Search

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies have proven effective at raising consumer awareness, expanding waste collection infrastructure, and shifting costs of end-of-life (EOL) management from municipalities to stewardship organizations. Yet, such policies have been less successful in advancing waste management programs that ensure a net environmental benefit. This article analyzes how EPR policies for single-use batteries in the European Union (EU), Canada, and the United States address the environmental costs and benefits of EOL management. Considering these EPR policies is instructive, because single-use batteries have high collection costs and are of relatively low economic value for waste processors. Without deliberate planning, the environmental burdens of collecting and recycling such batteries may exceed the benefits. This article considers how EPR policies for single-use batteries integrate performance requirements such as collection rates, recycling efficiencies, and best available techniques. It argues that for such policies to be effective, they need to be extended to address waste collection practices, the life cycle consequences of EOL management, and the quality of recovered materials. Such strategies are relevant to EPR policies for other products with marginal secondary value, including some textiles, plastics, and other types of electronic waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the evolution of waste battery policies and lessons learned from past efforts at policy making and implementation. For starter light ignition batteries, many countries reportedly began to require product fees on the sale of batteries to fill the deficits from collection and recycling. In early 1990s, countries with more aggressive policies led to mercury-free zinc-carbon and alkaline round cells. The article mentions that lessons from past efforts highlight the need for more effective policy development.

Abstract: The notion persists that battery technology and cost remain as barriers to commercialization of electric-drive passenger vehicles. Within the context of starting a market for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), we explore two aspects of the purported problem: (1) PHEV performance goals and (2) the abilities of present and near-term battery chemistries to meet the resulting technological requirements. We summarize evidence stating that battery technologies do not meet the requirements that flow from three sets of influential PHEV goals due to inherent trade-offs among power, energy, longevity, cost, and safety. However, we also show that part of this battery problem is that those influential goals are overly ambitious compared to goals derived from consumers’ PHEV designs. We elicited PHEV designs from potential early buyers among U.S. new car buyers; most of those who are interested in a PHEV are interested in less technologically advanced PHEVs than assumed by experts. Using respondents’ PHEV designs, we derive peak power density and energy density requirements and show that current battery chemistries can meet them. By assuming too aggressive PHEV goals, existing policy initiatives, battery research, and vehicle development programs mischaracterize the batteries needed to start commercializing PHEVs. To answer the question whether batteries are ready for PHEVs, we must first answer the question, “whose PHEVs?” [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The current EU energy and climate policy targets a significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the forthcoming years. Carbon pricing, embedded in the EU emissions trading system, aims at achieving emission reductions in a more evenly spread way and at the lowest overall cost for society, compared with other environmental policy tools, such as coal or electricity taxes, or incentives such as subsidies on renewables. Still, the implementation of the decarbonization policy depends on several technical parameters such as the type, size and connectivity of the energy system as well as economic restrictions that occur. Within this paper, an optimization tool will be presented, focusing on cleaner energy production and on the control and reduction of environmental impact regarding energy storage solutions. Various types of batteries are examined and evaluated towards this direction. Emphasis is given to setting new criteria for the decision-making process, considering the size of battery storage and the selection of the battery type based on the environmental impact assessment parameter. The objective function of the system is formulated so as to evaluate, monitor and finally minimize environmental emissions, focusing mainly on carbon emissions. Optimization is carried out based on mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP). Two of the main battery types compared are lead–acid and lithium-ion; both of them result in results worth mentioning regarding the replacement impact (seven times during system lifetime for lead–acid) and the total environmental impact comparison (lithium-ion may reach a 60% reduction compared to lead–acid). Case studies are presented based on representative scenarios solved, which underline the importance of choosing the appropriate scope for each case and demonstrate the potential of the tool developed, as well as the possibilities for its further improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Production of products has increasingly been relocated to countries outside the western industrialised area. Consumption of the same products in the west has increased. Policy instruments, used with positive effects nationally, have become more or less ineffective or irrelevant. Some environmental problems related to production practices have been relocated to other countries, while the import of products involves new environmental and health impacts for consumers. In integrated product policy, including phases of design, production, distribution, consumption and waste management, the possibility of using policy instruments to address designing and producing actors are highly affected by globalisation. The globalisation of production is a challenge for environmental policy as regards defining policy instruments with international validity. Case studies, the integrated product chain for batteries, clothing and meat, are used analysing globalisation and policy instruments. The empirical materials include legislation, propositions, protocols and interviews with officials in ministries, authorities, production and distribution organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]