They are banned here in Australia, unfortunately it has created a huge black market for these things.
Almost every neighborhood now has a cigarette store that also sells gifts and US chocolates that are basically just fronts for this stuff. Black market vapes and cigarettes. Even the police in many parts here don't really enforce this stuff.
What I find even crazier than the batteries being disposed is that some of these have some decent processor tech in them. Like this one that has a 48Mhz ARM processor in. https://ripitapart.com/category/disposable-vape-hacks/
Just curious: if you wanted to do something like that, but prevent a... thermal event, how would you protect an experimental battery realistically? Build a brick enclosure? A fire safe?
Distance, so a separate building far enough away from anything you want to keep that it won't carry over. Cabling underground but not in a duct. Space the cells a bit and ensure good airflow between them. A single runaway cell is how it usually starts and that in turn usually first shows up as increased internal resistance. Avoid mixing capacities, brands, different internal resistance values, cells that self-discharge, cells that have any sign of physical abuse or damage. (The guy in the video totally misses the internal resistance angle, as well as the self discharge which takes a long time to test and he already spent two months or more on his power bank.) Weld, do not solder your connections. Assemble cell groups first and then do QA on the cell groups as if they are larger capacity cells, and monitor them with a FLIR for any sign of cells misbehaving, especially under larger cell group charge/discharge currents. If a cell in the center is more than a few degrees warmer than those on the outside that's a serious concern.
Other prevention measures: strict inbound QA on the cells.
That's a lot of work, to the point that if you value your time you are better off buying a factory made pack of a reputable because they will almost certainly do a better job than you will on the safety aspect.
Getting Lithium-Ion packs right (especially larger ones) requires more up-front funds in terms of gear (especially testing gear for large volumes of cells is quite pricey) as well. The only reason I would do another (big) pack is if the form factor or capacity I want is not available at all.
The brief flash of that 'rechargeable powerbank' in the video has so much wrong with it that it isn't even funny and that's before looking inside the pack. All of those crossing wires, brrr. And those modules in the linked video don't look much better. Oh, and he's got one cell group in there with fewer cells (13:26) so that pack will unbalance immediately during charge or discharge. Effectively the whole pack has as much capacity as that one smaller cell group times the number of cell groups. The lack of integrated balancing wires is another puzzle for me, crossing balancing wires is a major headache when building larger packs, you want the very best grade of wiring for that with vibration resistant insulation and some kind of wire guide to ensure the wires can't move or cross. The whole BMS setup looks like an afterthought, rather than that it was designed in.
Oh, no interlock on the two separate breakers for the inverter (configured to work in island mode) and the house power. Wait until someone engages both. You need a transfer switch there, not two separate breakers.
His remark that it all looks 'super dodgy' and that 'I do not recommend anybody ever builds a pack like this' is an interesting one: if you are aware of all that, why do such a crap job in the first place? If you are going to go through that much work you might as well do a proper job.
Meanwhile, this is really just an ad for JLPCB. Running around the house and the workshop at everything working is a bit cringe, it is as if that's just padding to extend the video runtime.
Throw it in a massive body of water is about as good as you can do until the energy is depleted. (Also, making a human perform the puncture to initiate a violent chemical reaction is WILD. Do better)
The amount of e-waste in general is truly nauseating. My employer just cleaned 30 years of “junk” out of our in house IT “tech shop” and the number of working but obsolete computers that went out (many simply because they couldn’t support Windows 11) is sickening to me. The amount of carbon generated from the mining activities, steel production, etc. that went into producing “obsolete” computers has to absolutely dwarf any carbon “savings” you get by replacing them with more “efficient” machines. Especially when you consider that renewable power is taking over and many places aren’t burning coal to run the things anymore. A 12 year old i7 server runs my NVR, home automation setup, web server, and network router (not to mention a small handful of other services) without even breaking 25% CPU usage. We could replace so many data centers with old desktops.
This you can apply to almost everything we have been doing in the last 50 years I guess.
We're constantly being told to buy new because 1) more energy efficient, 2) better in terms of safety, 3) more environmental friendly, 4) it was built with unhealthy materials, 5) a single component is harder to replace later it with more modern xyz, if you don't replace the entire system the component is part of, 6) costs are increasing, so do it now!
You just need to understand which of the items above is essential for you, impossible to say no to.
