Tag: Batteries

  • Research: Recharge Single-Use Batteries

    Research: Recharge Single-Use Batteries

    Image: hodim

    The lithium-ion batteries in disposable vapes can continue to perform at high capacity for hundreds of cycles, according to a study, published in Joule.

    The research was conducted by scientists from University College London (UCL) and the University of Oxford and supported by the Faraday Institution.

    “The surprise for us were the results that pointed toward just how long these batteries could potentially cycle,” professor Paul Shearing of the University of Oxford and UCL said, according to media reports. “If you use a low charge and discharge rate, you can see that for over 700 cycles, you still have more than 90 percent capacity retention.

    “That’s a pretty good battery. And these are just being discarded. They’re being chucked on the side of the road.”

  • Insurance Agent Sued for Excluding Batteries

    Insurance Agent Sued for Excluding Batteries

    Image: Tobacco Reporter archive

    Four vapor companies have sued Kinsale Insurance Co. in U.S. federal court, claiming the insurer dropped coverage for batteries but failed to fully inform the policyholders before denying a claim.

    If the case goes to trial and appeal, it could potentially help clarify insurers’ and insureds’ responsibilities when policy wording is changed or exclusions are added.

    “Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs based on trust and good faith that required defendant to act in the best interest of plaintiffs, its customers,” reads the lawsuit complaint, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Nashville. “It is reasonable for the insured to assume the policies provided the requested coverage.”

    Based in Richmond, Virginia, Kinsale Insurance offers casualty and specialty casualty insurance for cannabis, transportation and other industries. It has not yet filed an answer to the complaint, according to the Insurance Journal.

    Industry experts, however, said that the practice of changing coverage without fully notifying customers is not uncommon and is rarely challenged. And Tennessee law may be unclear on how far an insurer must go in notifying policyholders of changes and how specific notifications should be.

    Battery fires from nicotine and cannabis vape devices are relatively uncommon but have become a worldwide concern for consumers, fire departments and insurers. In October 2022, Michael and Elisha Schmidt suffered a fire, reportedly from a vape pen battery, and sued four vape companies over the damage.

    The companies, Isabella Industries, Maelynn Industries, Sancia Industries and Illumivaption, all had umbrella and general liability policies with Kinsale for seven years. But when the vape sellers renewed their policies in October 2022, Kinsale excluded batteries and battery fire claims from the policies while raising premiums, the suit claims.

    “Defendant led plaintiffs to believe that the batteries were covered after the renewal,” the complaint reads. “Defendant did not inform plaintiffs that it had removed batteries from the coverage and did not ask Plaintiffs prior to doing so.”

    The plaintiffs also argue that the policy wording was ambiguous and illusory and thus unenforceable under Tennessee law. The companies had always paid their premiums on time and had been loyal customers to Kinsale, they noted.

    When the Schmidts filed their lawsuit, the vape companies filed claims with Kinsale. But the insurer denied the claims, arguing that the policies did not cover batteries. Kinsale would not provide a legal defense for the insureds.

    The vape sellers argue that Kinsale’s refusal amounted to bad faith and unfair trade practices and has cost the companies damages and attorney fees. They are asking for compensatory damages, punitive damages, legal fees and a declaration that the insurer must provide coverage and a defense.

  • Texas Court to Hear Exploding Battery Case

    Texas Court to Hear Exploding Battery Case

    Photo: unlimit3d

    The Supreme Court of Texas has agreed to hear a lawsuit by a vaper burnt by an exploding battery to determine if Texas courts have jurisdiction over LG Chem America, a subsidiary of South Korea-based LG Chem, which made the battery, reports Law360.

    In 2016, Texas resident Tommy Morgan bought an 18650 lithium-ion battery manufactured by LG Chem. He claims it unexpectedly exploded and caught on fire, leading to him suffering permanent and severe injuries, according to his lawsuit filed in 2019 in Brazoria County District Court.

    The companies are facing other lawsuits by Texas residents with similar claims concerning batteries exploding. But intermediate appeals courts have come to different conclusions on whether LG Chem has enough contacts in the state to face claims.

    LG Chem America and LG Chem have argued that Texas courts lack jurisdiction because the companies don’t sell individual batteries in Texas nor directly to Texas customers. LG has consistently stated in litigation throughout the country that this battery was never intended to be used in e-cigarettes or vaping devices.

    Morgan told the Texas high court that the company deliberately shipped its products to Texas customers who were later injured, therefore Texas courts have jurisdiction.

  • Taking Charge

    Taking Charge

    Photo: medwedja

    Regulators, manufacturers and consumers all bear a responsibility to minimize the environmental impact of the batteries used to power electronic nicotine-delivery devices.

