Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On Thursday 28 May 2009 08:41:30 Josh Glover wrote:
>>>>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-rechargeables (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?
>>> I don't know of any research on the topic,
> but common sense seems to me to suggest you are wrong.
> Suppose a rechargeable battery can be re-charged 100 times
> and holds 1/2 the charge of a non-rechargeable.
> Then you would be saying that for some reason
> 50 non-rechargable batteries require less re-cycling
> than 1 rechargeable.
As I read it, they seem to be saying the opposite - that the
environmental impact of the rechargeable "is less than the impact of all
IIRC in the 1980s there was some discussion about recharging primary
cells such as alkalines. Lighter weight, cheaper, greater energy density
than NiCD. Even some chargers sold. Difficulty was only that you
couldn't let them discharge more than 2/3 before recharging them,
otherwise irreversible chemical change had set in. Wonder if that will
ever come back? But alkalines seem so cheap these days...
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!