Batterierecycling in Europa: Studie errechnet 1,90 Euro Verlust je Kilogramm

Schlechte Nachrichten! Ja, wieder mal die schreckliche Bürokratie! Seit wann sind alte Batterien ein Gefahrgut? Ist da, wie so oft, das Vorsichtsprinzip übertrieben worden?

"Die Verfahren zur Rückgewinnung von Rohstoffen aus Lithium-Ionen-Batterien sind technisch weit entwickelt. Wirtschaftlich ist das Recycling ausgedienter Traktionsbatterien jedoch noch schwierig. Eine Modellrechnung der HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management kommt für den untersuchten Prozess auf einen Verlust von rund 1,90 € je kg Batteriepack. ..."

"Verkauft ein Recyclingbetrieb die aus einem Batteriepack zurückgewonnenen Rohstoffe zu Marktpreisen, bleibt nach Abzug aller Kosten ein Verlust von rund 1,90 Euro pro Kilogramm Batteriepack.

Ein wesentlicher Grund: Da ausgebaute Lithium-Ionen-Batterien als Gefahrgut gelten, ist ihr Transport im Schnitt 16-mal teurer als der eines normalen Frachtguts. Hinzu kommt: Unternehmen, die sich ausschließlich auf Batterierecycling spezialisiert haben, wirtschaften der Untersuchung zufolge deutlich schlechter als breiter aufgestellte Firmen. ..."

Batterierecycling in Europa: Studie errechnet 1,90 Euro Verlust je Kilogramm "Hohe Transport- und Demontagekosten machen Batterierecycling zum Verlustgeschäft, so das Ergebnis einer aktuellen Studie. Second-Life-Nutzung schafft zusätzlichen Wert: doch Kosten und Erlöse fallen bei unterschiedlichen Akteuren an."

Studie: Europäische Batterie-Kreislaufwirtschaft braucht neue Geschäftsmodelle (Original Nachricht) "Die Technologie, um Rohstoffe aus Elektrofahrzeugbatterien zurückzugewinnen, ist ausgereift. Trotzdem verliert Europas Recyclingindustrie beim aktuellen Prozess Ressourcen.

Die Hauptursachen: teurer Gefahrguttransport, aufwendige Demontage und unsichere Materialrückgewinnung. Das zeigt ein Zwischenbericht der HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management im EU-Forschungsprojekt SAFELOOP, in dem 15 Institutionen aus 11 Ländern an einer neuen Generation sicherer und nachhaltiger Lithium-Ionen-Batterien für Elektrofahrzeuge arbeiten."

The FDA plans to make one major study, rather than two, the agency’s new default requirement for approving new drugs.

Good news! Indeed, this precautionary redundancy may not be necessary anymore or should be reserved for as few cases as possible.

"The FDA commissioner Marty Makary recently announced plans to make one major study, rather than two, the agency’s new default requirement for approving new drugs. He argued that advances in biomedical science make duplicate trials less necessary, and that the change should speed up approvals and encourage more drug development. Makary has also promised to allow more companies to sell drugs without a prescription."

"“The Food and Drug Administration plans to drop its longtime standard of requiring two rigorous studies to win approval of new drugs, the latest change from Trump administration officials vowing to speed up the availability of certain medical products. ..."

Doomslayer: Progress Roundup - by Malcolm Cochran

FDA Drops Two-Study Rule to Speed Drug Approvals

Bosch-Chef Hartung: „Dürfen uns bei KI nicht verrückt regulieren“

Bedenkenswert! Verdient Zustimmung! Die Gefahr besteht in der Tat!

In der Tat besteht in der Bananenrepublik D und in der EU die grosse Gefahr mit zu vielen staatlichen Vorschriften die KI zu ersticken! Z.B. das völlig übertriebene, aber weit verbreitete und gepflegte Vorsorgeprinzip (precautionary principle) sollte hinten anstehen.

Bosch-Chef Hartung: „Dürfen uns bei KI nicht verrückt regulieren“ "Der Technologiekonzern steckt Milliarden in die KI-Entwicklung, warnt aber vor einer europäischen Überregulierung. Ohne die hat die EU nach Ansicht von Bosch-Chef [Stefan] Hartung aber noch die Chance, vorne mitzuspielen."

AI safety versus responsible AI by Andrew Ng. An exercise in futile semantics or virtue signalling!

Vice President J.D. Vance is right to dismiss safety for opportunity at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris! Keep Big Government out as much as possible!

An excessive recourse to the precautionary principle is the enemy of opportunity and progress! Andrew Ng even admits it in his opinion. Further, he obviously contradicts himself when he lists unsafe medical diagnoses under harmful application.

Andrew Ng even gets much more messier when in the same The Batch weekly newsletter he defends the use of AI for warfare: "AI is transforming military strategy, and refusing to engage with it doesn’t make the risks go away.".

