New battery regulations in European Union - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2023, 01:47:21 am
content: After three years of negotiations the member states and parliament came to agreement and last month the parliament passed theregulationconcerning batteries and waste batteries. The regulation just entered into force.What may be of interest to people here:Article 11:portable batteries must be replaceable by users, and other categories of batteries must be replaceable byindependentprofessionals. It’s also illegal to to prevent users from using battery replacements.Articles 9 and 10:after 2028 batteries will need to meet minimum requirements (set by August 2027), including leakage risk.Mentions in the regulation and some specific provisions suggest, that hobbyists are finally being noticed.Article 59, 60:waste batteries (portable, LMT) are producer’s responsibility and users should be able to discard the battery free of charge and without buying a new one.Article 14:since next year batteries in vehicles and stationary storage systems must deliver basic health statistics. The wording, despite banning discrimination, does not require open access. There are also restrictions regarding the purpose of the access.Article 77:most non-portable batteries must have individual electronic document, including authenticated data on various parameters, disassembly instructions and compliance test results. While the open standards and no vendor lock-in is mandated, some of the information is going to be accessible only to privileged parties.Articles 47–53:companies with yearly turnover exceeding 40M€ are obligated to implement basic policies to ensure raw materials’ sourcing and processing impact on the society and environment. The requirements are quite vague and far from proper transparency, but better than nothing.

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2023, 01:53:25 am
content: Yeah, I saw this on YT this morning. Sounds good! I hope it means that the US gets that too.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2023, 02:19:58 am
content: Yes, it’s likely some of the provisions are relevant to people all over the world.Though it must also be noted, that not all parts are meaningful or enforceable yet. There are still voids to be filled in by the executive branch and member states. So probably a few more years until this becomes fully effective.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2023, 07:53:46 am
content: They just mandated a heat test for home batteries... IEC 62619, 85C ambient test.Wild west for home batteries is over.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2023, 08:45:37 pm
content: Directives from the European Union account for nothing more than toilet paper printed with fancy words. All Brussels bureaucrats have done is package up what the global battery industry is either already doing or heading towards, and then telling everyone that they have to do this. Genius? Await the revision when France and Germany waste even more European citizens taxes by changing the typeface on their own toilet paper. Simply because their own state legistlatures cannot figure how to make these vague directives work within the framework of their own (influential) automotive and green industries.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2023, 05:43:03 am
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on August 23, 2023, 08:45:37 pmIs it though?Most phone manufacturers didn't get the memo, it seems, because you still can't remove the battery for quite a large majority of phones.The entire point of this legislature is to make these conceptsenforceable.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 07:48:25 am
content: The intended Apple-loophole by IP-rating the devices seems to be fixed, as they require the devices to be fixable"by professionals", not "Apple only".I wonder how - if at all - they will enforce this. Remember all those little chinese gadgets with a little battery in it, sealed and glued together for good. Those would be illegal to sell.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 08:20:41 am
content: Apple batteries must be replaceable by any user. Not just professionals (Article 11(1)). The professionals requirement applies to LMT batteries (Article 11(5)).

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 08:41:07 am
content: Honestly, I need a waterproof phone rather than a replaceable battery. Phones obsolete fast, many cheaper brands don't provide updates later. Never have I had an android phone with a dead battery. I love when EU has solutions for non existing problems. The government at its best

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 05:10:17 pm
content: Quote from: Warhawk on September 07, 2023, 08:41:07 amSamsung S5 was IP67 and with a removable battery. And with the headphone plug. And way easier to repair than modern phones. So it can be done if they have the incentive to do soThis directive doesn't apply only to phones, and as usual it's mostly a good thing

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 06:41:58 pm
content: Quote from: MikeK on August 23, 2023, 01:53:25 amYou can be 10000% sure that Apple and others will lobby AGAINST that. They would argue safety or health concerns.

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 07:02:06 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on September 07, 2023, 06:41:58 pmI came back from my business trip in the US last Sunday. During my week-long stay there I unintentionally created more rubbish than I normally do in Germany in a month. 150-200usd/night hotels serve breakfast on paper trays with plastic flatware. Countless of paper bags, napkins, plastic wraps. There are bins for landfill & recycle waste but people practically ignore them and use whatever is closer.... It was not my first us visit and I lived there for about a year. Tl;Dr the US has way bigger environmental protection problems than replacable batteries in iPhones....

