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

[Frank Peelo]

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 
the non-rechargeables".

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...

Frank