https://steppingintothemap.com/anthropocene/files/original/7b84093ebd3dbed55bf673db051b738b.png 59fd432bcef33983d0dd728184dd1e77 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Conquering Time and Space Subject The topic of the resource <div>Industrial Revolutions <img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4704/39667361775_2e3264c4bf_o.jpg" 100="" width="100% height=" /> <a href="https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~24266~880086:-Birdseye-view-Great-Plains-#" title="Bird Eye View - Rumsey" target="_blank">Detail(Birdseye view Great Plains)Knight, Leonard &amp; Co.,Engravers and Printers, Chicago. (1890) David Rumsey.com <span style="font-size: 3;"> </span> </a></div> Description An account of the resource Industrial revolutions fundamentally transformed the world’s social and economic order. Beginning in Great Britain in the eighteenth century, European empires expanded industrialization into a global phenomenon that created spectacular wealth and unprecedent power for western countries, but also led to new social conflict and increased the gap between rich and poor. Industrialization also led to profound changes in the global environment. Advances in transportation and telecommunications expanded the reach of industrial powers. The railroad and the telegraph allowed people to tap distant natural resources more quickly and efficiently than ever before. Contemporaries praised this “annihilation of time and space” and Omaha was central to this story. The first transcontinental telegraph began in Omaha and was completed in 1861. In 1863, the Union Pacific chose Omaha as the eastern terminus for the transcontinental railroad. By 1867, the United States had built the world’s largest railroad network, business leaders communicated from coast to coast, and Omaha stood at the center. As railroads and the telegraph shrank time and space, cities expanded. Streetcars promoted urban growth and the rise of the first suburbs. The objects in this section show rail and the telegraph reshaped environments during this era of industrialization. As you move through this section of the exhibit, consider how transportation and telecommunication connects Omaha to the wider world and to global environments today. Physical Object An inanimate, three-dimensional object or substance. Note that digital representations of, or surrogates for, these objects should use Moving Image, Still Image, Text or one of the other types. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Columbia Dry Cell Battery Subject The topic of the resource Telephones, clocks, and flashlights all have one thing in common: energy. In 1896, the Columbia Dry Cell Battery ushered in a new age of portable power. The dry cell battery made it easier for people to use everyday items and develop new technologies, helping cities like Omaha thrive. They also had environmental and human health impacts. Most batteries, including dry cells, end up in landfills or burned. The zinc in dry cell batteries can harm cells and slow plant growth. Later inventions, like lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries, worked better but created new environmental problems. Over one hundred years of battery improvements have made storing energy easier, but the problem of battery waste remains. The Columbia Dry Cell Battery shows that the real challenge is not creating power but figuring out what to do with the waste it leaves behind. Description An account of the resource The Columbia Dry Cell Battery played an instrumental role in the groundbreaking advancements in energy storage, use, and technology introduced in the 1890s. The creation of the dry cell battery ushered in a new age of items for both recreational and domestic use, relying on innovative, portable energy. From clocks and children’s toys to railroad signaling systems, this invention fostered a newfound sense of power within society. The Durham Museum, located in Omaha, Nebraska, is home to an array of artifacts relating to Omaha’s industrial history. Among this collection, is the Columbia Dry Cell Battery. This seemingly modest, brown, and red cylindrical object appears insignificant and mundane at first glance. However, this battery represents so much more. The Columbia Dry Cell Battery not only revolutionized energy harnessing but also created immense environmental challenges linked to battery disposal, issues that persist and intensify today, further fueling the Anthropocene on both a local and global scale. According to the American Chemical Society (ACS), the invention of the Columbia Dry Cell Battery was an integral steppingstone in the transition of batteries from specialized industrial applications to everyday household products (ACS 2005). Located in Cleveland, Ohio, The National Carbon Company (NCC), the precursor to Energizer, was the pioneer of battery development