Advertisement

The environmental impact of disposable versus re-chargeable batteries for consumer use

  • David Parsons
LCA Case Studies

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.

Recommendations 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.

Keywords

Alkaline batteries Australia batteries charger consumers disposable batteries nickel-cadmium batteries nickel-metal-hydride batteries re-chargeable batteries 

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005): 〈http://www.abs.gov.au/Viewed26/7/2005〉. Data purchased privately courtesy of Pilane T (2005)
  2. Caudill RJ, Dickinson DA (2004): Sustainability and end-of-life product management: a case study of electronics collection scenarios. IEEE — International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 10–13 May, pp 132–137Google Scholar
  3. Choi TC (2005): The environmental impact of batteries. A dissertation submitted for the degree Master of Engineering Technology, University of Southern Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  4. Eco Indicator 99 reports: 〈http://www.pre.nl/
  5. Energizer (2006): Technical Information. Battery Engineering Guide 〈http://data.energizer.com/〉 accessed May 2006
  6. Grant T (2006): Personal communication. Assistant Director, Centre for Design, RMIT University Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Hawkins TR, Matthews HS, Hendrickson C (2006): Closing the loop on cadmium: An assessment of the material cycle of cadmium in the U.S. Int J LCA 11(1) 38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jofre S, Morioka T (2005): Waste management of electric and electronic equipment: comparative analysis of end-of-life strategies. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 7, 24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lankey RL, McMichael FC (2000): Life-cycle methods for comparing primary and rechargeable batteries. Environ Sci Technol 34(11) 2299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luo Y, Wirojanagud P, Caudill R (2001): Comparison of major environmental performance metrics and their application to typical electronic products. Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE — International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 7–9 May, pp 94–99Google Scholar
  11. Morrow H (2001): Environmental and human health impact assessment of battery systems. Industrial Chemistry Library, Elsevier Science BV, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Norris GA, Croce FD, Jolliet O (2003): Energy burdens of conventional whole-sale and retail portions of product life cycles. J Ind Ecol 6(2) 59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. PreConsultants. SimaPro 6 (2005): Life cycle analysis software 〈http://www.pre.nl/〉 accessed 26/7/2005
  14. PreConsultants (2004): SimaPro Database Manuel Methods Library 〈http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf〉 accessed 13/3/2006
  15. Rydh CJ, Karlstrom M (2001): Life cycle inventory of recycling portable nickel-cadmium batteries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 34, 289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering & SurveyingUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations