RoHS just a thought

Hello

I operate an industrial surplus reuse store site called reusestore.com. We deal with a lot of older obsolete parts. I also run a company called Green Planet Solutions inc. We specialize in WEEE and RoHS directives and engineering support.

formatting link

One of the reasons why I wanted to write in this message board is to share some information with every one as are part of the data collection on what we are seeing and some thing to think about.

When RoHS and WEE were first introduced to our clients here in the US we saw a tendency to have a knee jerk reaction. Some clients wanted to buy up as many old leaded parts as they could while they tried to cross over to totally lead free products and processes.

While this can be a good plan it can damage you greatly also.

One of the first problems, among hundreds of others, is that when you buy up older leaded components you have no idea if your states local EPA laws will be changed and effect the use of your now thousands of dollars worth of store leaded components.

Take for instance California EPA local prop 65. Certain fire retardants that are found in some electronic component packages are now deemed illegal for use in this state.

Others like cadmium, among other materials, are not only restricted from use in the EU, but now the US is starting to adopt the EU RoHS regulations.

Most components that are not RoHS compliant will not be able to be sold into the market in new products.

Most of our stock in our reusestore.com is only slated to be used as replacement parts for products put on to the market before Jan 2006.

In most cases we research the components to see if they are higher in the levels and then we send them to the proper recycling channels.

My worry I think here is, that in most cases, companies are putting off this effort to change over to RoHS compliancy until the very last moment where they could get caught in the local EPA laws cross fire.

What do you think?

Mike Dolbow

Reply to
greenplanetsolutions
Loading thread data ...

The general consensus among all the electronic enginers I know is that the whole lead-free thing is 100% barmy and is a solution looking for a problem.

No-one I know wants to make equipment that will be less reliable (lead free).

Stop to consider why the miliary, aerospace (AIUI) and certain telecoms/networking are exempt.

Furthermore, the regulations (certainly in the EU) regarding documentation are so excessive that no small company can ever actually afford to comply fully. It's simply bureacracy gone totally mad.

Graham

Reply to
Eeyore

Personally, I'm all in favor of making things kinder to the environment. The problem with lead-free solders, however, is that they are simply not an acceptable solution. The issue is "tin whiskers" which grow from the so-called solder at an alarming rate and can short to adjacent conductors. It's hard to imagine that anyone could seriously consider this as an acceptable replacement for leaded solder.

My first reaction to all this was that we should just do a better job of diverting electronics devices from the landfills, and into some sort of material recovery stream. But these days "electronics" might be in almost anything, including kids' sneakers. If the RFID proponents get their wish, electronics will be in damn near *everything*.

What's the answer? Biodegradeable organic conductors and semiconductors? Or maybe everything in one huge bonded ASIC that needs no solder because there's nothing else to connect to?

Whatever, there is clearly a need for improvement!

Best regards,

Bob Masta D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis

formatting link
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator Science with your sound card!

Reply to
Bob Masta

And 'lead-free' is a negative solution

Graham

Reply to
Eeyore

Does anyone know how this company did this introduction on there website.

formatting link
it is so awesome. Please contact me if you can help!

Ali

Reply to
Imperiumsbay

whole

free).

are

fully.

Agreed!

Reply to
Lord Garth

Or another option: allow lead but tax it at 1 euro per gram. Tax it equally per gram of lead, whether it is in flashing on the roof of a house, in a car battery, in steel alloys or in solder - there is no reason to victimise only one industry. Give a full refund when it is recycled. The refund would be paid for the ingots of reclaimed alloy, and let businesses figure out a way of buying back the old appliances for the right price. New consumer appliances would mostly be lead-free or nearly so, for cost reasons. Recycling rates would be very high, yet expensive and important equipment could be built with the most reliable solder. And best of all: with my hoard of 60/40, I'll be rich!

Reply to
Chris Jones

How about make all of the disposable consumer crap lead free except offer a blanket exception to allow 5% leaded solder in any product which comes with a 5 year or greater warranty, and up to 36% lead if the warranty exceeds 15 years. I think that companies that offer a long warranty will put more thought into making the product last longer, and they should be given the best materials to achieve the lowest total amount of pollution (which must include the energy and materials that goes into making lead-free electronics that fails and is scrapped after a couple of years due to tin whiskers). The warranty would need to be backed by a pre-paid voucher on the appliance for shipping to the manufacturer within the warranty period or shipping to a proper recycling facility thereafter. It would be reasonable to require the manufacturer to buy insurance to protect the warranty service in the event that they might go out of business within the warranty period (as otherwise this would be a cheap get-out for unscrupulous companies), but any "insurance", "recycling scheme" or membership fees should be set at a fixed price per kilogram of electronics content sold, rather than the kind of annual per-company bribes / protection money / membership fees / WEEE registration that penalises small businesses and start-ups, and favours only the largest companies (and therefore has been implemented).

Chris

Reply to
Chris Jones

You are both proposing yet more complex laws and yet more taxes.

If ingots were bought back at $1 a gram, imagine the amount of lead that would be smuggled in from China!

The sensible thing would be to allow small amounts of tin/lead solder (as on component leads) and exempt industrial/small-production stuff entirely.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Yes.

Graham

Reply to
Eeyore

What I laugh about is one of my vendors plugging RoHS compliant products to me like it's the best thing to come along. I explained to him how crappy it is only to be told that "that's the way it is, you can't change it".

We'll see.

Reply to
Lord Garth

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.