House passes bill protecting Apple's lithium batteries from limitations
In a move that could save Apple and other electronics manufacturers billions of dollars, the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation barring proposed limitations that would have classified lithium batteries as hazardous materials.
Bloomberg reports that the bill, which would prevent U.S. limitations on air shipments of lithium batteries from exceeding international standards, passed in the House on April 1, but will need to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference committee.
The new legislation conflicts with a proposed rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration that would impose additional limitations on shipments of lithium batteries over concerns that they may overheat and ignite during transport. If the rule came into effect, manufacturers, retailers and airlines would all be subject to new packaging, training and handling requirements.
According to an analysis commissioned by the Rechargeable Battery Association, the limitations would cost $1.13 billion the first year in packaging, transportation, logistical and training costs.
Apple has widely implemented lithium batteries in its mobile devices and laptop computers. The company has worked to develop standards for the manufacture of lithium ion batteries in the past.
In 2006, high-profile battery recalls from affecting notebook manufacturers, including Apple, sparked industry concern over the safety of lithium-ion batteries. The batteries, which were manufactured by Sony, were recalled after reports emerged that the batteries could cause overheating and in some cases fire.
More recently, the tragic earthquake and tsunami that occurred in Japan in March of this year has reportedly caused a shortage of lithium-ion batteries used in Apple's iPod line. Kureha Corp., which has a 70 percent global share in a polymer used in the batteries, was forced to close a factory in Iwaki, Japan after the disaster.
A patent application recently discovered by AppleInsider revealed that Apple is investigating techniques to improve battery performance by increasing the energy density of rechargeable lithium batteries.
Bloomberg reports that the bill, which would prevent U.S. limitations on air shipments of lithium batteries from exceeding international standards, passed in the House on April 1, but will need to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference committee.
The new legislation conflicts with a proposed rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration that would impose additional limitations on shipments of lithium batteries over concerns that they may overheat and ignite during transport. If the rule came into effect, manufacturers, retailers and airlines would all be subject to new packaging, training and handling requirements.
According to an analysis commissioned by the Rechargeable Battery Association, the limitations would cost $1.13 billion the first year in packaging, transportation, logistical and training costs.
Apple has widely implemented lithium batteries in its mobile devices and laptop computers. The company has worked to develop standards for the manufacture of lithium ion batteries in the past.
In 2006, high-profile battery recalls from affecting notebook manufacturers, including Apple, sparked industry concern over the safety of lithium-ion batteries. The batteries, which were manufactured by Sony, were recalled after reports emerged that the batteries could cause overheating and in some cases fire.
More recently, the tragic earthquake and tsunami that occurred in Japan in March of this year has reportedly caused a shortage of lithium-ion batteries used in Apple's iPod line. Kureha Corp., which has a 70 percent global share in a polymer used in the batteries, was forced to close a factory in Iwaki, Japan after the disaster.
A patent application recently discovered by AppleInsider revealed that Apple is investigating techniques to improve battery performance by increasing the energy density of rechargeable lithium batteries.
Comments
A lot of companies and people have been riding Apple's nuts lately, it's getting a bit redundant.
I would imagine ambient temperature would play some part in this, as would the device's ability to dissipate heat. Airplanes are cold (maybe it's just me, but I usually ask for a blanket even on a one-hour hop) so that helps.
It's good to know though that the tech and airline companies only value the lives of all their passengers at $1.13 billion.
At least if they wanted to ban lithium for environmental reasons I'd be on board (pun intended) despite the set back for electronics. I mean let,s face it those lithium packs are TERRIBLE ecologically wise, from the making to the disposal. If Apple would find a substitute source of power they'd have a huge claim as most eco friendly computers
..
UPS 6 Dubai - Cologne N571UP 03 SEP 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_6
..
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...k-inquiry.html
Investigators have determined that the fire which brought down a UPS Boeing 747-400 freighter near Dubai probably started in the main cargo deck just forward of the wings.