    By George Gay

    A local councilor wrote a letter to me in February that went out to all his constituents, and, since he had taken the trouble to write at a time when elections weren’t due, I felt I should do him the courtesy of replying. So I did. I expounded at length my theories about how, in the face of the current existential environmental crisis, we should do away with all private cars by starting a campaign at the local level. (If you’re ever having trouble sleeping, call me, and I shall go through my ideas with you.)

    Abolishing private cars, I pointed out, would cause, for instance, a colossal saving on road maintenance costs, a huge fall in serious road accidents, a dramatic drop in pollution, a life-enhancing saving for the health service, an increase in community cohesion and an astronomical fall in criminality. I also pointed out that switching to electric cars will not save the environment partly because, according to recent research, nanoplastic contamination has been polluting Greenland’s ice cap for at least 50 years, and a quarter of the polluting particles are from vehicle tires.

    “I think it’ll be a brave person who tries to ban them [private cars],” replied my councilor, who, as far as I can tell, is an intelligent, well-meaning person. “Inconsiderate parking forms by far the largest part of my email box,” ran his next sentence.

    One of my concerns here is that I am going mad. What I seem to be hearing is that you would have to be afraid of public reaction if you tried to ban private cars, even though one negative aspect of the use of such cars is on the uppermost rung of the angry ladder within many people’s minds. Surely, if you harnessed this anger and appealed to people to think about the existential crisis as it pertains to their children and grandchildren, you would have the basis for a campaign.

    But I don’t think so. I believe a lot of people are able to function reasonably normally while keeping multiple opposing views in their minds simultaneously. “Yes, I’m worried about the effects of climate change, and I would do anything to prevent harming children, but I wouldn’t give up my polluting car for anything.” Hmm. Have you ever thought about having your head examined, you unbelievably irrational, selfish person?

    E-Cigarettes

    But perhaps, completely out of character, I’m being unfair. Perhaps such confused thinking is not surprising in a complex world. Where, for instance, should one stand in respect of e-cigarettes and other battery-driven devices aimed at helping smokers switch to less risky products? Sure, there are huge, direct personal health benefits to be reaped by smokers of combustible cigarettes switching to e-cigarettes, but what about the indirect negative effects caused by the careless discarding of e-cigarette batteries, about which this piece is mainly concerned, and other materials? How do these effects, which impinge upon nonusers too, compare with those of discarded cigarette butts? And where do heat-not-burn devices, with their batteries and butts, come into the equation?

    What’s the problem, you might ask. Well, from my admittedly less-than-comprehensive internet research, most electronic vapor devices use lithium-ion batteries, which are compact, complex devices designed without disassembly in mind, though various of their elements can be recycled. Simply put, they comprise a cathode, anode, separator and electrolyte. Battery technology is developing all the time, but, currently, they might contain, among other things, copper, aluminum, cobalt, nickel, manganese or rare earth metallic elements. And, of course, lithium. Given that these batteries contain heavy metals and toxic chemicals, disposing of them in landfill sites, where they will eventually leak, gives rise to concerns about soil contamination, water pollution and combustion.

    The good news is that these batteries, or parts of them, can be recycled, and, in many countries, there are facilities for such recycling. The bad news is that recycling is not without its problems. It might, for instance, involve chemical or mechanical separation, and/or smelting and, as part of these high-energy processes, give rise to significant electrical, chemical and thermal issues and costs.

    Another concern lies in the figures. Some figures suggest that “up to” 90 percent of battery elements can be recycled, which is less than comforting because it could mean anywhere from 0 percent to 90 percent. And, in any case, this speaks only to the percentages of battery materials that can be recycled. Because of technical, economic, logistical, regulatory and other factors, fewer than 5 percent of lithium-ion batteries are currently recycled.

    This 5 percent figure refers to all lithium-ion batteries, so, given that car batteries are of the same type, either there will be a big push to make the recycling of such batteries more efficient than it currently is, or we are going to wind up with a mountain of used batteries in landfill sites. Again, from my reading, in the absence of organized, large-scale recycling operations, battery manufacturers will continue to concentrate on lowering the costs of production and increasing battery longevity and charge capacity. Increasing battery longevity provides an advantage, but it should not be allowed to stand in for recycling.

    Fortunately, there are commercial and other benefits to recycling, but, as above, they are often canceled out by the perceived downsides. One swing factor is the price of the metals concerned. If the cost of mining them is higher than the cost of recycling them, then recycling is likely to get a look in; otherwise, probably not. That is the logic of the free market. But this is not a simple matter because decisions are influenced by the fact that mines and recycling facilities are capital intensive and take a relatively long time to set up whereas CEO bonuses are determined on the basis of annual reports. Such short-term factors are also likely to cloud the advantage that recycling might prevent future shortages of cobalt and nickel, for instance. And it might encourage battery manufacturers to ignore the fact that metal supply chains often start in a limited number of countries, some of which are not politically stable.