Exactly, the enemies of open societies (rogue states like Russia, Iran, North Korea, China) do not hesitate to exploit AI for war purposes and to gain an advantage.

E.g. what are harmful applications and who determines harmfulness? Most of us probably can reasonably agree that deep fake porn without consent is harmful or even criminal, but what about everything else?

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Remember, we might be still driving in horse powered carriages and never got to fly the skies had such overblown concerns bothered our ancestors!

"At the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris this week, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said, “I’m not here to talk about AI safety. ... I’m here to talk about AI opportunity.” I’m thrilled to see the U.S. government focus on opportunities in AI. Further, while it is important to use AI responsibly and try to stamp out harmful applications, I feel “AI safety” is not the right terminology for addressing this important problem. Language shapes thought, so using the right words is important. I’d rather talk about “responsible AI” than “AI safety.” Let me explain.

First, there are clearly harmful applications of AI, such as non-consensual deepfake porn ... the use of AI in misinformation, potentially unsafe medical diagnoses, addictive applications, and so on. We definitely want to stamp these out! There are many ways to apply AI in harmful or irresponsible ways, and we should discourage and prevent such uses. ...

I believe the 2023 Bletchley AI Safety Summit slowed down European AI development — without making anyone safer — by wasting time considering science-fiction AI fears rather than focusing on opportunities. Last month, at Davos, business and policy leaders also had strong concerns about whether Europe can dig itself out of the current regulatory morass and focus on building with AI. ..."

OpenAI Does Deep Research, Google Goes to War, Alibaba Answers DeepSeek, Web Agents Do Tree Search

First New class of painkiller for moderate and severe acute pain heads for approval in decades and it's opioid-free

Good news! Are we finally getting away from opioids as a severe painkiller?

Again, the excessive precautionary principle prevents unnecessarily the  speedy approval of new drugs! Maybe President Trump should do something about it as well!

"The first new class of pain medication to market in decades could be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration by the end of [January]. Suzetrigine, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, stops pain by blocking certain receptors in the peripheral nervous system rather than acting in the brain. Clinical trials showed that it works, but they were too short to rule out side effects from long-term use. A success for suzetrigine could renew funding interest in the development of new, non-opioid painkillers, a notoriously challenging field that has struggled to make headway in recent years."

"The FDA is weighing the regulatory fate of Vertex’s small-molecule suzetrigine, an inhibitor of voltage-gated sodium channel 1.8 (NaV1.8), for moderate to severe acute pain. A decision is due by 30 January. If approved, the oral drug will be the first new class of pain medication to market in decades ...

Success for Vertex could also bolster interest in related pain-associated NaVs. These ion channels have a key role in pain, helping to conduct electrical signals known as action potentials in peripheral pain-sensing nerves, also known as nociceptors. ...

“This is the first medicine that is specifically designed to only affect pain,”  ..."

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

NaV1.8 inhibitor poised to provide opioid-free pain relief "Vertex’s first-in-class suzetrigine could soon usher in a new class of analgesic."

Vertex Announces Positive Results From the VX-548 Phase 3 Program for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Acute Pain (original press release)

A Zero-Risk Society is Not a Reasonable Policy Proposal

Recommendable! When largely irrational alarmism/scaremongering dominates the daily discourse about a fairly harmless virus!

A fact of life is that it is not risk free! Like Benjamin Franklin so famously said anyone who trades freedom for a little more security deserves neither!

"... remember when “two weeks to slow the spread” was the official position of most governors invoking vast emergency powers in response to the novel coronavirus. Long gone are those days.
For more than a year, we have lived in a world where one-man-rule suddenly usurped representative democracy as the standard form of state government and where the policy goals of these newly empowered authoritarians have been ever-evolving. What began as a suspension of democratic norms to save our healthcare infrastructure from being overwhelmed during a global pandemic, has creeped into arbitrary regulatory attempts to micromanage away even the most trivial risk of contagion.
With vaccines to the novel coronavirus now being widely distributed one might think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be in celebratory mode. Instead, the agency has been patronizingly warning Americans that even vaccination won’t excuse a return to pre-pandemic normalcy—arguing that social distancing, mask mandates and other precautions should continue to be observed into the foreseeable future. ..."

A Zero-Risk Society is Not a Reasonable Policy Proposal

CDC and FDA recommend to pause Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine

Update of 4/24/2021: It took the CDC bureaucracy a total of 11 days to reconsider/correct their bad decision to entirely pause the J & J vaccine (see e.g. here)

Why would these two federal agencies recommend to pause all Johnson & Johnson vaccinations? Only six women between the ages of 18 and 48 out of almost 7 million administered vaccine doses in the U.S. alone!

