily accessible by the consumer.

The paper says compliance would necessitate larger enclosures and packaging that run counter to what consumers want -- minitiarization. It urges that the replaceability not be exclusively interpreted as end-user replaceability, since some of these products should have their batteries replaced at professional dealers, and argues for leniency in the Article 11 language.

Besides, it states that in some cases it may be better for the consumer to go to a professional center or dealer for battery replacement, where it is more likely that there would be better personnel safety; proper battery-handling and recyling; less risk of damage to the product itself.

In these cases it says it would be better for the vendor to give guidelines or instructions on battery replacement directing the consumer to the center.

It also argues the economic need for the EU to stay competitive with the rest of the world in new battery technology, e.g., flexible, rechargeable "Organic Radical" batteries used in small products like RFID tags, smartcards, and electronic paper. These batteries are sometimes 0.3 mm thick and are embedded such that layperson removal is not that feasible. The position paper also argues that if it's easily removable, it's unsafe, especially for kids, and may violate safety and toy directives.

DonL 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my entries above are not Directive-specific so I may delete or move them to another part of Wiki. Some of the battery recalls for example are for malfunctioning or defective batteries, and more directly related to safety, while the battery directive targets waste management. I think the lithium battery update is also primarily not waste management, but more manufacturing- and process-related.

DonL 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Battery Directive

[edit]

You can link to a vendor's Battery Directory guide PDF at Farnell, a UK distributor -- download is not automatic. I have nothing to do with Farnell so feel free to remove if inappropriate. DonL (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-NOT restricted.

[edit]

Per http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-18209/l/2008-and-2009-battery-regs--know-the-difference : There is NO restriction on lead content under the Battery Directive. This is the opposite of what is said in the article. --Elvey (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "dubious" tag added with the above comment in 2013. As of the current version of the article, the text refers specifically to the 1991 version, and is essentially a direct copy of the wording in that legislation. Either the article has been reorganised to make it clear that the lead restriction is in reference to the 1991 version (the article covers how the legislation changed significantly in later years), or the user above misunderstood the text. --84.65.162.229 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have noticed that the following external links are broken:

The first self-remediating NiCad battery; Pollution Online; Oct. 24, 2006

U.S. Battery Act enforcement; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EU News and Policy Positions - Battery Directive; Euractiv; 2006

Council agrees to minimal battery cadmium ban; Euractiv; 2004

Composition of the different types of batteries; Umweltbundesamt; Nov. 1999

Sales for batteries by type, 1986-1998, Germany; Umweltbundesamt; Nov. 1999

NiCad battery environment pollution, Germany; Umweltbundesamt; April 2002

Request to EU Environment Commission for total ban of NiCad batteries in Directive; Svend Auken, Environment & Energy Minister, Denmark; Kjell Larsson, Sweden; Satu Hass, Finland; Aug. 2001

Position Paper on Battery Directive revision consultation; EU Committee, Belgium Chamber of Commerce; April 2003

Producers told to collect and recycle waste batteries; Euractiv; Dec. 2005 EU Regulations compliance (WEEE, RoHS, Batteries, REACH)

I would also like to suggest an external link that summarises EU battery legislation with the obligations of a battery producer in mind. The page and those that it links to are very concise and give more details on the chemical marking requirements and three different battery types specified in the directive. Overview of EU Battery Legislation. However, I must say that b2bweee.com is owned by the company that I work for and so it could be seen as a COI. Do you think this link would be a valuable addition?

Lisa L Dean (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, Thanks for the contribution. See Wikipedia:Linkrot! (It explains that we do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer, and explains what recovery and repair options and tools are available.) I would say it is OK for you to follow its suggestions despite your CoI.
The forthright CoI disclosure is very much appreciated. I see your employer, ENVIRON "provides consultancy advice and compliance assessments of company products against the WEEE and RoHS Directives", and this Directive too. If there are several such firms, a DMOZ link may be appropriate.
Regarding EVIRON's content at the b2bweee link: Regarding the substantive content: this page may be better, but it incorrectly states, "a button cell is permitted to contain 0.0005% mercury". It also correctly states, "button cells .. must contain < 2% mercury w/w". Note: 45.5% is less than "most"! (but...
Also, If I'm not mistaken, "batteries producer[s]" is not proper English, at least in the US. Is it proper British English? Perhaps it's become proper English? I believe "battery producer[s]" is correct. I see "The Batteries Directive" and "The Battery Directive" are both used....
I am opposed to inclusion of b2bweee links at this time. If your content is rigorously fact checked, I'd reconsider - the batteriesobligations page shows promise as a potentially high quality resource.--Elvey (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Elvey, thank you for your feedback and guidance. I have managed to repair three of the external links (all to articles on the Euractiv website). Also, thank you for taking the time to review the batteries pages on B2BWEEE.com, all of your suggestions were very helpful and have now been implemented on the site. Following this review of the site, please can the addition of the batteries obligations page as an external link for the Battery Directive article be reconsidered. 46.235.152.24 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Others are fixable too, e.g. w/[4]. Was my suggestion followed since the 23rd - that whole of your batteries obligations page be reviewed by a Fact checker? Who? (i.e. someone who wasn't the author, yes?) Oh, and please don't forget to log in, Lisa.--Elvey (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Elvey, I have repaired the link as you have suggested. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of the other URLs. Yes the entire page has been reviewed by a colleague of mine, Dr Aidan Turnbull. He is not the author of the article and has in fact suggested changes since I last posted here, these changes have been added to the page today. Lisa L Dean (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elvey, following the improvements above, can I now add an external link to the following page? Many thanks, Lisa L Dean (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I got your email. I was going to add the link, but in the browser I'm now using, it was flagged : http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/b2bweee.com I haven't looked into why, but based on this new info, I'm not prepared to add the link, even though you took steps to address all my previous concerns. I'm bowing out; you can seek help from other editors if you wish.--Elvey (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Battery Directive which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.sgs.com/en/Consumer-Goods-Retail/Electrical-and-Electronics.aspx
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battery Directive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battery_Directive&oldid=1257599281"