    So far, I have written only about vaping devices, but there are different types, and it is perhaps unfortunate that disposables seem to be on the rise. Whereas rechargeable devices will last a while and have easily removable batteries that, in many countries, can be taken to local recycling centers, disposables last a matter of days, have batteries that cannot be removed easily and must be taken in their entirety to specialist e-waste centers where they are available.

    While it is reasonable to expect smokers to dispose of cigarette butts responsibly, the dismantling of some vaping devices and the disposal of their constituent parts might be a stretch for the average brain. (Photo: Sergey)

    Taking Action

    So what are e-cigarette suppliers doing about the environmental impact of their products? Some are required to take seemingly modest action—given the state we are in—under regulations such as the EU’s Directive that sets targets for the collection, recovery and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment in general. Some are trying to do the right thing by providing online advice about how consumers can dispose of vaping device elements so as to ensure as far as possible that these elements are recycled. Some are setting up systems that allow customers to return used devices so that the suppliers arrange for recycling, sometimes in respect of all devices, including those of other suppliers. One Tobacco Reporter report based on a story in the Budapest Business Journal in August said Philip Morris International had inaugurated an e-cigarette recycling center on the outskirts of Budapest capable of recycling 150,000 electronic tobacco devices a month. This was said to have been PMI’s second such facility, the first one having been opened in Japan. But there were no other details, so the story raised more questions than it answered, making it difficult to judge how seriously the recycling issue was being taken.

    I must say that I am not filled with confidence. If you look at the history of the tobacco/nicotine industry, we never got on top of the carelessly discarded cigarette butts issue, and now, well into the second decade of vaping devices and past the point of no return in respect of environmental breakdown, there seems to be no plan for a coordinated industry approach to the issue of carelessly discarded vaping devices. Indeed, there seems little interest, let alone a plan. Asked to contribute to this story, BAT, Imperial Brands and Japan Tobacco International each said no thanks. Juul and PMI didn’t reply. Vaping associations in the U.K. and the U.S., while showing initial interest, fell by the wayside.

    Of course, the industry is not wholly to blame for the situation we are in. Governments and regulators shoulder some of the responsibility. The cigarette butts problem could have been largely overcome years ago by regulators having the courage to ban cigarette filters. At the same time, it is hardly fair to blame the U.S. vaping device industry for being reluctant to invest heavily in respect of environmental issues when the regulatory framework within which suppliers operate is chaotic. And it has to be said that in banning snus, the tobacco harm reduction product with what must be by far and away the best environmental credentials, the EU has clearly indicated that it would rather indulge in political posturing than environmental protection.

    Consumers’ Responsibility

    And then, of course, we come to consumers, many of whom seem not to be concerned about carelessly discarding cigarette butts, vaping devices and any other products that they no longer have use for. They, of course, have the power to end most of the environmental problems, but just as they won’t give up their cars, they won’t stop using the streets as giant trash cans. But perhaps I’m being unfair again. While it is reasonable, I think, to expect smokers to dispose of cigarette butts responsibly, the dismantling of some vaping devices and the disposal of their constituent parts might be a stretch for the average brain.

    What the industry needs to be wary of is the fact that no matter what consumers do, the industry will get the blame for environmental problems caused by its products. Those people who are opposed to vaping will use environmental issues to undermine these products, no matter how many lives they might save. The Truth Initiative, for instance, says that e-cigarette manufacturers are failing to provide consumers with guidance or take responsibility for appropriate disposal methods, presumably trying to justify why, according to the initiative, “[o]nly 15 percent of young e-cigarette users reported disposing of empty pods or disposable vapes by dropping them off or sending them for electronic recycling.” And it compares e-cigarettes unfavorably with cigarettes when it comes to environmental issues. “E-cigarette waste is potentially a more serious environmental threat than cigarette butts since e-cigarettes introduce plastic, nicotine salts, heavy metals, lead, mercury and flammable lithium-ion batteries into waterways, soil and to wildlife,” the Truth Initiative says. “Unlike cigarette butts, e-cigarette waste won’t biodegrade even under severe conditions. E-cigarettes left on the street eventually break down into microplastics and chemicals that flow into the storm drains to pollute our waterways and wildlife.”

    That is worrying. So perhaps it is time for the industry to concentrate on producing products that break down almost harmlessly if discarded in the street. Would such a product be possible? Certainly, it would have to be one without a battery and would therefore produce a different consumer experience. So the question arises as to whether consumers would be willing to have what is perhaps a less satisfying experience in the knowledge that they were making a positive contribution to the environment.

    I doubt it. But there is another way, and given that we are in such an environmental mess, it should not be ruled out. We could go in reverse. While leaving on sale filterless cigarettes, pipe tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, cigars, snuff and snus, regulators could ban filtered cigarettes, roll-your-own filters and electronic vaping devices. At the same time, the door could be left open for manufacturers to come up with new, less risky tobacco/nicotine products that were not hugely damaging to the environment.