This is clearly yet another of already many irrational overreactions! Is this one due to politically correctness? Why not pause the vaccinations for only women between the ages of 18 and 48? Would that be considered gender discrimination in these gender challenged and gender equity times? How irresponsible is this pause!

"As of April 12, more than 6.8 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine have been administered in the U.S. CDC and FDA are reviewing data involving six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the J&J vaccine. ... All six cases occurred among women between the ages of 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred 6 to 13 days after vaccination.  ..."

Joint CDC and FDA Statement on Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine | FDA

Flugbehörde EASA erforscht Akzeptanz von Flugtaxis und Drohnen

Die bürokratische EU verschläft wieder mal den Fortschritt! Slow as molasses! Time and tide wait for no man! When omnipotence means impotence! Or when the precautionary principle becomes an irrational straight jacket (I blogged e.g. here about the precautionary principle)!

In 2025 wird die EU auf diesem Gebiet von anderen Ländern bereits weit überholt sein!

"... der Chef der Europäischen Agentur für Flugsicherheit (EASA), Patrick Ky, ...

Insgesamt befrage die Behörde Bürger in sechs Städten in Europa. Ergebnisse der Studie seien im Mai oder Juni zu erwarten. Die EASA will diese in die Diskussion mit dem Europäischen Parlament über künftige Regeln einbringen. Der Einsatz von Drohnen oder Flugtaxis sei bis Mitte des Jahrzehnts realistisch. „Wir müssen sicherstellen, dass es vom Standpunkt der Gesellschaft in einer akzeptablen Weise geschieht“, sagte Ky. "

Flugbehörde EASA erforscht Akzeptanz von Flugtaxis und Drohnen Der Einsatz von Drohnen und Flugtaxis ist nach Meinung der europäischen Flugsicherheitsbehörde Mitte des Jahrzehnts realistisch. Mit einer Studie soll nun die gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz untersucht werden.

Understanding the impact of deep-sea mining

More scaremongering and demagoguery! Deep sea mining of the rich polymetallic nodules that are found on the deep seabed, 15,000 feet below sea level "located between Hawaii and the West Coast of the United States — also  known as the Clarion Clipperton Fracture Zone — is estimated to possess six times more cobalt and three times more nickel than all known land-based stores, as well as vast deposits of manganese and a substantial amount of copper" has been known for several decades and we still have not started to mine it!


The environmental concerns raised in the article below are as usual overblown! Stoking these fears are good for funding such environmental studies! These researchers are concerned about what? Plumes of dust?


The nonsensical precautionary principle is invoked. I blogged previously about this principle here.


Understanding the impact of deep-sea mining | MIT News: Mining materials from the sea floor could help secure a low-carbon future, but researchers at MIT and beyond are racing to understand the environmental effects.

The secret wars of plants and fungi

Very recommendable!

1. "The war started millions of years ago, but the story of its discovery starts in 1998. In that year, Andrew Fire and Craig Mello published work showing that small snippets of genetic material in the form of RNA can interfere with cellular processes and stop genes from being expressed."
2. "This “RNA interference,” which won Fire and Mello a Nobel prize in 2006, is now understood to be fairly common within organisms. It helps them grow, develop, and fight infection."
3. "Hailing Jin and her collaborators made a breakthrough in 2013 when they discovered that plants and fungi are using this RNA interference mechanism across species to hijack the processes of infection and immunity"
4. ''There is an urgent need for us to develop new antifungal drugs and new fungicides'"
5. "“This RNA-based co-evolutionary arms race has just recently been recognized,”"
6. "“A recent study from Sarah Jane Gurr’s lab showed that many fungal pathogens have developed resistance or partial resistance to almost all of the commonly used antifungal drugs on humans and animals (and fungicide in plants and crops),” warns Jin"
   Human ingenuity will take care of that!
7. "This co-evolutionary arms race, with plants and fungi developing ever more sophisticated ways to infect and resist, shows no signs of slowing down. But by understanding how the war is being fought, researchers like Jin in CIFAR’s Fungal Kingdom: Threats and Opportunities program hope to turn the tide in favour of the plants humans rely on and apply the lessons from the farm field to other settings, like the clinic."
8. "The European Union, for example, has restrictive limitations on genetic modification. A topical spray would get around those regulations and is effective in a lab setting, but RNA only lasts a few days in the field before degrading so near-constant reapplication would be required."
   Another good reason for the UK to Brexit! The EU precautionary principle is madness! We would be still living in caves had this principle already existed in the stone ages!

The secret wars of plants and fungi: CIFAR fellow Hailing Jin has uncovered the details of a chilling plot to silence opposition and subvert resistance in the fungal kingdom.

Europe Is In Love With Backwardedness

Monsanto Company Pulls Out

At least one company has the guts!

Today (5/31/2013), the highly educated Luddites of Europe were probably triumphant when Monsanto announced to leave the European market with its genetically modified crops (read here (German language), here).

