9AM TO 6PM EST TIME

Proudly assembled, stocked and shipped in the USA for unparalleled customer service.

LONG RANGE WIRELESS CHARGING

This simple process untethers the hard wired power transmitter from a connected cradle with a fixed shape, and preset voltage requirement. It then seamlessly connects to a myriad of shapes, voltages and chemistries. The severing of physical connections (the primary path of the destructive force for an EMP) is rendered moot. This singular fact would ordinarily precipitate research into this technology. It is however only one of many facets that dovetail with our present and future security needs. Tim Cook, Elan Musk, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have all looked past the trade sanction and tariff bluster and recognized the inherent instability in the present sourcing of battery components. They’ve invested in both the raw materials and manufacturing elements already. A short review and long termaction plan is therefore in order.

The US Armed Forces now carry and use well over 1,000 styles of batteries. Essentially there are only 5 types of cells (AA, C, Sub C, D and 18650 LIon) in various configurations that make up these 1,000 plus batteries. Winnowing of these numbers will proportionately reduce the purchase, warehousing and logistical quagmire associated with in theater distribution.

Standardization of the internal components adds not only redundancy but the additional security of not only building with these components but disassembly and repurposing in the field.

Now, how does this relate to the developments in wireless charging mentioned earlier?

The enormity of usage by the world’s largest consumer of batteries necessitates years if not decades of transition. Couple that with the inherent volatility of the area (Korea, China and Japan) that produces the bulk of our secondary cells and a captive not just friendly source is a must.
So how do we transition and what steps can be taken to guarantee adequate supply during that transition?
Today’s military finds itself in the unenviable and many times contradictory position of being:

    • Leaner and lighter
    • Green (zero environmental impact)
    • Technologically superior
    • Able to successfully prosecute and win a war on 2 disparate fronts with a single force.

Contra-intuitive or not these are the constraints that must be complied with. In order to flesh out macro supply requirements a little background is in order.

CONSTRUCTION FOR DECONSTRUCTION

Using Today’s Technology to Ensure Our Access to Secondary Batteries

Where we are Today
How to get to Tomorrow
The Problem and The Solution

Figure #1

Figure #2

CONSTRUCTION FOR DECONSTRUCTION

The US is the largest consumer of rechargeable secondary batteries. The US uses rechargeable batteries in everyday life such as in two way radios, laptops, Segway’s, drills, parking meters, battle field robots, communication devices, missile launches, missile targets, laser sights, night vision scopes and many other necessary items. One third by weight of a soldiers backpack is either batteries or battery operated. Rechargeable batteries are not only a huge expense for the US, but staggering for the US Military. In 2010 the Defense Logistics Agency purchased 7,208 different types of batteries for $127.59 million; 14.4% more than in 2009 (Defense Industry News, 12/2010) “The Defense Department invested at least $2.1 billion dollars in power sources from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. Fuel cells and batteries were by far the largest categories.” (GAO, 2010) Presently, the DOD spends up to $9.30 per battery to dispose of toxic waste, including rechargeable batteries, plus a similar amount depending on the waste classification according to Hazardous Waste regulations under The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 2007). Additionally, the US invested over $35 billion dollars in an attempt to find a solution to the energy sustainability issue. The US currently has no volume manufacturers of rechargeable batteries. The US military is dependent on foreign goodwill in order to supply our needs.
Fukishima (earthquakes & tsunami), North Korean sabre rattling, super typhoon Haryan, and China’s recent claim on the Japanese Senkakus Islands all worked to restrict the dwindling supply of rechargeable batteries from the NiCad triangle of Japan, China, and North Korea.
“One of every 50 resupply convoys in Afghanistan results in a fatality or serious injury”. (ACORE/AEE)
“The Navy has set a goal of making half its bases net-zero energy facilities by 2020.” (ACORE/AEE)

“Production of the Model S at Tesla’s Fremont, California plant is being held back by part supplies, particularly of lithium-ion battery cells.” (CEO Elon Musk, 2013). The aforementioned statement of Tesla’s production limitations result from shortages of the same cells (the ubiquitous 18650) used by virtually every laptop, power tool, Segway and two-way radio manufacturer.
“The US market for secondary batteries is projected to climb 5.7 percent annually to $11.3 billion in 2015. Market gains will be bolstered by increasing usage of high drain electronic products, which supports sales of more powerful, expensive batteries.” (PRWEB Dallas TX, 2012)
Battery shortages are not a nebulous future, but today’s norm. How long until a black swan event involving the NiCad triangle totally severs our already precarious supply chain? Batteries and their ready availability are essential to our national security and continuance of our standard of living. Two of the largest global manufacturers capable of producing these batteries are headquartered in the US, but raw material processing and production takes place overseas. Secure access to this material garnered the attention of many disparate leaders as varied and august as a blue ribbon senatorial committee, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Call 2 Recycles’ president, Carl Smith. Independent research by the preceding individuals reached eerily similar conclusions.
This report will shine a light on the presently dark areas of the TODAY chart (see figure 1) leading us to battery sustainability of the TOMORROW chart (see figure 2). There is no simplistic, easily navigable route, but a series of new and existing technological initiatives. Using present day technology along with best practices and a multi-level coordinated approach, 100% independence in battery production can be achieved in years not decades.