Not sure how reassuring it is to you, but these computers often have a longer life on the used market, even resold multiple times. The laptops in my Hungarian household always come used, simply because they are selling here capable machines in beautiful condition, below 50% of the original market price. And when we need something new, they get resold as well.
Now of course, there are the videos from third world countries where they burn e-waste for gold, so it's not all dandy, but hey. At least we can be a little more conscious.
If a laptop costs 1000 dollars to buy, it couldn't have used more than 1000 dollars worth of hydrocarbons to create, unless firms are operating at a loss, right? Yes, the laptop required mining lithium, mining steel, turning hydrocarbons into plastics, growing silicon crystals, photolithography for the chips, running the conveyor belts for the assembly lines, etc and all those things required electricity and the electricity was mostly provided by fossil fuels, but the total amount of fossil fuels used (when considering price) couldn't have exceeded the cost of the laptop, because that would mean that some firms are spending more on fuel than they're receiving in profit, and such firms in the general case don't survive long. So if you take the cost of the laptop and then convert that to the mix of hydrocarbons used for energy at the time of the product's manufacture, that gives you an absolute upper bound of how much embodied carbon that thing must represent. It also gives you a lower bound of how efficient something has to be before you've paid for the old thing being thrown out and the new thing being manufactured.
So consider this: you have a desktop from 2010, it cost 1000 dollars, and operated at 150 watts. You consider getting a laptop today for 500 dollars, and it would have twice the nominal performance and operates at 50 watts. The total amount of embodied carbon for both of those devices has to be less than $1,500 worth of carbon dioxide produced by hydrocarbons. It can't be higher than that. Then you consider the running cost of 150 watts per hour vs 50 watts per hour. Well, back in 2010, 1000 (2010) dollars could buy you about 6000 to 9000 kilowatt hours worth of electricity when adjusting for conversion rates and electricity cost in China. Today, 500 dollars can buy about 3500 to 6500 kilowatt hours depending on whether you're buying in the US or China. So in order for the embodied carbon to be paid off for the laptop vs the desktop, let's take 7500 kilowatts for the desktop (a fair midpoint) plus 5000 kilowatts for the laptop, and then divide that by the running difference in power of the two systems: 100 watts. So if you plan on operating the laptop continuously for 13 years, the carbon savings from the efficiency gain of the new device would offset any possible carbon generated from the old device. But the laptop is twice as powerful, and what I gave was an absolute upper bound, and cannot be taken as a good ballpark estimate for how much carbon was actually produced. In the example that I gave, there was a 15-year age difference between the old system and the new system. Depending on how the devices were used, it's reasonable to assume that the right time to have replaced the desktop was back in 2023. Depending on how you use your device, it may never end up paying itself off before using less carbon than the older device. Waste is possible. But if the new device is on longer than 125,000 hours, it will have. It's just a sanity check, but it's good to have an upper bound.
I think this is only going to get worse worse, as phones, tablets and PCs are broadly a solved problem these days (outside intensive tasks). Literally nothing wrong with the 15 year old imac I have except for apple no longer supporting the OS.
After all networked smartphones and computers were placed under control of the regime, resistance hackers relied on microcontrollers harvested from ordinary household devices like smart lamps and vape pens to slowly rebuild the covert but resilient mesh internetwork that became known as FreeNet.
Someone write a novel please. Not sure who will be more appropriate: Stross (more fun?), Stephenson (more of a slog through the first 600 pages, then an abrupt 180 and frenetic action in the last 100 with newly introduced, yet game-changing characters?).
Tiny standards in legislation (I'm looking at you EU) around the e-cig designs to ensure simple battery recycling would solve this. Then you make the consumer pay for the battery separately and you are done.
28 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadAlmost every neighborhood now has a cigarette store that also sells gifts and US chocolates that are basically just fronts for this stuff. Black market vapes and cigarettes. Even the police in many parts here don't really enforce this stuff.
What I find even crazier than the batteries being disposed is that some of these have some decent processor tech in them. Like this one that has a 48Mhz ARM processor in. https://ripitapart.com/category/disposable-vape-hacks/
Other prevention measures: strict inbound QA on the cells.
That's a lot of work, to the point that if you value your time you are better off buying a factory made pack of a reputable because they will almost certainly do a better job than you will on the safety aspect.