European Navel Gazing & Risk Aversion

These European worry warts are aiding and abeting in slowing down a revolution in human progress like never seen before. Nobody would argue to put safeguards in place, but the European notion of precautionary principle (read here) and other dubious, environmental concerns are not much but academic superstition or sophistry.

Orwellian ISO 26000 Guidance On Social Responsibility

To Standardize Social Responsibility Worldwide?

Since when is the International Standards Organization into such politically loaded standardization? This has decidedly an Orwellian taste. What kind of brainwashing is this? What are they trying to dictate?

Here is an excerpt from the official Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard released in November 2010 (emphasis added):

“ISO 26000:2010 provides guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or location, on:

 • concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility;

 • the background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility;

 • principles and practices relating to social responsibility;

 • the core subjects and issues of social responsibility;

 • integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behaviour throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence;”

To read this ISO 26000 standard you have to pay CHF 196.00 (Swiss francs).

Social Responsibility Equals Sustainable Development?

What are they smoking at the ISO?

According to the Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard it “… is intended to assist organizations in contributing to sustainable development. It is intended to encourage them to go beyond legal compliance, recognizing that compliance with law is a fundamental duty of any organization and an essential part of their social responsibility.” (emphasis added).

To stress the harmlessness of this ISO 26000 standard, the Abstract goes on to say “ISO 26000:2010 is not a management system standard. It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use.” So what is this standard all about?

I have in a separate blog written a scathing critique of this “Flawed Ideology Of Sustainable Development”.

Further Reading

I have to give credit to Jon Entine who in a well-written article dated 7/11/2012 for the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) alerted me to this Orwellian ISO 26000 standard. The article is titled “ISO 26000: Sustainability as standard?”

Some excerpts from his article (emphasis added):

·         “… Various aspects are providing blueprints for left-leaning European countries, empowering advocacy groups and inspiring activist judicial systems to embrace these “universally agreed upon” principles when conflicts involving corporations come to a head. …”

·         “… The United States and India, which supported early drafts of ISO 26000, ultimately voted, along with three other countries, against the final version. Critics believe it contains problematic proclamations about contested notions of environmental impacts and employee and consumer rights, but no endorsement of shareholder rights. …”

·         “… Much of the concern revolves around ISO 26000’s embrace of the “precautionary principle” to resolve environmental conflicts. Although that conforms to EU practices, it’s rejected by the US, Japan and other countries, …”

·         “…Many industry leaders, particularly in the US, believe these kind of standards encourage protectionism ahead of innovation, ..”

One is not surprised to learn that the so called precautionary principle was a bone of contention. Further, it is no surprise to find this principle jointly with social responsibility and sustainable development.

In a separate blog I have critiqued the precautionary principle in “The Precautionary Principle” as a modern superstition and a handy tool for ever power hungry politicians.

Abuse Of Unintended Consequences

Posted: 6/8/2012 Updated: 1/23/2015

Your First Reaction

Whenever you hear or read that so often used term “unintended consequences”, the first thing that should come to your mind is that this is a lame excuse or a obvious sign of laziness of thought.

Many Negative Consequences Are

Known Beforehand Or Are Foreseeable

According to Wikipedia this concept of unintended consequences was popularized by the late Robert K. Merton in his seminal paper titled "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action" published in 1936.

I would argue that many negative consequences of purposive actions are known in advance by those in power and control, but they prefer to have it their way anyway. Ends justify the means. History is littered with evidence.

A Cheap And Convenient Excuse

Willful, ignorant and/or deceptive politicians or regulators often use the argument of unintended consequences as a plausible sounding denial and shrug off their failed policies.

Lack Of Faith

The European obsession with the precautionary principle (I wrote a separate blog on this subject) is probably also founded in the exaggerated belief in net negative or detrimental consequences of human actions.

The Precautionary Principle

A Modern Form Of Superstition

The precautionary principle is not much more but medieval superstition cloaked in pseudo rational and scientific language. It exploits human fears whether real or imagined. In many cases it is thinly veiled demagoguery and populism, because the rhetoric of caution appeals to many.

An Unnecessary Deceleration Of Human Progress

To use a hyperbole: If our ancestors had already lived by the precautionary principle, we would still live in caves. In too many cases it is being applied to excessively restrain human progress, economic activity, and individual freedom. Human progress without taking risk is not possible.

A Convenient Tool For Power Hungry Politicians

It gives ever so eager politicians all the leverage to impose their biased worldview onto the rest of us. It is being used by politicians to legitimize all kinds of superfluous and arbitrary government interventions and regulations. It is a big government principle.

An European Obsession

In particular, the ever so sophisticated Europeans are obsessed with it as they have enshrined this pseudo principle, e.g., in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. European community environmental policy “shall be based on the precautionary principle …” (Article 130R(2)).