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 07:06:27 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on September 07, 2023, 05:10:17 pmI've never had the S5. I checked the web and the construction was not very convincing. Don't get me wrong - I stand for right to repair (that's why I have a framework laptop) and I understand the idea. I am just tired of additional legislation and regulations for everything. We will see in couple years.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2023, 10:39:31 pm
content: Quote from: Warhawk on September 07, 2023, 07:06:27 pmat the time the S5 was more or less the gold standard for phones, as a matter of fact it's still supported by lineage and other roms, despite the fact it's almost 10 years old. i couldn't/wouldn't afford one at the time but i dealt with those for work

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2023, 03:02:18 am
content: Quote from: Warhawk on September 07, 2023, 07:02:06 pmTrue but we need to work on fixing all of them and not just one or two. Butbatteries operated devices(not just i-phones) are a lot bigger problem than simply disposal of the batteries. Right now, hundreds of millions of devices are thrown away every year because the battery dies and can't be, or can economically be, replaced. That creates amuchbigger environmental problem than the batteries themselves do.Something else that seems to have escaped a lot of you is that lately a lot of companies have also started using batteries that have id chips in them and those batteries can't not be replaced by the consumer. Equipment owners have to buy special batteries and the car, or device that they're going into, has to be re-programmed by the manufacturer or a approved dealer. Hopefully the EU regulations will put and end to that nonsense as well.

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2023, 12:01:24 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on September 08, 2023, 03:02:18 amWould you be able to provide some materials on"hundreds of millions of are thrown away every year because the battery dies and can't be, or can economically be, replaced"statement? I am not being mean now. I would like to understand this better.Why I doubt all this EU thing? When I look around the house, We have some battery-equipped personal electronics that we don't use anymore (e.g. spare smartphones, laptops, smartwatch, tablet). We don't use it because it is obsolete (no apps support, poor performance for browsing, photos quality, not enough memory, etc.). All devices have sufficient battery life. We stopped using it because of the moral age, not because of the battery. My spare Thinkpad x220 is ~10y old. Battery capacity is 80%. I did the battery reset recently. The battery is fully replaceable but you won't buy a genuine one anymore. Even my Xiaomi phone from 2015 does 4 days on battery.I believe this statistics of"hundreds of millions of"factors in also devices that would have been thrown away whether the battery was replaceable or not. For example, my company renews cellphones every 3 years and laptops every four years. This will not change.That is how I see it.I would rather see the EU stepping HP, EPSON, Canon on the neck for their ink printer cartridges bullshit.PS: One note on"the battery dies and can't be, or caneconomically be, replaced". If I understand the EU regulation correctly, it does not mention economical aspects. It will have to be possible but nobody guarantees that this would financially make sense. Can't wait to see 200Eur genuine iPhone battery repair kit and different form factor from generation to generation to make it even better

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2023, 12:28:53 pm
content: Quote from: Warhawk on September 08, 2023, 12:01:24 pmEconomic aspect is simple. Phone battery costs $10 to produce at most. So unless it's sold with exorbitant markup, it's replacement is viable even in old phones. The only thing that make it non viable is ridiculous designs where it's often much easier to replace a display rather than battery.

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2023, 01:38:54 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 08, 2023, 12:28:53 pmWe are an engineering community, we know how much it costs."So unless it's sold with exorbitant markup"is the problem. Garmin instinct replacement wrist band is 40 Euro. You hardly find it cheaper. It is the shitty silicon-like band without any premium feeling. What is the OEM cost? Sub dolar? Still, it costs 40 Eur. Original Garmin store on Amazon sells the smartwatch for 180 Eur. The replacement band is ~23% of the new smartwatch.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2023, 02:07:21 pm
content: Quote from: Warhawk on September 08, 2023, 01:38:54 pmEU law is specifically made to end BS from manufacturers. There is no other explanation than greed and wish that customers dispose their old devices ASAP and buy new.Quote

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2023, 02:16:00 pm
content: This “greed” is even worse with new automobiles. Specifically components that can be easily damaged like tail lamps.There is a YT video where water ingress due to a faulty seal on a Ford F150 tail light, caused the low priority CANBus to malfunction, and which took US$5600 to repair.https://youtu.be/MUkFsuilVD0?si=qpf12BE_sBMpy8y_

author: Fflint
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2023, 01:16:03 pm
content: I wonder what unintended consequences these new laws will have.I recently have watched StyroPyro's youtube video about 100 car batteries in parallel. Being located in Poland(EU) I wouldn't be able to replicate anything like this without considerable difficulty.Why?Because our laws (possibly a version of an EU regulation) requires sellers of lead acid batteries to provide a way to dispose/recycle sold batteries at end of life and they are required to account for every battery sold until its disposal. Enterprising individuals have figured out a way to meet the regulation without having to track and account for the batteries sold by requiring anyone buying a new lead acid battery supplies them with an old one of the similar type (so for example if you're buying a new car battery you're expected to bring in your old car battery, you're buying a new tractor battery, you need to give an old tractor battery). You may think it is a change for the good because it ensures all batteries get recycled. However, even before almost all lead acid batteries were getting recycled because lead is not cheap. And before when you were buying a car battery youcouldbring your old one in for a discount. Now you can't buy a new one without an old one.Initially the law wasn't enforced that much so it was possible to pay a "fee" instead of bringing an old battery, now all online ads for battery sellers say "no old battery, no sale". And what is a guy getting a new battery for a kit car or some project supposed to do? Well, one searches online ads for someone selling an old car battery. It is bonkers, why? Because many people have gave/sold their old car batteries for recycling. Every single metal recycling facility and every local large household waste site either takes in or buys old car batteries for recycling. The recycling rate for these was very close to 100% anyway even without the law. Now these people that did the right thing by recycling an old tractor battery, are penalised by not being able to buy a new one for that old tractor in their shed without procuring a new-old battery first.So now I wonder if you'll be able to buy a mobile phone without bringing in an old one with you.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2023, 01:45:47 pm
content: Did not that promote car batteries theft?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2023, 04:03:00 pm
content: I see the battery thing going to be part of the RED, so they will not get the certification for it if they don't adhere to it.Quote from: Fflint on October 07, 2023, 01:16:03 pmIt think having the ability to play with used lead acid batteries is not really worth the environmental impact. As I recall, the recycling rate is very high some 99.98% which is good .

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2023, 09:07:52 pm
content: I will discuss the situation in Poland below, as I find the details not so important for this thread. In here I only suggest Fflint to not buy at such sellers.The main consequence may be, as always, malicious conformance. Some producers may choose to hold consumers hostage to change the law, or to retaliate without a particular purpose by harming consumers as much as they can. Another option is using intentional misinterpretations or ambiguities as an excuse for abuse. But both of these may happen with any law: it’s not specific to this one.I suppose there may be some consequences regarding new technologies. For any limit imposed by law usually there are some edge cases, which it unintentionally covers, because of either an omission or inability to predict the future. But we can’t stop making laws for this reason, as either the entire legal system would get paralyzed or there would be massive loopholes present. The current approach is to adjust laws when needed. It’s imperfect, but it’s not always possible to get a perfect solution.Finally, one can easily devise situations falling under the regulation and technically being intentionally covered by it, but in practice raising questions reagarding sanity. The “kid sold 20 bottles of soda and did not pay taxes” situations.Situation in Poland:Polish law regulating collection and disposal of batteries is “Ustawa z dn. 24 kwietnia 2009 r. o bateriach i akumulatorach”. It’s indeed implementing EUParl’s 2006/66/EC, but this is adirective, not a regulation, and is neither requiring nor suggesting implementing the scheme Fflint mentioned.The Polish regulation requires the seller to take a 30zł ($7 now) deposit on eachcarbattery they sell. The deposit is returned, if the buyer returns another battery within 30 days. The seller can’t charge the buyer for this,(1)including shipping costs. This applies to all sellers, without distinction between delivery methods. Unclaimed deposits are transferred to the state.The directive is clear, that the basic collection system should be implemented by the state and possibly supplemented by other means. It seems Polish parliament used that loophole to shift responsibility to the market. Poland has a state-run waste collection system (local authorities’ respnsibility) and you can drop a battery there, but the deposit requirement effectively discourages this.If a seller refuses to accept a battery or offer a deposit, even if that is done passively,(2)they are breaking the law and it has nothing to do with either the directive or national regulations. Simply do not buy there. It’s not even an ethical issue, but a matter of being a sucker losing money. The seller will take the deposit anyway.(3)You will just never have an option to get it back. It’s also a common case of shifting problems to consumers, because consumers don’t protest.(4)Which hurts you as a consumer both short- and long-term. The short-term risk is, that the seller also scams you on other things. The long-term harm is normalization of such practices.By law, you may buy as many car batteries as you wish without delivering a single one in exchange. You just pay $7 extra, which is 5–10% of the cost. A part of that may even be regained by selling the old battery later for lead recycling. Or finding somebody, who is in a similar situation and needs an old battery to have their deposit returned.I dislike how it is set up, but it it’s not tragic and certainly not preventing anybody from acquiring batteries. The situation of hobbyists scavenging parts is a much more serious issue.(1)The no-charge requirement is based on 2006/66/EC.(2)E.g. by not outlining such a procedure in the agreement or/and internal policies.(3)That is exposed in financial documentation, so the seller needs paper to cover up their ass.(4)And the minority, who does, may be safely ignored.