The environmental impact of disposable versus re-chargeable batteries for consumer use |
| |
Authors: | David Parsons |
| |
Institution: | (1) Faculty of Engineering & Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia |
| |
Abstract: | Goal, Scope and Background The most common system for powering small items of electronics by both consumers and industry in Australia is simply to repeatedly
buy and use disposable alkaline batteries. A growing practice however is to invest in a small battery charger and buy more
expensive rechargeables such as nickel metal hydride batteries. This latter course is promoted as being better for the environment.
This study evaluates this assertion to guide future practice by both consumers and industry.
The study compares re-chargeable AA batteries of both nickel cadmium (NiCd) and nickel metal hydride (NiMH) chemistry, each
used either 400 times or 50 times with the number of AA alkaline batteries required to provide 1 kWh of energy to a device
being powered. The scope of the analysis includes the materials and processes used in the production, distribution, use and
disposal of the batteries and the battery charger and includes consideration of partial recycling and disposal to landfill.
Methods The study is done by developing an inventory of the life cycle of each of the alternatives which in the case of re-chargeable
batteries includes the charger and the discharge & re-charging process. Measurements were conducted of re-charging efficiencies
of representative batteries and of battery charger energy efficiencies. Energy use in wholesale and retail parts of the distribution
system are also accounted for. Sima Pro LCA software and associated Australian data bases are then used to analyse the data
using the Eco Indicator 99 (E) model of environmental impact.
Results The relative impacts of the three alternative systems on the categories human health, ecosystem quality and resource use showed
little difference between the NiCd and NiMH batteries except for human health where the toxicity of cadmium gave a 20% advantage
to NiMH batteries. When comparing rechargeable batteries with alkaline batteries, the former caused less damage by factors
varying from 10 to 131 for an optimistic scenario of 400 cycles of discharge and charge.
Significant factors in the impact of the re-chargeable batteries were the production of batteries themselves, the electricity
used for whole saling and retailing, the transport to landfill and the copper and other components in the battery charger.
For the disposable alkaline batteries the dominant impacts came from the electrical energy used for wholesaling and retailing
the batteries, followed by the production of the batteries.
Discussion Most of the results are in line with expectations but somewhat surprisingly, the impact in most categories is dominated by
the energy used in wholesaling and retailing, particularly for the alkaline batteries where the number involved is large.
Also surprising is the fact that the cadmium present in the NiCd batteries was less significant than many other factors. The
results however agree broadly with those of Lankey and McMichael (2000).
Conclusions Analysis results were overwhelmingly in favour of the re-chargeable battery option. This was true for every impact criteria
studied and for less than optimistic scenarios of battery use such as significant shelf life or high discharge rates.
Recommen dations and Perspectives Given the present very large market for disposable batteries in Australia, there is a need for education of the consumer population
and, to a lesser extent, industry, of the environmental and economic advantages of moving to re-chargeable batteries.
ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Wulf-Peter Schmidt (wschmi18@ford.com) |
| |
Keywords: | Alkaline batteries Australia batteries charger consumers disposable batteries nickel-cadmium batteries nickel-metal-hydride batteries re-chargeable batteries |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|