Getting Lithium-Ion packs right (especially larger ones) requires more up-front funds in terms of gear (especially testing gear for large volumes of cells is quite pricey) as well. The only reason I would do another (big) pack is if the form factor or capacity I want is not available at all.
The brief flash of that 'rechargeable powerbank' in the video has so much wrong with it that it isn't even funny and that's before looking inside the pack. All of those crossing wires, brrr. And those modules in the linked video don't look much better. Oh, and he's got one cell group in there with fewer cells (13:26) so that pack will unbalance immediately during charge or discharge. Effectively the whole pack has as much capacity as that one smaller cell group times the number of cell groups. The lack of integrated balancing wires is another puzzle for me, crossing balancing wires is a major headache when building larger packs, you want the very best grade of wiring for that with vibration resistant insulation and some kind of wire guide to ensure the wires can't move or cross. The whole BMS setup looks like an afterthought, rather than that it was designed in.
Oh, no interlock on the two separate breakers for the inverter (configured to work in island mode) and the house power. Wait until someone engages both. You need a transfer switch there, not two separate breakers.
His remark that it all looks 'super dodgy' and that 'I do not recommend anybody ever builds a pack like this' is an interesting one: if you are aware of all that, why do such a crap job in the first place? If you are going to go through that much work you might as well do a proper job.
Meanwhile, this is really just an ad for JLPCB. Running around the house and the workshop at everything working is a bit cringe, it is as if that's just padding to extend the video runtime.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SweatyPalms/comments/1gbryd1/factor...
Throw it in a massive body of water is about as good as you can do until the energy is depleted. (Also, making a human perform the puncture to initiate a violent chemical reaction is WILD. Do better)
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1nuo0fj/...
For real dev work... essentially special sheds with massive ventilation to handle thermal runaways, rated by amount of kwh.
There is a good reason why most home battery storage solutions are based on LFP batteries and not NMC as used in vapes.
LFP is a much safer chemistry that can withstand higher temperatures and won’t bust into thermal runaway like NMC.
ofcourse this very obviously leads into hollywood-esque tragicomedical cataclysms...
"whats that smell... flips mouse upside down oh damn, my mouse started rotting..."
We're constantly being told to buy new because 1) more energy efficient, 2) better in terms of safety, 3) more environmental friendly, 4) it was built with unhealthy materials, 5) a single component is harder to replace later it with more modern xyz, if you don't replace the entire system the component is part of, 6) costs are increasing, so do it now!
You just need to understand which of the items above is essential for you, impossible to say no to.
If this is true and could be done economically, why is nobody doing this right now?
Now of course, there are the videos from third world countries where they burn e-waste for gold, so it's not all dandy, but hey. At least we can be a little more conscious.
So consider this: you have a desktop from 2010, it cost 1000 dollars, and operated at 150 watts. You consider getting a laptop today for 500 dollars, and it would have twice the nominal performance and operates at 50 watts. The total amount of embodied carbon for both of those devices has to be less than $1,500 worth of carbon dioxide produced by hydrocarbons. It can't be higher than that. Then you consider the running cost of 150 watts per hour vs 50 watts per hour. Well, back in 2010, 1000 (2010) dollars could buy you about 6000 to 9000 kilowatt hours worth of electricity when adjusting for conversion rates and electricity cost in China. Today, 500 dollars can buy about 3500 to 6500 kilowatt hours depending on whether you're buying in the US or China. So in order for the embodied carbon to be paid off for the laptop vs the desktop, let's take 7500 kilowatts for the desktop (a fair midpoint) plus 5000 kilowatts for the laptop, and then divide that by the running difference in power of the two systems: 100 watts. So if you plan on operating the laptop continuously for 13 years, the carbon savings from the efficiency gain of the new device would offset any possible carbon generated from the old device. But the laptop is twice as powerful, and what I gave was an absolute upper bound, and cannot be taken as a good ballpark estimate for how much carbon was actually produced. In the example that I gave, there was a 15-year age difference between the old system and the new system. Depending on how the devices were used, it's reasonable to assume that the right time to have replaced the desktop was back in 2023. Depending on how you use your device, it may never end up paying itself off before using less carbon than the older device. Waste is possible. But if the new device is on longer than 125,000 hours, it will have. It's just a sanity check, but it's good to have an upper bound.
Now they are more focused on supply chain break down but your scenario would also be valid.
Edit: I'm not saying I have a better alternative, but this system is deeply flawed