in the early 20th century (ACS 2005). Prior to 1896, the Leclanché wet cell battery dominated the industrial market. However, due to their fragility, costly nature, and susceptibility to spilling, widespread consumer use of wet cell batteries was impractical (ACS 2005). To provide a more reliable and portable energy source, E.M. Jewett worked with the National Carbon Company to mass manufacture and distribute sealed Columbia Dry Cell Batteries. Jewett’s design utilized a paste electrolyte, initially made out of flour and potato starch, to eliminate the leakage issue and streamline use for the American public. The National Carbon Company’s Columbia Dry Cell Battery introduced the age of emerging battery-powered consumer products, establishing the NCC as the leading producer of accessible, portable energy. The Columbia Dry Cell Battery was pivotal in the creation of revolutionary technologies, enhancing consumer accessibility to items like clocks and transforming railroad signaling systems (Elliott 1909). Many companies participated in the creation of mechanical clocks, with the Self Winding Clock Company being the most notable. Their innovative clocks operated on two Columbia Dry Cell Batteries, enabling them to wind themselves, something previously done manually. The self-winding mechanism utilized two motors to convert the battery’s electrical energy into mechanical energy, powering the clock’s gears. Furthermore, the clock’s tension-regulated spring maintained consistent winding, allowing effortless gear movement (Self Winding Clock Co. n.d). These clocks were widely used by the Union Pacific Railroad, headquartered in Omaha. It provided a standardized time to coordinate train schedules. This innovation led to increased efficiency and punctuality in train travel, even allowing railroad workers to set their own clocks accordingly, promoting synchronization throughout the industry. Furthermore, the Columbia Dry Cell Battery also played a critical role in railroad signaling by powering a system that allowed railway tracks to essentially sense trains and communicate with the station. The automatic signal system divided the track into sections, each fitted with wires connecting across both rails. This setup formed a circuit, with a small charge from the battery connected to one of the rails. When the train’s wheels touched both rails, a short circuit was created, diverting the current through the train’s wheels instead of through the previous path. This interruption stopped powering the original circuit linked to the motor. The motor, unpowered, would produce a “release” signal, indicating the presence of a train on that section of track (Elliott 1909). This signaling system powered by the Columbia Dry Cell Battery, adopted in locations like Omaha’s railway, greatly improved railway safety. In addition to industrial applications, the Columbia Dry Cell Battery also powered a range of popular commercial products, including flashlights and telephones. One notable high-demand product was the Eveready flashlight, which was widely used across America. Advertisements, especially around Christmas, highlighted its practicality, displaying its brightness and portability as valued traits in a household flashlight (The Omaha Morning Bee 1924). Telephones were another major commercial innovation powered by Columbia Dry Cell Batteries in the early 20th century. The Nebraska Telephone Company, which played a key role in increasing telephone access, allowed people to connect with anyone, anywhere. The Omaha Daily Bee, reported a significant increase in the use of Bell telephones in Omaha, with the number of devices increasing by 12,000 over four years. As the geographic center of the Bell system, Omaha connected to 50,000 cities and towns (Omaha Daily Bee 1911). The Columbia Dry Cell Battery specifically powered the microphone, converting sound waves to electrical signals. The battery power provided constant current, which the microphone changed based on sound waves. The altered electric signals were then sent through the telephone lines, facilitating clear communication throughout America. The National Carbon Company utilized targeted marketing strategies to sell the Columbia Dry Cell Batteries, notably placing advertisements in household magazines and newspapers like Collier’s (Collier’s 1916, 41) and The Saturday Evening Post (The Saturday Evening Post 1925, 94). Understanding their target audience, the company often advertised in Science and Invention, a prominent science and technology magazine during the 1920s and 1930s. In the November 1928 issue, a man is depicted constructing a dry cell battery in an advertisement titled, “Lots of people know how to make a dry cell - but not the Eveready Columbia.” The body of the advertisement includes text discussing the materials present in dry cells, indicating that “the principal ingredients are zinc, sal ammoniac, manganese, and carbon” (Science and Invention 1928, 579). This advertisement highlights the prevalence of these elements in the production of dry cell batteries, while also providing insight into what materials are released into the atmosphere when the batteries are discarded and dismantled. In 1937, The United States Department of Commerce and the National Bureau of Standards created an American Standard Specification for dry cells and batteries. The publication lists the governmental standards for manufacturers of dry cells, including specifications for sealing compounds, mechanical top closures, and the caliber of tests that must be conducted before the distribution of the batteries. Section eight of the government document states “the anode shall be made from smooth zinc, free from flaws, blisters, and cracks” (U. S. Department of Commerce 1937, 5). Zinc is the predominant element used in dry cell batteries, as it composes the outer casing of the battery and acts as the negative terminal through oxidation and electron release. While zinc is imperative to the function of the dry cell, the large quantity of zinc creates a problem for battery disposal, due to the potential of zinc leaching into the soil. When zinc leaches into the soil it readily transforms into zinc sulfides, becoming more reactive and impacting surrounding ecosystems and human health (Kwon et. al 2017). The Columbia Dry Cell Batteries’ design featured a zinc anode and cathode made of manganese dioxide with some carbon, connected by an ammonium chloride electrolyte to bridge electron flow. While these materials were vital for battery function, the environmental impact of their use intensified as the production of the Columbia Dry Cell Battery increased due to popularity. The demand for zinc, and thus its mining, surged which is illustrated in soil and surrounding ecosystems. An article from Gutiérrez, Mickus, and Camacho explains that abandoned lead and zinc mining sites release toxic metals into nearby water systems. Furthermore, zinc mining involves lead-zinc deposits which build up and leach into the environment. These metals over time form mobile compounds. Even at low levels, these heavy metals can result in severe health issues such as organ damage and neurological disorders (Gutiérrez, Mickus, & Camacho 2016). Further research by Okereafor et al., describes the implications of toxic metals on agricultural soils and broader ecosystems. For example, poor management and storage of mining tailings in South Africa have contributed heavily to degraded environments around the mine. The tailings leach into aquatic ecosystems, leaving organisms vulnerable to cellular damage and dwindling in population size. Additionally, toxic metals have the potential to biomagnify in food chains, especially in freshwater species like mussels. High concentrations of metal in the soil can also disrupt plant growth and metabolism (Okereafor et al. 2020). While this example is specific to South Africa, it illustrates the broader issue of improper metal waste management globally, which applies equally to America. Together the findings of Gutiérrez et. al and Okereafor et al. illustrate the significant environmental costs stemming from the degradation of toxic materials contained by Columbia Dry Cell Batteries. In the 1890s, there was little awareness of environmental costs surrounding the disposal of Columbia Dry Cell Batteries. Consumers often discarded batteries with other regular household goods. Waste management systems were primitive and underdeveloped, leaving the public unaware of possible environmental impacts resulting from careless disposal of toxic elements. As a result, zinc, manganese, and ammonium chloride were recklessly thrown away, ending up in landfills and impacting the ecosystem in surrounding areas, or so-called sacrifice zones. In The Dry-Cell Battery Problem, Bernadette Nola Kowey describes landfills and incineration as two routes of dry cell battery disposal. Kowey writes, “Batteries which are burned in an incinerator explode, releasing the metals they are made of into the air and the ash of the incinerator” (Kowey 1990, 74). It was not until the early 1980s that disposal practices for batteries were regulated to prevent heavy metal contamination. In 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a pamphlet describing the enforced pretreatment regulations for battery manufacturing, which further postulated that “recycle and reuse is performed where possible in this subcategory (Dry Cell Battery) to eliminate the discharge of pollutants” (EPA n.d., 2-20). The EPA has continued to enforce strategies for battery disposal today, expanding guidelines to compensate for heavy metals used in current batteries. The Columbia Dry Cell Battery paved the way for advancements in battery technology which power modern devices today. One significant step was the development of the lead-acid battery, which addressed the power demands of automobiles. These batteries power essential functions in cars like engine starting, lighting, turn signals, and even moving the windshield wipers. Similarly, single-use alkaline batteries, like the popular AA or AAA sizes, emerged in 1937. The alkaline battery replaced the traditional dry cell battery as a more convenient, maintenance-free alternative. Later, lithium-ion batteries were introduced in 1978, replacing mercury-zinc batteries as longer lasting, and higher powered batteries. These new lithium-ion batteries became vital for powering larger electronic devices like laptops, mobile phones, and electric cars (Turner & Sutter 2022). Lithium-ion batteries, which rely on resources often sourced from developing countries, are less toxic than alternatives. These materials, notably cobalt and nickel, are essential for decarbonizing economies by enabling renewable energy storage and reducing fossil fuel dependence (Turner & Sutter 2022). However, along with new and improved batteries, came unique environmental costs associated with their disposal. Extensive research has been conducted to improve battery recycling techniques. Lu and Wang’s study on lithium-ion battery recycling argues that the current recycling process still creates environmental challenges and results in immense energy consumption. The current industrial methods for extracting metals, like cobalt and lithium, rely predominantly on pyrometallurgical techniques, which require a lot of energy and release toxic gases. Another method, hydrometallurgical processing, requires large quantities of leachates, or liquid containing dissolved metals, making recovery harder and exponentially increasing chemical waste. However, Lu and Wang note that promising new recycling techniques are emerging that aim to lower energy usage and reduce dependence on chemical reagents for extraction (Lu & Wang 2024). In an article by Moore et al., they examine the intersection of battery waste and capitalism. They argue that waste management, specifically relating to the disposal of spent batteries, often becomes an afterthought in capitalistic frameworks due to the focus on profits and supply over environmental responsibility (Moore et al. 2018). They point out that, even though batteries are coded for recycling to manage their disposal, the final destination of batteries is often unknown. The coding system is complex and leads to ambiguity, with batteries often ending up in areas poorly equipped for dealing with toxic waste. Moore’s analysis describes a troubling trend where electronic waste, or e-waste, generated in the United States is mismanaged and even frequently exported to other countries. David Naguib Pellow writes, “E-waste follows the path of least resistance and finds its way into poor nations, producing global environmental inequalities” (Pellow 2007, 191). Pellow notes that eighty percent of electronic waste from the United States is sent to Asia. He suggests that industry leaders support this global e-waste chain because it creates work and income for residents of economically marginalized communities (Pellow 2007, 191). In a political economic system that discounts environmental costs in the service of profit generation, there is little motivation for change. This political economic trend is mirrored on the local level. According to the EPA, the Gould Incorporated lead battery recycling plant was located at 555 Farnam Street in Omaha, Nebraska. The plant acted as a secondary smelter to treat lead from used batteries. The EPA states, “The blast furnace used to smelt the lead at the Gould plant emitted lead particles into the air from that refinery” (EPA n.d.). The Gould Incorporated lead battery recycling plant in Omaha, Nebraska, exemplifies how industrial processes tied to battery disposal have contributed to environmental changes associated with the Anthropocene. The localized pollution in Omaha due to burning batteries is part of a larger global trend in which hazardous, toxic materials are released into the environment, compromising soil biodiversity, air quality, and human health (Rajput et al. 2018). Omaha’s industrial history in battery disposal highlights how even local human-made contaminants can reshape ecosystems, ultimately fueling the Anthropocene on a global scale. The Columbia Dry Cell Battery symbolized both the story of Omaha’s industrial past and the environmental impacts of technological advancement, revealing the interconnected nature of the Anthropocene. From bridging communication through telephones to aiding in safe train travel, Columbia Dry Cell Battery unlocked numerous opportunities. However, along with its successors, it also created ecosystem breakdown through their disposal on both a local and global scale. The Columbia Dry Cell Battery serves as a reminder of the strain between human progress and the environment. While steps are being taken to find alternative solutions to battery disposal, further exploration into the environmental costs of convenience and the importance of sustainable practices is essential in understanding the true role of the Columbia Dry Cell Battery in the Anthropocene. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Clocks: Clarke, Brooke. (2007). Fig 6 [Photograph]. Self Winding Clock Co. https://www.prc68.com/I/SWCC.shtml “Columbia Dry Cell Battery - Landmark.” American Chemical Society. Accessed November 6, 2024.https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/drycellbattery.html#history-of-batteries. Columbia Dry Cell Battery, National Carbon Co., “Columbia Batteries: Insist If Necessary” advertisement, Collier’s, March 25 1916 Columbia Dry Cell Battery, National Carbon Co., “Columbia Dry Batteries - they last longer” advertisement, The Saturday Evening Post, October 27, 1923 Columbia Dry Cell Battery, National Carbon Co., “Lots of people know how to make a dry cell-but not the Eveready Columbia” advertisement, Science and Invention, November 1928, 579. Compact Dry Cell Bridging Telephone. Kellogg 1903 Compact Dry Cell Phone - telephonearchive.com - antique telephone information. (n.d.). http://www.telephonearchive.com/phones/kg/kg-1903-compact-dry-cell.html Elliott, W. H. (n.d.). The A B C of railroad signaling; a lecture delivered before the Harvard School of Business Administration, by W. H. Elliott. HathiTrust. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t5n874b0m “Guidance Manual for Battery Manufacturing Pretreatment Standards .” United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 1987. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/battery-mfg_guidance-manual-pretreatment_1987.pdf. Gutiérrez, M., Mickus, K., & Camacho, L. M. (2016). Abandoned pb zn mining wastes and their mobility as proxy to toxicity: A Review. Science of The Total Environment, 565, 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.143 Kowey, Bernadette Nola. An Example of Planning for Sustainable Production: The Dry-Cell Battery Problem, September 1990. https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/stream/pdf/831/1.0098582/2. Kwon, M. J., Boyanov, M. I., Yang, J.-S., Lee, S., Hwang, Y. H., Lee, J. Y., Mishra, B., & Kemner, K. M. (2017). Transformation of zinc-concentrate in surface and subsurface environments: Implications for assessing zinc mobility/toxicity and choosing an optimal remediation strategy. Environmental Pollution, 226, 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.066 Lu, Yan, and Jianbo Wang. 2024. “Life Cycle Assessment for Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries’ Recycling Process: Environmental Impact, Energy Consumption, and Sensitivity Analysis.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 12 (34): 12966–75. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c04541. Moore, Sarah A., Mohammed Rafi Arefin, and Heather Rosenfeld. “Generating Anxiety, Short-Circuiting Desire: Battery Waste and the Capitalist Phantasy.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 36, no. 6 (May 21, 2018): 1081–1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818777249. Okereafor, U., Makhatha, M., Mekuto, L., Uche-Okereafor, N., Sebola, T., & Mavumengwana, V. (2020). Toxic metal implications on agricultural soils, plants, animals, aquatic life and human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072204 “Omaha Lead Site.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed November 10, 2024. https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=NESFN0703481. Pellow, David Naguib. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. Rajput, V. D., Minkina, T. M., Behal, A., Sushkova, S. N., Mandzhieva, S., Singh, R., Gorovtsov, A., Tsitsuashvili, V. S., Purvis, W. O., Ghazaryan, K. A., & Movsesyan, H. S. (2018). Effects of zinc-oxide nanoparticles on soil, plants, animals and soil organisms: A Review. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring &amp; Management, 9, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2017.12.006 The Omaha Daily Bee. (Omaha [Neb.]), 18 June 1911. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn99021999/1911-06-18/ed-1/seq-45/ The Omaha Morning Bee. [volume] (Omaha [Neb.]), 14 Dec. 1924. Chronicling America:Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024326/1924-12-14/ed-1/seq-43/> Turner, J. M., & Sutter, P. (2022). Charged: A history of batteries and lessons for a clean energy future. University of Washington Press. United States. 1937. American Standard Specification for Dry Cells and Batteries. Circular of the National Bureau of Standards; C414, 11 p. Washington: G.P.O. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007290983. Battery Lithium Waste zinc