    George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.
  • Warning Against Loose ‘18650’ Batteries

    Warning Against Loose ‘18650’ Batteries

    Photo: Trodler – Dreamstime.com

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has warned that consumers should not buy or use loose 18650 lithium-ion battery cells due to a possible fire and even death risk. The batteries are commonly used in flashlights and toys and some vapor products.

    The commission said it is working with e-commerce to remove listings of loose or repackaged “18650 lithium-ion” batteries, according to a press release. A superior court in California recently denied a request by Samsung to dismiss a lawsuit about an exploding e-cigarette lithium-ion batteries.

    The CPSC warning is about batteries separated from cells that use multiple 18650s such as battery packs for electric automobiles.

    “These cells are manufactured as industrial component parts of battery packs and are not intended for individual sale to consumers. However, they are being separated, rewrapped and sold as new consumer batteries, typically on the Internet,” the CPSC said in a statement on Saturday. “Specifically these battery cells may have exposed metal positive and negative terminals that can short-circuit when they come into contact with metal objects such as keys or loose change in a pocket.”

    Once shorted, loose cells could overheat and experience thermal runaway, igniting the cell’s internal materials and forcibly expelling burning contents, resulting in fires, explosions, serious injuries and even death.

    “Unfortunately a growing number of small consumer products such as vaping devices, personal fans, headlamps and some toys are using loose 18650s as a power source,” the CPSC stated in its release.

  • E-cigs charge battery sales

    e-cigarette battery photo
    Photo by jonnwilliams

    Sales of e-cigarettes have contributed significantly to the growth of lithium-ion rechargeable batteries, according to the research firm Packaged Facts.

    In its most recent report, Batteries: Consumer Market Trends in the U.S., Packaged Facts estimates the U.S. market for household batteries was $4.5 billion in 2015, up nearly 2.5 percent over 2014’s sales.

    The overall market increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.4 percent for the period 2011 to 2015.

    Looking ahead, sales of household batteries will reach $5.2 billion by the year 2020. Lithium-ion rechargeable batteries will see the greatest increase, with a CAGR of almost 12 percent, and surpass alkaline disposable batteries as the largest segment of the overall household batteries category.

    Further, lithium will have a 46 percent share of the market in 2020, up from its 34 percent share in 2015. Supporting the rise in rechargeable lithium-ion battery sales is their use in e-cigarettes.

    “The market for e-cigarettes as tobacco alternatives has grown at triple digit rates over the past decade. There are signs that the rate has slowed to double digits as smokers go back to real tobacco while product development continues,” comments David Sprinkle, research director, Packaged Facts.

    Still, younger smokers seem to account for a growing portion of the consumer base for e-cigarettes and despite the relative slowdown in market growth, the overall trend is toward continued expansion. This is supported by the entry into the market of mainstream tobacco companies.

    These companies could well take over the entire market in the next few years. But even if they do not, their participation will lead to greater availability of batteries for e-cigarettes in supermarkets, convenience stores, and other retail outlets in which the batteries have previously lacked traction.

    In the current market, it appears that most of the e-cigarette battery sales are through online vendors, which has actually helped grow the internet as a source for battery sales overall.

     

  • FDA battery safety workshop

    batteries photoThe US Food and Drug Administration plans to host a two-day public workshop on battery safety concerns.

    The workshop is due to be held on April 19-20 at Silver Spring, Maryland.

    It will attempt to ‘gather information and stimulate discussion on battery safety concerns (overheating, fires, explosions, etc.), reducing the risk of incidents, and design parameters related to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including e-cigarettes,’ according to a note issued by the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

    ‘Presentations and panelists will discuss substantive scientific information relating to hazards and risks associated with the use of batteries in ENDS.

    ‘The FDA also plans to collect information on how these safety hazards and risks are communicated to consumers.

    ‘A public comment session will be held on April 20, 2017, during which the FDA will accept oral comments.

    ‘The workshop also will be webcast live, with transcripts posted on the FDA website after the event.’

    The note said that a public docket had been established to receive written comments to gather information on hazards and risks associated with the use of batteries in ENDS.

    ‘Comments submitted via Docket FDA-2016-N-4232 on regulations.gov or by mail to the FDA address listed in the Federal Register notice will be accepted until May 22, 2017,’ the note said.

    ‘Furthermore, those interested in an informal meeting with the FDA to discuss any of these ENDS battery safety topics are welcome to contact FDA directly at any time.’

    Key Dates:

    • The deadline to register to attend or request to speak during the public comment session is March 17.
    • The date successful registrants will receive registration confirmation is March 21.

    •           And the deadline to submit public comments is May 22.