The EU already did it by mandating all new phones and chargeable devices from 2025 to have an USB-C connector (much to the displeasing of Apple Inc…).
But now they’ve gone even futher !
They’ve set specifications about the whole lifecycle of all batteries sold in the EU, with minimum recycled contents, collection of old batteries, but most importantly…
the fact that all batteries must be easily removed and replaced in appliances (including smartphones).
So in any portable device or appliance, the battery must be removeable without (edit: specialized) tool.
How will that bode with manufacturers? Do you think they will go back to older technology of back-opening batteries/phones? or maybe this will drive innovation and someone at Samsung will whip out a compliant battery? I can’t imagine region-specific phones or big players completely moving out of the EU?
The regulations are less strict if a device needs to be waterproof. So I don’t think much will change. Just quoting someone who did read the paperwork from the EU. I did not, so take my comment with a grain of salt.
there is indeed an exception in case the device is “for the majority of the active service of the appliance” subject to water immersion or projection, and only “when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance”
see the text (French or English)
Article 11 § 2. a)
To amend to the “no tools” promise, the text says “A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.” (Article 11 § 1)
climate change is the second highest related impact category for batteries after the mining and use of minerals and metals.
Part 27 following the above link
Back to the ‘prime’ argument
.after the mining and use of minerals and metals.
a) primary on the workers who no doubt have little choice but to do the work, toxic and poorly paid
b) the toxic peripherals that other ‘locals’ have to suffer
c) the general toxic and degrading output of ‘human’ activity as it encompasses the eco sphere
The following processes involved in the life cycle stages shall be excluded from the system boundary:
— manufacturing of equipment for the assembly and recycling of batteries, as carbon footprint impacts have been calculated as negligible in the PEFCRs for high specific energy rechargeable batteries for mobile applications;
— the battery assembly process using the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) system components; this process corresponds for the most part to mechanical assembly and it is included inside the OEM equipment or vehicle assembly line; the consumption of energy and material for this specific process is negligible when compared to the manufacturing process of OEM components.
The use phase shall be excluded from the life cycle carbon footprint calculations, as it is not under the direct influence of manufacturers except where it is demonstrated that choices made by battery manufacturers at the design stage can make a non-negligible contribution to that impact.
What is in such case, that the manufacturer decides to stop delivering updates after 2 or 3 years? Is that a “non-negligible contribution” to make the batteries obsolete earlier?
maybe this is a discussion to be had with phone maintainers, not necessarily battery manufacturers. sometimes they’re the same, maybe not.
the use-phase for just the battery is not necessarely the use-phase for the whole phone, as it can be replaced in this framework too
I think mobile phones are a bit of a side show, the main concern is with the huge amount of batteries over 2KW that are in the market for cars.
There will be many exceptions for phones and and smaller devices tc.
If you calculate all batteries for smartphones, -watches, -tablet, etc. and the batteries for E-cigarettes and toys (all kind ) and hundreds of other applications, which we can’t even think of, then you get a yearly world wide volume only from batteries of around a million tons of electronic waste.
These are numbers you shouln’d ignore.
And even if it wasn’t as much:
Every small bit helps!
This rings of preaching to the converted
Nearly everthing everyone does is ignored by by everyone including them selves.
I pay attention as best I can to what I do, other people’s numbers I ignore.
It’s all a performance when it come to money and the environment
Talk about money and what screw the environment and people in a greener and more sustainable way or
Talk about the the environment, that’s people by the way, and screw the use of money.
People can’t do both and who wants to give up money and the power to get people to to provide food and phones.
The EU is a business and really not much of a concern except it’s a joke and quite funny.
I wish the UK hadn’t left the EU as I’d feel I’d have a better stake in the farce. Now all I can do is watch from a little sinking island.
Thank Fairphone for keeping me onboard.
Batteries and pollution, politics and slave labour the never ending business . . . to tired to scream
to go back to
unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
maybe we’re going to have something like the repair kit from Apple for batteries, hidden in some obscure corner of the internet, covering only delivery costs and parts.
It would save a lot of trouble for the manufacturer: its only hardware and tools, it’s not like everyone is going to want one. Factor it in the price, économies of scale. But is everyone happy? The water resistance would far from garanteed after such an operation. Maybe customers would prefer to take it to a licensed repair shop in the hopes of keeping the water resistance?
just thinking out loud here.