Fukishima (earthquakes & tsunami), North Korean sabre rattling, super typhoon Haryan, and China’s recent claim on the Japanese Senkakus Islands all worked to restrict the dwindling supply of rechargeable batteries from the NiCad triangle of Japan, China, and North Korea.
“One of every 50 resupply convoys in Afghanistan results in a fatality or serious injury”. (ACORE/AEE)
“The Navy has set a goal of making half its bases net-zero energy facilities by 2020.” (ACORE/AEE)

“Production of the Model S at Tesla’s Fremont, California plant is being held back by part supplies, particularly of lithium-ion battery cells.” (CEO Elon Musk, 2013). The aforementioned statement of Tesla’s production limitations result from shortages of the same cells (the ubiquitous 18650) used by virtually every laptop, power tool, Segway and two-way radio manufacturer.
“The US market for secondary batteries is projected to climb 5.7 percent annually to $11.3 billion in 2015. Market gains will be bolstered by increasing usage of high drain electronic products, which supports sales of more powerful, expensive batteries.” (PRWEB Dallas TX, 2012)
Battery shortages are not a nebulous future, but today’s norm. How long until a black swan event involving the NiCad triangle totally severs our already precarious supply chain? Batteries and their ready availability are essential to our national security and continuance of our standard of living. Two of the largest global manufacturers capable of producing these batteries are headquartered in the US, but raw material processing and production takes place overseas. Secure access to this material garnered the attention of many disparate leaders as varied and august as a blue ribbon senatorial committee, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Call 2 Recycles’ president, Carl Smith. Independent research by the preceding individuals reached eerily similar conclusions.
This report will shine a light on the presently dark areas of the TODAY chart (see figure 1) leading us to battery sustainability of the TOMORROW chart (see figure 2). There is no simplistic, easily navigable route, but a series of new and existing technological initiatives. Using present day technology along with best practices and a multi-level coordinated approach, 100% independence in battery production can be achieved in years not decades.

EXPERT TESTIMONIES & EXCERPTS

Carl Smith, President, Call 2 Recycle, suggests a bookend policy with initial design and manufacture intending to deconstruct and recycle 100% of battery ingredients. (Product Design & Collection; Keys to Shaping Sustainability, 2013) A follow-up article, Bridging the Behavioral Gap for Recycling Success calls for changes inpsychological and physical barriers to achieve 100% recyclability for obsolete end-of-life items. (Carl Smith, 2013) [Senate hearing 112-117]
Critical Minerals and Materials Legislation, June 2011
“We’ve made significant progress in assembling the infrastructure needed to manufacture these critical Lion batteries domestically; we have yet to make similar investments in the production of the materials found inside the batteries.” (Honorable Kay Hagan, U.S. Senator NC, 2011)
“We developed the know-how as to how to process the minerals and put them into advance technology. We sold that technology. We currently have to ship the products of these mines to China to be processed into useful materials.” (Honorable Mark Udall, U.S. Senator CO, 2011)
“At DOE we are investing 35 billion dollars of Recovery Act Funds in electric vehicles, batteries and advanced energy storage.” (David Sandalow, Asst. Sec. of Energy for Policy & International Affairs, 2011)
Committee consensus [Senate Hearing 112-117] reached the following conclusions:

    • substitutes must be developed
    • recycling, reuse and more efficient use of existing material
    • diversification of global supply chains
    • new designs that might facilitate the removal of these items at the end of the products life.

Jonathan Price, Director Bureau of Minds:

    • information, collection, analysis and dissemination
    • research, development and work force enhancement
    • recycling

Steven Duclos, Chief Scientist and Manager, Material Sustainability. GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY:

    • improvement in global supply chain
    • improvements in material utilization in manufacturing and reduction in manufacturing waste
    • development of recycling technologies that extract at risk elements from both end-of-life- products and manufacturing end-loss.
    • this includes the design of products that are more easily recycled and serviced. We can presently inventory materials in order to mitigate short term supply issues.