The United Arab Emirates' General Civil Aviation Authority states that there were no declared shipments of hazardous material on the 747, but that package details identified "many" shipments of lithium batteries.
Further investigation found that at least three consignments contained lithium ion battery packs which met hazardous materials criteria and "should have appeared on the cargo manifest", the GCAA adds.
The crew of the aircraft, en route to UPS's Cologne hub on 3 September last year, advised Bahrain air traffic control of a fire warning 22min after leaving Dubai. The 747 was cruising at 32,000ft at the time and turned right to return to Dubai - a distance of some 150nm.
In an interim factual report on the accident the GCAA identifies the approximate location of the fire, in the forward main deck, below areas of ducting for the elevator and rudder controls.
Having been cleared to descend to 27,000ft the crew requested an immediate descent to 10,000ft.
"It is likely that less than 5min after the fire indication on the main deck, smoke had entered the flight deck and intermittently degraded the visibility to the extent that the flight instruments could not effectively be monitored by the crew," says the GCAA.
It adds that that flight-data recorder information shows a "movement anomaly" with the elevator, which was not responding properly to control column input.
Seven minutes after the initial alarm, during the emergency descent, the captain transferred control of the 747 to the first officer after declaring a lack of oxygen supply. Portable oxygen is stored behind the pilots' positions and the cockpit-voice recorder indicates that the captain left his seat. There was no further evidence on the recorder of further interaction from the captain for the remaining 22min of the flight.
The jet was inbound to Dubai International Airport runway 12L but overflew the airport's northern boundary at 4,500ft and 340kt.
While the flight crew were advised of the availability of Sharjah Airport, which required a left turn, heading 095 degrees. The GCAA says the co-pilot acknowledged the heading change and entered 195 degrees on the mode control panel.
It adds that the autopilot disconnected, the jet reduced speed and entered a descending right turn at 4,000ft. Several bank-angle, sink rate and ground-proximity warnings sounded before the 747 eventually crashed on a military installation 9nm south of Dubai, killing both pilots.
....
You can do a search on the UPS DC-8 that burned in Philadelphia in 2006.
Have a look at the FAA Hazardous Materials website, or the AirLine Pilots Association website.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...after-ups.html
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dent_chart.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rcarrier_info/
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fas...tr_9-22-10.pdf
..
While a lithium battery fire in the cabin of a passenger plane perhaps can be extinguished, how do you extinguish the same fire in checked passenger bags in the cargo compartments?
Do a search on YouTube about these type of fires.
Thank you Congress for protecting my investment. Now there is one less reason for AAPL to drop. GAME ON!
Yes, thank goodness the House of Reps is once again looking out for large corporations instead of the people like they're supposed to be doing. Oh, that's right, corporations are people too.
Speaking of batteries, whatever happened to the hydrogen fuel cell power sources that we were reading about a couple years ago? You know, you pour a little methanol (?) in at one end and get electrical power out the other, for a long long time.
They were probably economically unfeasible for corporations to make. I mean, how are you going to get customers to have to repeatedly buy batteries if they last a long long time?
If you are interested in your personal safety, maybe take the time to do some reading. The speed and ferocity of this fire will give you pause.
..
UPS 6 Dubai - Cologne N571UP 03 SEP 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_6
..
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...k-inquiry.html
Investigators have determined that the fire which brought down a UPS Boeing 747-400 freighter near Dubai probably started in the main cargo deck just forward of the wings.
The United Arab Emirates' General Civil Aviation Authority states that there were no declared shipments of hazardous material on the 747, but that package details identified "many" shipments of lithium batteries.
Further investigation found that at least three consignments contained lithium ion battery packs which met hazardous materials criteria and "should have appeared on the cargo manifest", the GCAA adds.
The crew of the aircraft, en route to UPS's Cologne hub on 3 September last year, advised Bahrain air traffic control of a fire warning 22min after leaving Dubai. The 747 was cruising at 32,000ft at the time and turned right to return to Dubai - a distance of some 150nm.
