[ILUG] [Q] broken mouse work-arounds / replacements

[Brian Foster]

  | Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:50:33 +0100
  | From: Timothy Murphy <gayleard at eircom.net>
  | 
  | On Thursday 28 May 2009 08:41:30 Josh Glover wrote:=0A=
  | > 2009/5/26 Brian Foster <blf at utvinternet.ie>:
  | > >  I'm presuming — albeit I admit
  | > >  to not knowing/having any evidence — the impact of making,
  | > >  using (recharging(electricity)), and (eventually) recycling
  | > >  the rechargeable (plus the extra equipment, e.g., recharger)
  | > >  is less than the impact of all the non-rechargeable (making
  | > >  and disposing/recycling) I would have otherwise used.
  | > 
  | > I hope this is true, as I labour under the same presumption. :)
  | >
  | > Has anyone pointers to research on this topic?
  |[ ... ]
  | (And unless you religiously avoid rechargeables
  | you will require a charger in any case.)

 yes & no.  in the specific case being talked about,
 my mouse, it is _designed_ for recharging (albeit
 with a replaceable rechargeable battery rather than
 a built-in/non-replaceable one).  the base station
 also serves as the recharger.  the one thing I'm not
 happy about is the power doesn't come from the USB
 link, but from a separate power supply connected to
 the A/C mains.

 (similar comments apply to my mp3 player, except the
 rechargeable battery is builtin:  it's base station
 is also the recharger, and it will recharge using
 the USB power.)

 on the question of a study, I found this one:

     Rebecca L. Lankey & Francis C. McMichael,
     “Life-Cycle Methods for Comparing Primary and
      Rechargeable Batteries”,
     Environ. Sci. Technol., 2000,
     ACS (American Chemical Society),
     http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es990526n

 from the end of the Abstract (I've inserted all of the
 paragraph breaks to make it more readable):

    “[...]  In this paper, the above hybrid LCA
     [Life-Cycle Assessment] approach is applied to
     comparing the total environmental impacts of
     primary and rechargeable batteries.  The primary
     (non-rechargeable) batteries mainly used in electronic
     products are zinc−alkaline batteries, and the
     most widely used consumer rechargeable batteries
     are nickel−cadmium.

     It is generally accepted that rechargeable batteries
     offer environmental advantages over primary batteries.
     We find that materials use, energy use, and emissions
     can be quantified over the entire product life cycle
     to quantitatively show that resource use and emissions
     are substantially lower if a rechargeable battery
     can be substituted for a primary battery.

     However, consumer use patterns will affect the
     relative environmental benefits of rechargeable
     batteries.  Noting the effect of consumer behavior
     also determines where uncertainties in the analysis
     may lie, since behavior is difficult to predict.

     Recycling batteries will also have associated
     emissions and energy use.  Even accounting for the
     additional resource consumption and emissions for
     rechargeable batteries in the use and recycling phases
     of life, rechargeable batteries will still consume
     less resources over the entire life cycle when used
     in applications as a substitute for primary batteries.
     [...]”

 unfortunately, the paper itself is behind a paywall.
 however, judging only by the above (excerpted) Abstract,
 it does seem the presumption is correct provided the
 rechargeable batteries are used/recharged correctly.

 the extent to which NiMH changes the calculations (which
 are only for NiCad) is unknown (albeit NiMH's are less
 toxic).  I presume they are other/later studies looking
 at that and related questions.

cheers!
	-blf-
-- 
“How many surrealists does it take to    |  Brian Foster
 change a lightbulb?  Three.  One calms  |  somewhere in south of France
 the warthog, and two fill the bathtub   |     Stop E$$o (ExxonMobil)!
 with brightly-coloured machine tools.”  |       http://www.stopesso.com