Mark Caffarey, Executive VP, UMICORE USA, Raleigh, NC (14,400 employees)

    • closed loop supply system
    • recovery of metals from production scrap and waste from end-of-life
    • products encompassing 4 distinct stages;

Collection
Dismantling
Pretreatment
Refining into final usable, critical materials

“The US likely has the largest cache of critical materials in the world. A well-developed recycling system could tap these mines for US critical materials without limit.” (Caffarey, 2011). Japan is currently successfully using a technique called, Urban Mining, to achieve such goals.
“Umicore processes avoid the mining of virgin materials (at excessively high energy and environmental costs), (GHG) requires no additional energy consuming processing to achieve quality in the materials because of the high purity in the used batteries.” (Caffarey, 2011). Allowing for 50% to 70% energy and GHG savings.
“The growth (employment) potential is enormous because the recycling of critical materials is an entire industry and the United States has not yet begun to build one domestically.” (Caffarey, 2011)
In regards to Senator Cantwell’s questions regarding barriers to the achievement of 100% recyclability, “The last step where we recover the different elements does exist. We have systems in place for that already, but to get the materials to those different facilities is the weak link in the whole recycling process.” (Caffarey, 2011)
Caffarey suggested the following steps to solve the problem;

monetary incentives
reverse manufacturing
deconstructing of end-of-live products

Senator Risch of Idaho, commented “my experience is that the market place, if there is dollars and cents involved, always figure it out before the government does.” (Risch, 2011)
“without collection and significant volumes, steps 2, 3 and 4 in the recycling process may not provide an economically viable business.” (Caffarey, 2011)
With an extensive network of over 30,000 collection points, RBRC collects just over 10% of the batteries sold in the US market. The EU on the other hand has an achievable collection target of 65% of these materials for 2013. The steps that have to be taken to meet and surpass the European Union’s current collection rate and achieve the 100% rate for total independence are outlined below

SOLUTIONS

To reiterate the consensus conclusions, a comprehensive plan includes recycling, conservation and reclamation as the cornerstones to take us to the ultimate goal of an independent, self-sustaining, closed loop environment.
The impediments are as follows:

    • identification of a battery and cognitive acceptance of replacement
    • ability to access recognizable, replaceable cells as such, not expensive black boxes to be hoarded
    • centralized collection and pre-processing of recyclables for recovery
    • capture and distribution to both strategic stockpiles and domestic manufacturers of fully production ready raw materials

Lifelong repetition has taught us that batteries are light weight, temporary, easily replaceable, inexpensive energy sources. Today, the $100 dollar, long lasting rechargeable battery packs are incorrectly perceived as a component of a device not to be discarded (see warning label), but saved for future use.
Battrx through the use of proprietary mechanical connectors allows ordinary consumers to replace and recycle only the cells reusing the shell and other components
The US and the US government in particular, are by far the greatest consumers of these secondary cells. The inability to access the secondary battery market will have the greatest affect here, and commitment to continued access, should equal this dependency. The US government and affiliates should be on a mandated (but compassionately enforced) one-for-one replacement regimen. For instance, tires are replaced when worn, but are considerably more expensive and more difficult to replace than the 8 to 12 cells common in today’s batteries. This results not only in huge monetary savings, but also in an environmentally sustainable practice by transporting only replacement cells, saving in fuel and logistical headaches.
The consuming public even with access to and recognition of the recyclable cells may still need an incentive to follow through. A deposit of $.20 per cell ($3.00/18V battery) refundable to the physical owner, should achieve the expected results. This is absolutely not a tax, but a deposit, ultimately refunded by the entity that readies the cells for recovery. Some of today’s examples include deposits on glass and plastic bottles, lead acid batteries, and propane tanks. Should the ultimate user feel incapable of deconstructing those batteries, a certified rebuilder will then take possession through any of the various outlets selling these items. Refurbished units will be inventoried by these outlets to allow a user direct access to a replacement with no lag time. In addition to the return of the deposit, further incentive would be considerably lower cost of the replacement. Major recycling plants for all chemistries are located in Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina so a central location is optimal. Usable material will then be owned by either the recycler or supplier of the material through a fee arrangement.
Today’s recycling processes use only about one-quarter of the energy and produce only about one-quarter of the greenhouse gases as manufacturing from virgin materials, a double gain.
A Stanford study by Drs. Lankey and McMichael, showed an achievable recovery rate of 99.95% of immediately usable manufacturing raw materials now being achieved. The reductions in and of themselves will lower the cost of the items they are incorporated in, generating more globally competitive US products