In an interim factual report on the accident the GCAA identifies the approximate location of the fire, in the forward main deck, below areas of ducting for the elevator and rudder controls.
Having been cleared to descend to 27,000ft the crew requested an immediate descent to 10,000ft.
"It is likely that less than 5min after the fire indication on the main deck, smoke had entered the flight deck and intermittently degraded the visibility to the extent that the flight instruments could not effectively be monitored by the crew," says the GCAA.
It adds that that flight-data recorder information shows a "movement anomaly" with the elevator, which was not responding properly to control column input.
Seven minutes after the initial alarm, during the emergency descent, the captain transferred control of the 747 to the first officer after declaring a lack of oxygen supply. Portable oxygen is stored behind the pilots' positions and the cockpit-voice recorder indicates that the captain left his seat. There was no further evidence on the recorder of further interaction from the captain for the remaining 22min of the flight.
The jet was inbound to Dubai International Airport runway 12L but overflew the airport's northern boundary at 4,500ft and 340kt.
While the flight crew were advised of the availability of Sharjah Airport, which required a left turn, heading 095 degrees. The GCAA says the co-pilot acknowledged the heading change and entered 195 degrees on the mode control panel.
It adds that the autopilot disconnected, the jet reduced speed and entered a descending right turn at 4,000ft. Several bank-angle, sink rate and ground-proximity warnings sounded before the 747 eventually crashed on a military installation 9nm south of Dubai, killing both pilots.
....
You can do a search on the UPS DC-8 that burned in Philadelphia in 2006.
Have a look at the FAA Hazardous Materials website, or the AirLine Pilots Association website.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...after-ups.html
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dent_chart.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rcarrier_info/
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fas...tr_9-22-10.pdf
..
While a lithium battery fire in the cabin of a passenger plane perhaps can be extinguished, how do you extinguish the same fire in checked passenger bags in the cargo compartments?
Do a search on YouTube about these type of fires.
Where in that story did it say that the lithium batteries were the cause of the fire?
I thought all the problems with lithium batteries where during use - and there is research going on to add materials to the internal components of batteries to either self heal meaning longer life and or to self seal if there is a short - in both cases caused by degradation of the materials that are passing the charge.
The issue is whether the mountains of lithium batteries that are going to be disposed of just like a wadded up napkin are safe to dispose of in this manner. Failure to classify lithium batteries as hazardous waste is expedient for large corporations but long-term that isn't the point.
The House is an asylum for the incompetent (Mark Twain).
150nm and 340kt
Not familiar with these unit abbreviations (nm & kt) - can you expand for the metrically challenged?
Thanx!
If you are interested in your personal safety, maybe take the time to do some reading. The speed and ferocity of this fire will give you pause.
...
I am not disagreeing with you on potential dangers ... but we need this stuff.
Isn't the better way to recognize the fact this material is potentially dangerous and transport it accordingly and as safely as possible? Obviously any hearing should have recommended greater levels of safety precautions and research into safer techniques for shipping. More research into shipping is clearly needed. After all, even now after all these years car manufacturers continuously research safer gas tank designs.
Not familiar with these unit abbreviations (nm & kt) - can you expand for the metrically challenged?
Thanx!
Nautical Mile and Knot as best I know. Not exactly metric.
Yes, thank goodness the House of Reps is once again looking out for large corporations instead of the people like they're supposed to be doing. Oh, that's right, corporations are people too.
Yes, specially now that our "unbiased" supreme court has ruled that corporations can pay and purchase representatives.
Yes, thank goodness the House of Reps is once again looking out for large corporations instead of the people like they're supposed to be doing. Oh, that's right, corporations are people too.
Yeah I laugh at that too. That's an interesting take actually. A single entity such as a corporation with the ability to influence as a single entity regardless of any internal discussion is 'people' in some people's view.
I kind of prefer it when people are actually counted and vote individually. I don't like any form of block vote or block influence from either side be it union or corporation, seems a little feudal to me. I guess even a Republic is in the end a nod in that direction.
I'm just out of touch with reality, I know ... after all bribery, er I mean lobbying is legal ...
I'm just out of touch with reality, I know ... after all bribery, er I mean lobbying is legal ...
Yes, it is in the United States. That's why the US has one of the least corrupt governments in the world. Conflicts of interest and bribery are perfectly legal.
One way of being dishonest is to consider things out of context.
For example- the claim that lithium batteries are bad for the environment is, on the face of it, false. Nobody here has presented any danger to the environment from them, but more importantly, this claim can only be made by showing that the alternative -- what we'd use if these were banned-- is not *worse* for the environment.
This is why the environmentalist movement is a joke-- or would be if it were funny. They rant against modern technologies that are actually better for the environment than the alternative, but ignore the consequences of having to shift to the alternative if they were successful. An environmentalist is one who thinks it would be better if our cities were covered in coal soot rather than oil smog. I've yet to meet one who actually cares about the environment or knows enough science to advocate for policies that would clean up the environment. (Here's a hint- successful capitalist societies are always cleaner than highly regulated socialist ones, yet "environmentalists" are always socialists. Why? Because socialism is what they advocate and the environment is a convenient lie to peddle it.)
The idea that the supreme court ruled that companies are people is a flat out lie. Shame on everyone who repeats it. The supreme court ruled that the PEOPLE in companies maintain their right to free speech, even though they pool their money in the form of a corporation to exercise it. This is exactly what the first amendment says. Anyone who disagrees with it, disagrees with the constitution and thus, as advocating for an illegal (unconstitutional) government.
Those against "company speech rights" or "corporate personhood" are really against human rights, and are using dishonesty to make their evil sound less evil.
If you want to claim that lithium batteries are dangerous to transportation-- try providing some evidence of such, and then also, you have to provide context and show that they aren't also safer than the alternatives. I don't think anyone denies there are some risks-- but there are risks inherent to running transportation vehicles completely empty. If zero risk is your standard-- well it can never be met and thus your arguments are nonsense to begin with.
Finally, these "Regulations" are not meant to protect people-- they are just the typical government shakedown.
They threaten to violate companies rights by banning substances, and in response ,companies pay them off.
Don't blame the companies for paying them off-- blame the criminals in government-- mafia thugs, really-- for shaking them down and driving up our costs, making us poorer.
"the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation barring proposed limitations that would have classified lithium batteries as hazardous materials."
The issue is whether the mountains of lithium batteries that are going to be disposed of just like a wadded up napkin are safe to dispose of in this manner. Failure to classify lithium batteries as hazardous waste is expedient for large corporations but long-term that isn't the point.
The House is an asylum for the incompetent (Mark Twain).
No, that isn't "the issue" at all, at least in terms of the most recent legislation. It is specifically and only about the safety of transporting lithium batteries. It's not about hazardous waste; it's about hazardous materials. I had to do my own digging to confirm this. Here's the actual propose regulation in question: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-281.htm
If you want to claim that lithium batteries are dangerous to transportation-- try providing some evidence of such, and then also, you have to provide context and show that they aren't also safer than the alternatives. I don't think anyone denies there are some risks-- but there are risks inherent to running transportation vehicles completely empty. If zero risk is your standard-- well it can never be met and thus your arguments are nonsense to begin with.
Finally, these "Regulations" are not meant to protect people-- they are just the typical government shakedown.
They threaten to violate companies rights by banning substances, and in response ,companies pay them off.
Don't blame the companies for paying them off-- blame the criminals in government-- mafia thugs, really-- for shaking them down and driving up our costs, making us poorer.
Read the proposed regulations (link in my post just above this one). They aren't proposing "banning" anything. it is about labeling, packaging, and shipping practices. They do provide evidence that improper handling of lithium batteries is risky. I'm not saying the cost-benefit analysis justifies these regulations, but it's not true to say that these batteries are completely "safe." I'm generally a cynic, but in this case I think the motivation for these proposed regulations is very clearly human safety (not a "government shakedown").